MovieChat Forums > Unforgiven (1992) Discussion > Little Bill....

Little Bill....

posted 9 years ago by chas437
16 replies | jump to latest

I finally saw this film for the first time, and given all the rave reviews, I was a little disappointed. Its a good film and very entertaining, but I think the character development is somewhat lacking.

Little Bill in particular, is hard to wrap my head around. How did he come to be this odd vigilante? His motivation is unclear. If he's so adamant that his town be crime free, why did he give a pass to the cowboys who disfigured the prostitute?

The only thing I can come up with is that he is there to underline the moral ambiguity of the film. Something like; he's so obsessed with his vigilantism that he has become the bad guy in a Western.

The Morgan Freeman character has no depth either and seems tacked on.

I can sort of see what the screenwriter is doing. The characters who are known by these comical nicknames, are really smooth-sided archetypes/stereotypes rather than actual people with unique stories. That's clever.

Its a fine film, I just wouldn't rate it as anywhere near the best Western of all time. That distinction belong to 'The Outlaw Josie Whales', IMO.

I'll take Punctuality

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] spud-boy 8 years ago

Little Bill let the cowboys off because they were "Hardworking boys at the Bar-T ranch." In other words, local citizens who spend their money in Big Whiskey.

Bill's main goal was to prevent outside influences into what was apparently his "retirement community." Remember, he was building a house...probably the first permanent residence he'd ever had.

[–] nutsberryfarm 8 years ago

his character was all about his house. the movie was a subversive take on why the usa needs migrant construction workers. if he would been able to employ them, he would have been able to live in his dream, and he would have been happy, along with everyone else.

The food I've liked in my time is American country cookin'-Colonel Sanders 🇺🇸

[–] belstaff-35222 7 years ago

I tottally disagree with the OP. In my opinion all the characters were fully fleshed out and you know their motivations including Little Bill's. He wasn't a vigilante, he was a sadist in a position of power. He dispensed his brand of brutal justice according to his biased standards. He despised assassins and bounty hunters so he was particularly brutal towards them. Also, he was trying to send a message to other would be bounty hunters so they think twice before trying to collect the prostitutes' bounty.

He was initially going to whip the 2 cowboys until Skinny pointed out that they had damaged his "property" and he needed to be compensated. Little Bill was inclined to listen to Skinny and fine the cowboys instead because by his own standards the cowboys were hardworking and not necessarily "bad men". Like I said, his standards were skewed. Plus he knew and probably liked the cowboys before the incident which no doubt affected his judgement. And once he decided to fine them, he couldn't very well beat them afterwards. Mind you, if the men had been bounty hunters, I don't think anything could have swayed him from whipping them.

[–] strntz 7 years ago

I heartily agree with most of your analysis, but there are a couple of things about Bill I'd like to opine on:

..he was a sadist in a position of power.

I don't see him as a sadist. I think the whip was a tool of his justice. If he was a sadist, he would have fined Mike and Davey and whipped them anyway. Whipping was likely an extraordinarily effective means of dispensing justice and gathering info. Remember that Ned cracked and gave up Munny during the whipping.

...his standards were skewed.

By today's mores, sure. But back then, women in general and whores in particular were almost as much chattel as slaves were. Today we shake our heads about Bill's thought process, but I don't think Little Bill's thinking was too far from the norm of those times (unless we are comparing him to Ben Cartright!).

It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men ~ F Douglass

[–] belstaff-35222 7 years ago

After thinking about it some more, I agree with you, Little Bill is not a sadist as he didn't necessarily enjoy the punishment that he doled out. It's not uncommon for sadists to get sexually aroused when they're inflicting pain and I don't think that's the case for Little Bill. Instead, I think he's a psychopath in a position of power.

But I do think even by standards of the day his standards were definite skewed and exceptionally brutal. You see several townspeople and even his own deputies cringing and flinching in the several scenes where he beats people. And this was at a time when it was common to applaud when people were hanged. His level of punishment was definitely skewed: he only fined the cowboy who was guilty of serious harm, but he severely beat Munny and English Bob for breaking a local ordinance. And don't forget he tortured Ned to death when he was questioning him. Even by the standards of the day, I thinking torturing a suspect to death without even so much as a trial was way over the line.

[–] strntz 7 years ago

..he only fined the cowboy who was guilty of serious harm, but he severely beat Munny and English Bob for breaking a local ordinance.

But I think it was more than just the ordinance that resulted in the beating. At any other time, he would have relieved them of their weapons and that would have been that, but Skinny tipped off Bill about the whores setting a huge bounty for murder so he was expecting bounty hunters to come to Big Whiskey and he was right.

