WTF what is this? what happened? SPOILER

[deleted]

Huh? I still don't get it.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Well, considering that Billy knows Leland by name and by sight, it is not unreasonable to figure that he, and therefore the woman, know other things, such as the fact that there are two twin brothers.

Plus, the fact that Coigne would go on the run tells us that people know him and know where he lives, thus we are not talking about some mysterious stranger who rode into town and ran some people down.

Therefore, the assumption that the woman is likely in the dark about the situation is clearly not a good bet.

Anyone who has spent time with identical twins knows that they typically have features that differ, and can be used to tell them apart. The woman and Billy may know how to tell the difference. In any case, given that they are obviously very careful about what they are doing, it does not seem implausible that they would take great care to execute their revenge plan with great precision, to ensure the correct brother was killed.


Surreal Cinema: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls006574276/

reply share

add reply

formatting help

SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

People "think about it so much" because it's a movie that forces one to think about it....it's kind of hard not to.

Xeokym says the film is an allegory based on existentialism, but then fails to explain the allegory. Obviously he (or she) doesn't understand the film as much as he would have us to believe. If he knew what it was about he'd tell us.

Oh boohoo, I didn't spell it out for you. I didn't want to spoil it because I think it's one of those movies where one should come to one's own conclusions & interpretation, but if you insist, I'll give my own interpretation. I'm not saying I'm 100% correct, because I am under the impression that it's not really meant to have only one, specific interpretation. I invite anyone to (politely & constructively, of course) argue otherwise, as I am entirely open to other people's internpretations.

WARNING: Long-winded post ahead!

Firstly we all need to be on the same page as to what is meant by this being referred to as an "existential movie." That's not MY definition, that's not "what it's reputed to be," that's what Jack Nicholson himself, who worked closely with the script writer Carole Eastman and produced The Shooting, called it. Roger Coreman suggested to Nicholson that he release two westerns at the same time, in a kind of back-to-back fashion, and Nicholson began writing the script for Ride the Whirlwind while Eastman wrote the other, and they sort of off-handedly collaborated together. Nicholson said The Shooting was "intentionally vague," and "it had similar undertones of mythical melancholia" like the other "companion" western. Now take into account the era this movie was made (1965, actually, although it wasn't released until 1967) and what Nicholson was into at the time ~ he was smoking weed & experimenting with hallucinogens ~ and you might start to understand the drive and intent of this movie, and the things that fueled the creativity behind it. Nicholson was soon to appear in Psyche-Out (one of my FAVORITE cheesy "dangers of drugs and the hippie culture" movies!) and the classic Easy Rider, written by Peter Fonda & Dennis Hopper, who were both well-known pot and LSD advocates/users. Even though One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest didn't come out until 1975, it was written in 1962 by Ken Kesey, known especially for his advocation of LSD after his (then not yet illegal) partaking in the US government's experimentation with LSD on humans. I'm not saying anything for or against the use of drugs; I'm just pointing out not only the era in which this movie was created but the mindset of the person who wrote it, and what was the focus, at that time period, in pop culture, because I think in this case it's related to understanding the movie. In Jack Nicholson's circle at that point in his life, everything was surreal, he was opening his mind to alternate perceptions, and the theme of the generation was "question authority" and "question reality." In that light, I think it becomes clear why the movie is so "odd," especially knowing now that Nicholson said it was intentionally vague and surreally depressing. The movie was never even officially released to theaters and only aired sparsely in art house cinemas, later seeing only infrequent TV airings.

The philosophy of "existentialism" as applied to art, might be explained as, "the individual being solely responsible for giving their own life meaning and living that life passionately and sincerely, in spite of many existential obstacles and distractions, including despair, angst, absurdity, alienation, and boredom." Under those terms, The Shooting certainly qualifies as "existential". It focusses on the subjective human experience rather than the objective truths of mathematics and science, which are too detached to truly get at the human experience. This can be baffling and confusing for some (if not all) of the audience, and to a point, it's meant to be. I believe that this movie intentially alienates the viewer. Initially, we're presented with a western, an instantly familiar genre (who HASN'T grown up watching countless westerns, especially in the mid '60s!) if not stereotypical scenario that we all relate to and recognize as being "how things were" when America was young. Even if the actual history of America is depicted as wildly inaccurate because it's been fictionalized and romanticized, we still like to believe, in our hearts, that "being a cowboy" in the 1800s was an exciting and fun (in a life-threatening, dangerous way) existence. Which couldn't be further from the truth. But that doesn't matter. The audience is lulled into a false sense of security, then they slowly come to the realization as the movie plays out, that something is very wrong, something nightmarish and beyond comprehension, and this is less a movie about cowboys than it is about defining reality.

