So she was in love with her "brother" and he was in love with his "sister"? They were raised as siblings so to declare their love, kiss, and get married is just nasty...
...and even though her heart was with her original family, (the Indians) she kills her brother because they tell her to? The Indians came in peace - the Zachary's started the "war".
This movie disturbed me...
It's the Wild West, nobody ever said it was fair.
shareThe brother-sister thing bothers me somewhat too, although they are not blood-kin. The Searchers was written by the same author, Alan LeMay and has a very similar theme as Debra and Martin Pawley ride off into the sunset together in the book.
The Indians didn't come in peace, nor did the Zachary's start anything. By Casey's own admission, Old Man Zachary, stilled his hand from killing Rachel when they were taking revenge due to a Kiowa killing spree. Zachary then raised Rachel as his own. Casey stirred the Indians up, but the Indians killed Charlie in a most gruesome manner. IMO, nobody can attribute who "started it" to either side overall, as there were excesses and reasons on both sides. In this instance though, the Indians clearly started it by killing Charlie. Had they only wanted one of their own back, they would not have been so quick to kill him.
In defense of the Kiowas, it was their way. They had been killing Texans for several decades by then and Charlie was just one more and a convenient one. Still, it was counter productive to their main goal, getting Rachel back.
kiddglock,
I know your intentions are good, but I think you are wasting your time trying to talk to the OP. The OP lives in a world where really bad things rarely happen, where hard, tough decisions never have to be made, where the police are minutes away, and where no one is responsible for anything. Trying to make the OP understand the harsh, stark realities of life in Frontier Texas is like trying to teach a pig to sing opera- it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's LIVING!"
Captain Augustus McCrae
Their love for each other bothered me as well. I saw no reason as to why they should have formed a sexual bond. It takes away the element of their family bond, Rachel fighting alongside the Zacharys as she was raised by them makes perfect sense. Not because of her desire for Ben. The implied future of her relationship with Ben makes me question The Unforgiven's motives. Its as if they are saying Rachel will forever be safe from persecution because she will soon be married to a white man.
"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".
To be honest Rachel and Ben weren't biologically related but it must be awkward that your husband/boyfriend is also your adopted brother.
shareFunny, I have often been bothered even by films that have step siblings become involved. I think it didn't bother me in this film because it's the old west when people wed who didn't even know each other just out of survival to support a widow's children, or to have help on the farm, etc. Sometimes women wed men on the spot of meeting them if their husband's died during a wagon train crossing or stuck out in the wilderness.
shareThank you! that is how I interpreted the end of The Searchers when I read but I wasn't sure if I was reading it right. I even posted a comment about it on the imdb boards but no one came back to me about it.
As for Ben and Rachel, from what I have read it sounds like he was somewhat older when she was brought into the household and he was also away for extended periods of time so he may not have viewed her as a sister moreso as a friend and in both the movie and the books she makes several comments about how they are not brother and sister.
The only Abnormality is the incapacity to love
[deleted]
Rewatching this movie today and I noticed, despite showing an over protectiveness that could be considered jealousy, Ben did everything he could to reject Rachel and keep her in a sisterly position. When she became so bold as to talk to him about all her choices for a husband and including him in the list, he told her to "watch your language". When she began to talk about the two of them not being blood relation, on the spot he decided he would allow Charlie to come courting.
He always knew she was not his real sister as he was old enough to remember the day his father brought her home. Knowing they're not related and her pursuit of him, I would suppose in a land where females are not plentiful that it would not be that difficult to accept her as a wife.
Yep. No intimacy was displayed, other then between siblings in the film. Life expectancy was short, diseases & germs, sanitation, lack of medical care, hardship upbringing, Natives, weather, lack of rain, life on the prairie, in that time period, was very harsh.
Can you fly this plane?
Surely u cant be serious
I am serious,and dont call me Shirley
It's a bit "freudian" I admit, but not to the extent you're making it out to be. They both grew up knowing they weren't biologically related.
Also, were their adoption papers? No..this was the wild west…I can imagine this type of thing happened a lot, people took in orphan children, sometimes in the hopes that the two would one day marry. In fact people married their first cousins a great deal of the time. I mean think of it….not many people around for miles.
I'm surprised this disturbed you more than the fact that they slaughter a whole bunch of Indians at the end…damn.
If a movie rattles emotions then it did its job.