English Bob was a known hired killer who shows up in Big Whiskey. Munny and his friends show up at night in the middle of a storm for "billiards", something that was unlikely to happen. Bill correctly guessed that they were in town to commit murder, and we know that Little Bill just hates assassins. They also lied about being armed.

He beat them both and turned them free after relieving them of their weapons (or destroying them in Bob's case). Between having the crap kicked out of me or going to prison (jurisprudence being what it was back then, they could have), I think I would have rather taken the beating. Bob left town alive and if Ned, Munny, and the kid did the same they would have all head home, alive if not empty handed.

After Ned, Munny, and the kid managed to kill one of the boys, Bill does whip Ned severely after his capture and learns that they were indeed there to kill those boys. Bill learns from Ned that Hendershott is really William Munny, notorious thief and murderer.

And don't forget he tortured Ned to death when he was questioning him. Even by the standards of the day, I thinking torturing a suspect to death without even so much as a trial was way over the line.

He did whip Ned to death after learning that Quick Mile was also killed, that's a fact, but I don't think that was his intention. Even Little Sue says Ned "just died". In any case, the three of them would have been hung anyway as they did commit the murder(s). Also, Wyoming was still several years from statehood, so there was no Constitutional rights to be concerned with, particularly with a trial. I think a lot of territories handled justice in their own way.

But I do think even by standards of the day his standards were definite skewed and exceptionally brutal. You see several townspeople and even his own deputies cringing and flinching in the several scenes where he beats people.

Good point. No doubt the beatings he inflicted was brutal, but I don't know if Bill's methods were much worse than any other lawman then. Instead of having lawyers arguing for weeks over detail, Bill gave the beating (not undeserved if you think about it) and sent them on their way. Quick and done with.

Was Bill over the top with Ned? Yes, I agree he was. He could have stopped the whipping as soon as Ned confessed and gave up Munny. Bill's anger over having assassins in town who actually managed to kill both boys put him over the edge.

It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men ~ F Douglass

[–] belstaff-35222 7 years ago

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree with you. I know that Little Bill tried to justify the brutality of the beatings by using the reason that he was trying to prevent other bounty hunters from coming to his town, but he went too far and I think his actions are unjustifiable. It is the fact that he went too far is what differentiates Little Bill from other lawmen of his day and it is why the audience identifies him as the villain and roots for Munny. If it wasn't for his extreme brutality, the audience would see him as the hero seeing as he's the sheriff and trying to prevent the murder of the cowboys especially the one that didn't actually assault anyone.

Your own arguments count against you. Like you said, Liitle Bill "guessed" they were bounty hunters and then "he went over the edge". He knew English Bob personally but he beat Munny purely on suspicion. To me it's not unusual for 3 travellers to come into town at night to shelter from the storm. It would have been preferable to camping out in the open with no fire.

Your argument that Munny and co would have hung anyway for their actions is not valid and is actually an argument against Little Bill's meting out his own brand of justice, i.e. he could have, and indeed should have, let the courts and the hangman kill the bounty hunters. Instead he took it upon himself and he beat Ned to death. Ned didn't kill anyone and didn't deserve to die. That act alone puts him on the other side of the law which he took an oath to uphold. And if there were any witnesses brave enough, Little Bill may have found himself in front of a judge answering for his crimes. I'm pretty sure that at the time this story took place they would have had some sort of judicial system in Wyoming. If you recall, Little Bill gave the cowboys the option of leaving it to the court system if they didn't consent to the fine. I certainly don't think the sheriff had the power to be judge, jury and executioner. Killing someone in self defence is one thing, but torturing and killing a suspect in custody would definitely have been a big no no. It is almost akin to lynching someone.

Lastly, it isn't stated but from the reactions of the deputies and townspeople, it is strongly implied that this isn't the first time that they have seen Little Bill's extreme brutality. Those that witnessed the beatings he doled out cringed and flinched but they weren't surprised or appalled because they had seen him do it all before. And I think it would be safe to assume that those other times Little Bill didn't have the convenient excuse that he was trying to send a message and deter other would be bounty hunters.

Little Bill is a pure psychopath and has a history of being extremely brutal and even for that era his actions are simply inexcusable. It is what makes him without question the villain of the story despite being the sheriff. If this wasn't the case, then the audience wouldn't have been rooting for Munny. I don't know about you, but I was on team Munny, a self-confessed cold-blooded murderer of people who he admits didn't deserve to die; he mistreated animals; and now he's on his way to murder 2 cowboys purely for their bounty. As far as we know, Little Bill doesn't have that history. So why do we root for Munny instead of the sheriff ? Because Munny has seen the error of his ways and is trying to repent, even though he has strayed. In other words, we root for the guy that knows he has been wicked and is trying to be better over the guy that doesn't even realise that he is wicked. And that's what psychopaths are and why they (and Little Bill) will never change. We all have a dark side and most of us are trying to be better people and that's why we identify with Munny and follow his arc. The payoff for the audience is in the epilogue when we find out that Munny managed to put his old life behind him and is rewarded with a long and peaceful life.