The allegory of this movie comes in our relating to the main character, Gashade. When I first watched this movie, I did not feel like Gashade had a twin brother, so much as he was chasing himself. His "good" half is the character assisting the woman, and some sense of duty he has that goes beyond monetary reward into guilt, that he is trying to impossibly right some un-rightable wrongdoing. All we know is that a "little person" was trampled in town, which may have been the result of something done by Gashade's brother, Coin, who we never see, except in the last minute or two of the movie. Coin has fled their encampment after some mysterious assassin shoots one of their partners, which has left Gashade's friend Coley paranoid and fearful. Along comes a woman who coldheartedly shoots her horse for being lame, although after inspection by Gashade, he notes the horse appears to have had nothing wrong with it. She makes a large monetary offering for them to accompany her to the next town, and Gashade begrudgingly accepts the offer. He mistrusts her, but it's a sizable offer.

The woman is nagging, annoying and abrupt; thoroughly detestable, which is made all the more annoying by the fact that the mentally slow Coley becomes infatuated by her. She won't even give them her name let alone the reason for where they're going, and she becomes even more rude and insulting. Out of nowhere, they are joined by "Spear," who strides into camp and has almost as bad an attitude as the woman. He's rude and holds contempt toward Gashade & Coley. In my opinion, Spear and the woman are symbolic of the attitude, at the time, most of society held toward anyone creative and open-minded or artistic in the 60s. The allegory is that they are the snotty, judgemental people put off by the younger generation and the hippies. That WAS the general attitude at the time; judgemental and looking down their noses at the people who were individualistic or unique; the novelists and artists of the generation. Coley represents the "innocents" who get caught in between the battle going on between the high society people and the lowly creative, artistic people. The innocent people who don't know any better, and end up getting injured or killed as a result of doing nothing wrong.

Gashade I believe represents the people who struggle between wanting to conform and fit in, and who want to be unique, artistic, creative and open-minded. But mostly, individual. We ALL have dualistic aspects of our personalities inside of us, and we all have internal conflict over deciding if we would rather quietly fit in, or do our own thing and end up paying for our uniqueness. Gashade is not hunting his brother so much as he his hunting himself,

In the end, Coin shoots the woman, and the woman shoots Coin. They kill each other, leaving Gashade laying next to the woman in mental anguish. We then see Spear stumbling aimlessly in the desert sand, holding his smashed hand. In the war within our own society, no one wins. In the war within ourselves, it's likewise just as destructive, causing collateral damage. Sometimes we do not survive after individual conflict, or even if we do, it's to what end?

I have yet to hear a plausible explanation.

Was that a plausible enough explanation? You make a good point about when the woman first sees Gashade, why doesn't she recognize him as the perpetrator of the crime, rather than just some hirable hand? My thinking is that when the "little person" got trampled in town, it would seem that no one really got a good look at the offender. To support that is the fact that someone seeking revenge came into Gashade's encampment, and shoots & kills Leland, Gashade's partner, and Coley himself only narrowly escapes. The person seeking revenge obviously did not know what the perpetrator looked like or else he would not have been haphazardly shooting just anyone in an encampment outside of town where the perpetrator was known to stay. I do not think the woman knew what Coin looked like, only that he was running, therefore he must be the perpetrator.

Well there you go, you asked for it.

¸«¤º°»«ëÕ|{¥(V)°º¤»¸
I can't understand your crazy moon language.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

This is such a ridiculous movie, it's a total joke to see this actually make some top 50 western lists. I guess it's just because now in retrospect it seems so politically correct to place such an emphasis on the caprices of a clueless woman, just like modern America...

Whereas in real life, any bounty hunter with above average intelligence would have just slapped her and taken all her money and left promptly. No one would follow a stupid woman to the deepest hell of a desert for coin she is carrying around which they can just take from her very easily...

reply share

add reply

formatting help