########### Potential Spoiler Alert #############
Okay, my English Public Enemy friend, I just awakened very early and due to nothing else being on, I watched this movie again....and became just as aggitated as I did when I first saw the movie.
Now, upon consideration of your comments, let me clarify a few things.
First, and after careful consideration I am thinking about the movie realistically.
Second, I never claimed to disagree with the concept of non-violence, nor pacifism as being the first option to consider or initially attempt as some disagreements just go away on their own, and I would choose that path as my preference, but the land-holding thief who stole their guns and continued to harrass them, as well as the peaceful settlers, and with no proof of a deed for the land except for the force of his hired killers, he deserved a one-way ticket to be judged by his Maker.
I recognize that the group of herders from Culpepper's cattle were no angels, but they did come back for probably multiple reasons, and I would think, due to them all looking-back as they left the kid and settlers, that to help the kid and the innocent group of totally innocent group of mostly kids and women who had no manner in which to protect themselves, did play some part in their motivation to return, even if it may not have been their primary reason. But I never disagreed with the entire concept of non-violence. I hate violence. Although I do believe that there are things worth dying for.
And also, as you did, I enjoyed the movie, up until the ending, for exactly the same reasons as you did, plus I just like Western movies.
But then so far as the kid, he was not some frightened child. And when he tied on his gun belt, he became even less of a child and more of a man. Now if he would have only been man enough to do something with that gun.
And please don't assume anything about me when it comes to killing another human-being. Nothing to be proud of. In fact, something to cry over. But sometimes you are not in control of choices that need to be made in split seconds. He failed his duty. And I can agree that many in his position would have taken the same action as the kid did, but I do not endorse his actions. And he really was no longer a kid.
Well, I hope that we can agree to disagree, as I doubt that anything I stated would change your mind, but I do respect your viewpoint and wish you a great day.
Out.
reply
share
ThePublicEnemy
17 years ago
Yay! Someone on IMDb whose goal in life doesn't seem to be 'make ThePublicEnemy cry'! Gold star for you.
Well, I was muttering 'okay, shoot now... shoot now...oh, they're all dead. Too late.' through that bit, but it doesn't change the fact that I liked it. I liked that it made me mad. If he'd mown them down I would have been temporarily sated, but I would have forgotten to film completely in a week. This way, it interests me, makes me think, and I'll remember it for a long time.
But I don't see how having a gun tied round your waist makes you more of a man than not having one. I don't think we ever saw any evidence that he was mature enough to be considered an adult. Maybe one of the Culpepper boys would have used his gun at 16, but I think the fact that the kid (are we both too lazy to look up his name or is it just me?) didn't is supposed to indicate that he wasn't a real cowboy and never could be.
I don't mind agreeing to disagree at all. I'm going to go to bed and watch Sherlock Holmes now, and I hope your day is similarly lovely :D
It's an ENGLISH accent, not BRITISH! Join the crusade, Brits!
reply
share
sam-wise
15 years ago
Two years later...!
Consider the period when this movie was made. People were really emotional about Vietnam and the whole question of pacifism vs. war. We may disagree about the kid's actions at the end of the movie. But look at it this way (maybe from the filmmaker's point of view): "Real men" sacrificed themselves so the "pacifists" wouldn't have to. Then the "pacifists" turned around and rejected the sacrifice. This says a lot about what happened to both soldiers and pacifists during the Vietnam era. The whole exercise was pointless. Maybe the cowboys were satisfied by doing their duty, but the holy rollers certainly didn't appreciate it. And maybe the pacifists were satisfied because they didn't taint themselves with violence, but other men still died so they could remain alive. My sympathies are all with the Culpepper boys. Others might disagree.
reply
share