Great movie! Holds up well and very deserving of its Oscars.

[–] strntz 7 years ago

It is the fact that he went too far is what differentiates Little Bill from other lawmen of his day ....

I admit I'm no historian so I don't know how exactly how law men handled crimes in their territories, but I'm willing to read any good citations you may have.

To me it's not unusual for 3 travelers to come into town at night to shelter from the storm. It would have been preferable to camping out in the open with no fire.

Yes, but if you recall, it wasn't the fact they were in town or seeking shelter, it was because of the meeting they had with Strawberry Alice (who hired the killers) that aroused Little Bill's suspicions.

Those that witnessed the beatings he doled out cringed and flinched but they weren't surprised or appalled because they had seen him do it all before.

I think that statement is contradictory a bit. If Little Bill was prone to doing this regularly, I think the townsfolk would be numb to it by now. That they did seem shocked at the beating would suggest, if nothing else, that this was atypical behavior for Bill.

The only time we see these beatings is when hired assassins come into town (yes, Bill was right both times) who first lie and then refuse to hand over their weapons. He didn't beat Quick Mike or Davey Boy over maiming a prostitute when he could have. I think his personal trigger for his over the top behavior was assassins, which he mentioned several times in the movie.

Ned didn't kill anyone and didn't deserve to die.

Well yes, he did. He, Munny, and the Kid ambushed and killed Davey Boy. Doesn't get much clearer than that. Even the kid, who couldn't even see Davey at that range and couldn't have possibly made that shot, would have hung along with them, justice being what it was at the time. If the Bar T boys had managed to circle around and capture the three and shoot them on the spot, it's unlikely they'd even have been charged much less convicted.

Great movie! Holds up well and very deserving of its Oscars.

Yep. Much to my wife's chagrin, I find myself stopping on the channel whenever it's on. So many wonderful characters (even if there aren't any good guys).

It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men ~ F Douglass

[–] belstaff-35222 7 years ago

Ned didn't kill anyone. He shot the horse from under the cowboy. I would argue that the equivalent crime today would be someone stealing a car. At worse Ned is an accessory. And even if you believe his crime is worthy of the death penalty, are you arguing that Little Bill has the right to be the judge, jury, and executioner ? Don't you think he at least deserved a trial ?

As for the witnesses reactions, I maintain that they indicate that they had seen it all before, but not to the extent that they were numb to the brutality. I think if it was the first time, someone would at least have said something along the lines of, "that's enough, Little Bill. You're gonna kill him".

You seem to contradict yourself as well. In one post you agree that Little Bill went "over the top", but then you seem to excuse his actions and justify it by saying that Ned deserved to die. Tell me, who were you rooting for in the climactic scene ? There's no incorrect answer here, I'm just curious. Going by your argunents, I'm going to guess that you were on Little Bill's side. I mean, if you do believe that Ned's death is justified, I don't see how you would have wanted Munny to kill Little Bill.

I can understand if that's your point of view even though I don't agree with it. On paper, Munny has a history of being a cold-blooded murdering bandit, and we witness it first hand when he carries out the contract killing of the innocent cowboy and murdering an unarmed Skinny. Even the deputies he killed were not evil men and their only crime, although not necessarily in the eyes of the law at the time, was to stand idly by while Little Bill tortured and killed Ned. And yet, I found myself rooting for Munny for the reasons I've outlined previously. If you were rooting for Munny, I'd love to know why. Again, there's no right or wrong answer here.

For most of the movie I was on the fence with Little Bill. He had me offside at the beginning when his punishment of the cowboys didnt fit their crime (Skinny was well compensated but Delilah got nothing and she's the one that lost her source of income and is scarred for life). He won me over a bit when he exposed English Bob as somewhat of a fraud, but he lost me completely with the unjustifiable (IMO) murder of Ned. That was the turning point for his character and from that point, I was rooting against him.

While I respect your POV, you'll never convince me that Ned's murder is justified. I just don't think Little Bill had the right to be judge, jury, and executioner. If Ned had been tried, found guilty, and then hanged, them I may be inclined to agree, but even then probably not. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on these points.

