MovieChat Forums > The Shootist (1976) Discussion > Did he really go out on a high note?? (m...

Did he really go out on a high note?? (major spoiler...)


I worship this movie, because it showcases much of the myth and reality of the Old West that was such a big part of my youth. But I have one problem with the ending of the film, where in the closing moments, J. B. Books is shot in the back - not by one of the 3 gunfighters, but by a bartender wielding a double-barrelled shotgun. Very cowardly (or yellow bellied, as they would say in the Old West).

I know it was Book's intention to go out on a high note, but the way he was shot was decidedly a low note. Perhaps there was hidden meaning in the way that ending was played out.

reply

I believe that somewhere during the movie, Duke's character says something along the lines of "the one who gets you is the one you aren't watching out for." Sure enough, when he got it, it was just the bartender.

reply

[deleted]

In addition to the "the one you aren't watching for" quote Books passes himself as Hickcock when he meets Bond. Wild Bill got it in the back and the only thing missing here is a reference to Aces and Eights. Jesse James likewise got it in the back. In both instances 'lowness' reflected on the shooter not the shootee.


I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed!

reply

He had an agenda and he had very little time in which to accomplish it, and nothing for which to look forward if he didn't achieve it. Even without inoperable cancer his world was itself dying. Note that one of the bad guys arrives in a horseless carriage; even the most primitive automobiles are not part of the Old West.

Heroic death isn't the worst tragedy possible. Sudden death by a bullet that he never saw coming -- or a horrible, helpless, slow death by cancer? What is consistent with J. B. Books? What is consistent with John Wayne's screen persona?

The bad guys must die, for their survival is inconsistent with the tamer West of the 20th Century.

reply

[deleted]

I just saw this movie and I highly enjoyed it. It seems to me, that even though he was shot by the bartender in a cowardly way, Gillom shot the bartender and throw away the gun, and when Gillom did this Book seemed to smile or at least realize that he may have died with some dignity. Why you ask? I think maybe it will SEEM to the town that Books shot the three man (who I think really deserved what they got) and killed them, but also killed a sneaking bartender who shot Books with a shot gun. That would be a legend. So I think Gillom was able to help Book look like a hero in a sense.

"Are you sure you saw what you saw?"

reply

[deleted]

He "smiles" at Gillom not for shooting the bartender or for himself dying with "some dignity", but for throwing the gun away in disgust. Remember, Gillom had idolized him and he was afraid that Gillom would take up the shootist trade himself.

reply

The "Old West" didn't die suddenly; it faded away as its stereotypical characters died off. So long as there were some living frontiersmen, Indian fighters, mountain men, and gunslingers (irrespective of the side of the law that they chose) who didn't make a full peace with modernity, the Wild West wasn't quite dead. Such people were not the majority even in their own times, except perhaps during the gold rush in California and other places. Such people were dinosaurs before they achieved old age (if they did), and the people creating the West with which most of us are more familiar were the people doing mundane work, having families, starting businesses, and establishing permanent farms and ranches -- like "Bond Rogers" (Lauren Bacall). To be sure, the wild characters of the Old West were being romanticized -- but youth like "Gillom Rogers" (Ron Howard) weren't capable of imitating the likes of "John Bernard Books" (John Wayne).

As I see it, "Books" already recognizes that he is not only a dying man, but also that his old way of life is also dying. So if he takes out a few bad guys from his time so that they can't be influences upon youth instead of dying horribly from cancer, then he preserves a heroic image of himself even if he can't influence youth to be like him. The circumstances that created someone like "Books" no longer existed even in the later part of the nineteenth century. As people like "Books" died, nobody could replicate his type, clearly irrelevant to later times except as a romantic legend.

reply

(SPOILERS AHEAD):

I love how "The Shootist" ends, but I've always had a funny thought about it:

Books manages to kill all three bad men who come gunning for him. Then the bartender sneaks up on him and shoots him in the back, dead.

...but what if the bartender didn't do that?

Think about it. Books would have had killed those three guys -- and still be alive to die horribly from his cancer!

What would he have done? Challenged three more varmints to a gunfight? And then three more? And then three more... until he finally lost?

reply

If you check the "Trivia" section for this film, you find that originally Gillom shoot Books, and then threw the gun away in disgust -- presumably he shot him to make sure he went out relatively cleanly.

But that was changed.

But what about the bartender? As originally shot, also, Books is shown shooting someone in the back -- presumably that would be the barkeep, who tries to relaod the shotgun and then turns to run...

reply

I think I read somewhere that actually it was the Hugh O'Brien character that was orginally to be shown to be shot in the back.

reply

It's ordinarily a great offense to most sensibilities to shoot someone in the back, but if the person being shot is still armed and shows a great likelihood of doing more killing. To shoot someone who is holding a hostage or setting to fire recklessly or criminally isn't quite so objectionable.

The bartender could have dropped his gun, and Books would have had no excuse to shot him.

reply

I think Books character addresses this, when teaching Gillam how to shoot, that you have to watch out for the amaetur, which is what the bartender was. He'd taken care of the "bad guys", but forgot his own advice...and was killed by the rube.

reply

To me, this film is like "Unforgiven." What it tried to do, was show that gunfighting was NOT glamorous. It was butchery, often entered into by cowards and cheats. The only thing people wanted was the fame that came from killing an icon. The bartender in the movie wanted what the other three in the bar wanted, to be famous for being the man that killed the great JB Books. Nothing glamoorous about the way he did it or the way so many others did it. It is a John Wayne film that denounces violence. That much is evident when Wayne commends (in a way) Howard's character for throwing away the gun.

