MovieChat Forums > The Shootist (1976) Discussion > Great Movie With A 'Trick Question'

Great Movie With A 'Trick Question'

posted 19 years ago by ecarle
30 replies | jump to latest

SPOILERS for "The Shootist"

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?

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] KaceFace000 19 years ago

he did that on purpose. he intended to die that day.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] silver_angel010 18 years ago

plus he didnt die with the fist shotm he was shot two more times after that, and did anybody notice how light the blood was?

[–] warriorpoet43 18 years ago

In the book he is wounded and Gillam shoots him in the head. The movie was originally supposed to end that way but was deemed as "too dark".

[–] nosnojsirhc 18 years ago

They should do a remake directed by Lars von Trier in which he doesn't die by the bartender, but slowly rots away to cancer - no soundtrack, just excruciatingly long scenes of an aging actor crawling around on the floor of a wood cabin in the dust.

ERR???

[–] jr_bailey_2000 17 years ago

A remake? Why would you wnat to do that to such a great film?

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shandy8 14 years ago

I like that! Maybe a musical version.

"What do you want me to do, draw a picture? Spell it out!"

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] aerimus13 18 years ago

i think the purpose of the bartender killing him shows the us that even though books was a great gun fighter sometime a joe nobody gets the drop on u. besides i think he was already wounded.

[–] ecarle 18 years ago

Yes, he didn't count on the bartender (even though he'd told Gillom about "the one who shoots you in the back.")

I'm just saying, Wayne challenged three guys to a gunfight. He killed all three. Subtract the (unintended) bartender, and Books would still be dying of cancer.

It's just a little too "pat" for me that the bartender does what he does. No matter. I love the movie.

P.S. Yes, Books was wounded, but not mortally, before the bartender came in.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] beans-12 17 years ago

I think Books intended for one of the three to finish him off but his competitive instincts (and natural skill) kicked in and he just couldn't bear to lose the fight. That's alway been my take, anyway.

[–] prc85040 17 years ago

But why did the bartender shoot him in the first place? I never understood that part.

Paul Calderon

[–] gearyz 17 years ago

So he could brag that he had killed the great shootist, JB Books. His bar would then have a reputation that would bring in more patrons. He was just like the other many townspeople who wanted to benefit financially from their interaction with Books.

[–] wtl471629 17 years ago

I agree gearyz. It would have been profitable. I know he didn't think of it but also it would have endangered his life if he had survived because then there would be someone probably a little high off drinking that would want to have the reputation of killing the man who shot Books.

[–] bradford-1 16 years ago

The bartender was also Hugh O'Brien's employee. It was a matter of backing up his boss.

[–] the_cajun_gambit_8585 16 years ago

I think the ending couldn't have been better. Books walks into a heavily one-sided fight, but manages to come out on top. Good triumphs over evil, like always. Like it should be. It just shows that nobody was better than he was, even up until his death.

It took a cowardly bar tender with a cheap shot to bring him down. And the weasel still got it by Gillam. To top it off, Gillam rejects a life of violence and Books knows that he will turn out all right.

So to not have the bar tender kill him would have been terrible. This ending gave Books everything: a dignified death, good guys winning, and also saving a young kid from going bad.

[–] louis-king 16 years ago

If Books had not died, he would have gone after more bad guys til one of them finished him off.

If you're going to die anyway, why waste it by dying in bed? Why not make the world a better place by taking some bad guys with you?

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fwdixoniii 16 years ago

It's also a reference to the "Third Eye" comment made at the beginning of the film.

[–] mittelbergjr 15 years ago

Don't forget his little speech to Gilliam (Ron Howard) after the shooting lesson when he talks about keeping an eye out for that "dumb-ass amatuer" as Books put it. I think the bartender would qualify as that dumb-ass amateur.

[–] liamhudson50 15 years ago

I think that Books can't let himself be killed. What I got from the film (before that scene) was that the reason Book had survived to old age was that he was so afraid of dying. That sharpened his survival instinct to a point where it kept him alive but ruined his life.

Hardly anyone wants to die but I got the impression that Book couldn't let go and the other side of his survival instinct was that it left him with no peace at all. When the doctor hints at suicide Book looks like he knows that won't be an option he can take, even to avoid pain I got the feeling that settling down or the normal life equated to dying for him as well.

He got the tombstone made but had the date left off (but not the year) the delivery men blamed the mason but did Book tell him to leave it blank? (I missed that scene).

I thought he set up the gunfight in the Metropole to get himself killed but when it came to it he couldn't let it happen. That would fit with the original book (no pun intended) ending as well. He almost seemed like a ghost or a vampire that couldn't die, cursed to keep going through the same experience (killing other men) again and again.

I think that's probably more than enough from me ;-)

[–] Mississippi20 15 years ago

Well-said liamhudson.

[–] Captain_Augustus_McCrae 12 years ago

It has been suggested that Doc Holliday also wanted to be killed in a gunfight, rather than let TB eat away his lungs a bit at a time, but his pride wouldn't let him give in. Whoever put his name on the wall would have to earn it, and no one was ever good enough. I see Books as the same way. If you want the prestige of claiming to be the killer of JB Books, you'll have to earn it the hard way.

"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's LIVING!"
Captain Augustus McCrae

[–] ecarle 9 years ago

There were some critical complaints that Books "selfishly goaded" those three men into coming after him, but he was eminently fair: O'Brien had expressed a desire to a deadly fast draw with him; he had killed Boone's brother...only the third guy was indeed rather goaded into it, but he was established as a brutal hot-tempered idiot, anyway.

Also fair to set up "three against one" odds -- this indicates Books' own desire to get a chance at dying; he knows he'd probably be able to handle just one or even two. But alas -- the three men gallantly take turns(well, two do after the first dunce starts it off)

But I very much agree with the poster above who notes that Books simply cannot LET himself be killed without a fight, his survival instincts are natural, he won't just give up.

Its a great little scene, this shootout -- very tough, a little bit cruel, but principaled as hell.

Like the Duke.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

bump