[–] strntz 7 years ago

Ned didn't kill anyone. He shot the horse from under the cowboy.

Ned was one of a trio of paid assassins that located and executed an innocent man. The person who gets the lucky shot in isn't the only one charged with murder. Even today, they all get charged with that crime. This much cannot be questioned.

And even if you believe his (Ned's) crime is worthy of the death penalty, are you arguing that Little Bill has the right to be the judge, jury, and executioner ?

By today's standards, absolutely not nor did I advocate for Bill to do so even then. As for what was allowed in territories in the 1880s, I said earlier I have no knowledge of that except what I've seen in other movies, but I'm willing to review any citation you might have. Still, I suspect the author of the story did some research about law and order in the western territories when fleshing out Little Bill.

You seem to contradict yourself as well. In one post you agree that Little Bill went "over the top", but then you seem to excuse his actions and justify it by saying that Ned deserved to die.

Not at all. I meant it when I said that Bill went over the top with Ned. He could have stopped the whipping after Ned gave up Munny's identity but didn't. As much as I liked Ned, I have to admit to myself that if Ned faced trial, he would most certainly been convicted and executed - but I did not use this fact to justify Bill's unintended execution of Ned (or maybe it was despite what Little Sue said). The two facts are that Bill went over the top, and Ned would have died either way. To admit them isn't contradictory.

Tell me, who were you rooting for in the climactic scene ?

William Munny was a known murder and thief who, among other things, dynamited a train killing women and children. He walks into the saloon and executes the sheriff and several deputies. But you know what? I did root for Munny. I made that point on another thread some time back. I would have also loved to have Ned go back to Sally Two Trees and live the rest of his life in peace, but the story needed Ned's death at the hands of Little Bill to push Munny over the edge setting up that amazing climactic scene.

We are privy to Munny's and Ned's backstory. We see Munny show great remorse at his past life and his almost pious way of living after meeting Claudia. Even though he's wrong killing Davey and shooting up the saloon, we do root for him. Strongly. This is one of the magical things about good storytelling, and this film does it in spades.

As a movie watcher, I loved the epilogue and hoped that William Munny did indeed prosper in dry goods as was suggested.

Thanks for the civil discussion.

Edit: "Little" Bill, "English" Bob, "Little" Sue, "Strawberry" Alice, "Quick" Mike, Davey "Boy", "Skinny" DuBois? Lots of adjectives as part of their names!!!

It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men ~ F Douglass

[–] belstaff-35222 7 years ago

Interesting....

I've no sources to cite. Like you my opinion has been shaped by westerns I've watched previously coupled with what "knowledge" I have learnt about human nature from life experiences and various general literature. In most westerns I've seen, the sheriff is the stereotypical "white hat": all brave, noble, and just. I don't ever recall a sheriff ever torturing or killing an unarmed man. That's why I didn't see Little Bill's actions as being the norm for its time. That plus the deputies' and townsfolks' reactions. They obviously feared Little Bill and I can only assume it's because he has displayed his extreme brutality and violent temper in the past. I've no doubt that Little Bill is probably closer to reality. Things are seldom black and white in the real world and most people are in the grey area. That's one of the reasons why I like this movie so much, all the characters are shades of grey and not cardboard cutouts like in previous westerns and movies in general.

Thanks very much for your considered response. It's refreshing to discuss the points of a movie with someone that looks at things at a deeper level and who isn't threatened by someone with a different opinion. Most forumites would probably have replied with, "I was on Munny's side because it's Clint Eastwood, man !"

[–] mammamia1216 7 years ago

But IS Little Bill that bad guy, though? Is he really?

I like Unforgiven, though I tend to air on the side of it being just a tad overrated, but one big takeaway for me is the complexity of the story and characters. I find Munny way more sympathetic than I intended to, so he is my "good guy," but I just can't see Little Bill as a "bad guy." He's the antagonist, sure, and he definitely has a brutal nature (beating up Clint Eastwood is just asking for it), but...I mean, he's a sheriff in a wild town in the middle of nowhere. And it's up to him to keep order...no matter the costs, I suppose.

Also...he's not wrong to want to keep vigilantes and hit men out of the town, especially considering that it's just a little ludicrous to have men MURDERED because one of them cut up a prostitute. Disproportionate Retribution.

[–] belstaff-35222 7 years ago

It depends entirely your point of view and valid arguments can be made for both sides. On paper, Munny is the villain. After all, he's a self-confessed cold-blooded murderer (we witness this for ourselves when he assassinates Davey and kills an un-armed Skinny), abuser of animals, a known thief, a murderer of innocent women and children, and in the movie he becomes a paid assassin.