"If I throw a dog a bone, I don't want to know if it tastes good or not."

reply

JB Books goes to the bar with the intention of dying. The good and the bad of it is that his instincts as a "shootist" are so strong that he kills the best gunmen he could find to challenge. He states early in the movie that it's "always some boob that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn" that does you in. Being kiiled by the bartender re-enforces this and allows him to die quickly. Remember Doc Hostetler descibes how he will die and says "I wouldn't go out like that, not if I had your courage"

As for Gilly, the reason that he was originally supposed to kill Books is because that's how it happens in the book. The book is very dark and Gillom is a complete scumbag. The book ends with Gilly killing Books, taking his guns and stealing all the money that JB left for Bond.

reply

I see your point, but I always find it rather "convenient" that the bartender kills Books.

Without the bartender coming in like that, Books would have STILL BEEN ALIVE (albeit wounded) having pretty easily killed the three men he selected for a gunfight.

I suppose Books may have felt: at least I'm taking on some pretty bad guys, if I kill them and live, who's going to prosecute me anyway? I'll die soon.

The bartender is that ironic "boob who does you in" -- but a bit of a pat plot device as well.

No matter. Great movie.

reply

Books took out three bad guys in one of the last acts of his life. The cancer that the character had would have killed him in a way that left little room for the character's heroism. He remained true to himself in the end.

Books was not only a dying man due to the cancer, but 'his' Old West was becoming the stuff of legends. People like him were becoming irrelevant, and it was best that people younger than him didn't imitate either his way of life or -- even worse -- that of the bad guys who hadn't surrendered their lusts for gunfighting.

High note? No. No death is a high note. Better than another way, such as being eaten alive with cancer? Sure. Cancer would have been far less rational to Books' persona.

Most importantly he convinces a kid to find some other way of life than that of a gunfighter. The Wild West had to die because it depended upon lawlessness and desperation that were quickly disappearing due to modernity. (A common pattern among the gunslingers: aside from being sociopaths, most were spectacularly ignorant and even retarded).

I love the touch in which one of the bad guys arrives at the gunfight in a 'horseless carriage', and Books uses a trolley car to get there.

reply

everyone makes good points. i think its also good to point out that this is probably the best death books could have hoped for. he could not have been killed by a normal gunfighter, because that would ruin the legend of books (how every man he comes up against in a fight gets killed, and he comes out of it). he couldnt kill himself, and couldnt wait for the cancer. in this instance, it was a 'coward' who killed him. so it doesnt disgrace him. also, who knows, they may even say about him that he killed the cowardly bartender before he died, since only gillom knows the truth and he is ashamed of firing the gun.

but yeah, there was no way to die with much more dignity than that, and keep his legend in tact.

reply

I see your point, but I always find it rather "convenient" that the bartender kills Books.

Without the bartender coming in like that, Books would have STILL BEEN ALIVE (albeit wounded) having pretty easily killed the three men he selected for a gunfight.

I suppose Books may have felt: at least I'm taking on some pretty bad guys, if I kill them and live, who's going to prosecute me anyway? I'll die soon.

The bartender is that ironic "boob who does you in" -- but a bit of a pat plot device as well.

No matter. Great movie.
The simple answer is he's back where he was. Does he call for another gunfight, does he commit suicide, does he succumb to the cancer? It could be any of these. Since the film doesn't address the point I guess we're not supposed to ponder it too hard. In regards to the moral of the story, it's probably irrelevant.

reply

Does he call for another gunfight, does he commit suicide, does he succumb to the cancer? It could be any of these. Since the film doesn't address the point I guess we're not supposed to ponder it too hard.

Exactly. This is a work of fiction and it ends with the end of the last frame of film. I'd also add that it might be more accurate to say that his intention was to go out on his own terms rather than on a high note.

reply

Possible explanation:

It's the danger that one doesn't recognize that does the most harm. J.B. Books would have never suspected the bartender; for the others he was well-prepared.

But a low note? Books died violently -- not that cancer is a peaceful and pleasant way to go. He was doomed, and he was living on opiates to make life somewhat tolerable for the while, and I can see the message: not only did cancer doom him, but the Old West of the gunslinger outlaws was itself dying. Lawmen like Books who survived because they were better shots had become irrelevant in a more settled, civilized, progressive West. The legend of the Old West would survive, but its participants could not last much longer.

I thought it remarkable that one of the outlaws used a 'horseless carriage' and that Books used a trolley -- objects that one does not associate with the heyday of the gunslinger era -- to reach the final scene. That, I believe, says much.

reply

[deleted]

In a film where everybody is cynically trying to take advantage of a terminally ill man and gleefully insisting to his face that he should get busier with that dying business, getting shot in the back by a bartender seems pretty fitting.



"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

reply

And he was doped up on laudanum, and a drink. I guess they all had a drink or two. But he was able to shoot accurate enough and jump his old bones over the bar. . He went in wanting to die, but put up too big of a fight.
When Opie, sorry Gillom goes in I first wondered why he shot the bartender since the bartender did what needed to be done. The bartender was probably a basically OK guy who provided a service to Books and possibly the town.

reply

Someone may have mentioned this, but in the book the bartender, having shot Books in the back with a shotgun, retreats to a back room. Even though Books has not yet expired, it's hard to imagine him surviving a load or two of buckshot in his back. But in the book, as Gillom (who is much more of an unlikeable punk in the novel) stands over the (probably) mortally wounded Books, Books mouths the words "Kill me." Gillom picks up one of Books' revolvers, puts the muzzle to Books' head, and administers the coup de grace.

In the movie, Gillom, having killed a man, throws Books' revolver away. But in the book . . . well, go read it. The book is much more intense and dark than the movie.

reply

One other thing: in the novel the men Books kills are worse menaces to society than the men he kills in the movie. The movie "baddies" just seem like minor pests, and the Hugh O'Brien character doesn't seem like such a "baddie" at all.

reply