Little Bill on the other hand, is a respected and long-serving lawman who is trying to maintain peace by discouraging bounty hunters from coming to his town. He's shown to be a human being, i.e. a bad carpenter building his house and looking forward to his retirement. So why do the audiences side with Munny ? For me it is because of a number of reasons. Firstly, I related to Munny's ongoing struggle to change the error of his ways. We all have a darkside, and although I'm no cold-blooded murder, there are certain character traits that I'd gladly change about myself. Munny's quest to better himself connects with me. Plus there are certain aspects of Munny's character that I admire, his honesty, loyalty, humility, and lack of pretence. That explains why I'm sympathetic to Munny.

The reason why I'm against Little Bill is basically I believe he's unjust and a bully and most likely a psychopath. I didn't feel this way for the entire movie. I was a bit wary of him at the beginning when he decided to fine the cowboys instead. This was an unjust ruling that only benefitted Skinny and never compensated or provided any justice for Delilah who after all is the person that has lost her source of income and is scarred for life. It also show bad judgement on his part and hints at his willingness to take the law into his own hands. If you recall, he gave the cowboys the option of leaving the matter in the hands of court system. The fact that the cowboys chose the fine clearly shows that the punishment is grossly inadequate. He won me over a little bit by exposing English Bob as a coward and a fraud and by being unpretentious, but he lost me again when he beat Munny on suspicion. English Bob's beating, while also extremely brutal, was a bit more understandable because he didn't hide the fact that he was a bounty hunter and he was 1005 sure what English Bob was. Keep in mind that at this point and Little Bill wasn't aware of Munny's history because he introduces hinself as Ned Hendershot. The only thing Munny is guilty of at this stage is breaking a local ordinance (i.e. not surrendering his weapons) and Little Bill himself points out the very valid excuse that it may have been because they didn't see the sign due to the storm. It's quite plausible that Munny and co could have been travellers taking shelter from the storm but this doesn't even cross Little Bill's mind and he beats him to within an inch of his life.

Up to this point, it can be argued that Little Bill's action may have been justified. IMHO, the point of no return for his character is his torture and cold-blooded murder of Ned especially if you believe, like I do, that Ned didn't deserve to die. The way I see it, Ned only shot the horse from under Davey. He didn't actually kill him. That was Munny. Some would argue that he's a paid assassin and is just as guilty as Munny and the Schofield Kid. I don't agree with this, and even if I did, Little Bill did not have the authority to be judge, jury and executioner. Ned at least deserved a fair trial.

I agree with your disproportionate retribution comment, and the same thing could be said of Little Bill (and even Munny), but I don't find that unrealistic and certainly not "ludicrous", especially for the time the story takes place. It was more lawless back then and not uncommon for people to dole out their own brand of justice. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this, just that it was a more violent time making the prostitutes' actions totally believable IMHO. Even at this enlightened age, it's not unheard of for ordinary citizens to take justice in their own hands if they believe the punishment is grossly inadequate.

As for your argument that Little Bill is "...a sheriff in a wild town in the middle of nowhere. And it's up to him to keep order...no matter the costs", keep in mind that if Little Bill had let the courts look after the whole thing as he mentioned, then none of this would probably have happened. The prostitutes would have gotten their justice and they wouldn't have been compelled to put out a contract on the 2 cowboys. With no bounty on offer, no assassins coming to town. The whole mess is Little Bill's doing.

[–] mammamia1216 7 years ago

What I found interesting about the "Munny-as-villain" position is that although the film's dialogue just HAMMERS it in that he was a bad guy who did bad things (I mean, I do think the script needed just one more clean-up, because there is a LOT of info-dumping), I think it's interesting that we don't ever see a visual flashback of him doing any of these evil deeds. One of my teachers once said regarding characterization, "In film, if the audience doesn't actually SEE it, it's as if it didn't happen," arguing that a visual presentation is more evocative than simple dialogue in terms of establishing characterization. We don't see him being cruel or cold-blooded until the scene with Davey, which I would argue is very contextual. Looking at the story objectively, what he did was cold-blooded and ruthless...the whole THING (hunting people down for money) is cold and ruthless, but "in universe," following the story without really thinking about it, one might think, "Well, Davey and [the other guy - sorry] are the bad guy MacGuffins, the whole point is finding and killing them," so it's not that outrageous that he did what he did.

I agree with your analysis of Little Bill, and I like the way it was worded. For me, it's hard to explain why I don't think of Little Bill as a "villain" Admittedly, I don't really agree with a lot of the complaints levied at Little Bill, because they seem to be coming from viewers who really don't know their way around Westerns. Sure, Little Bill had a mean streak and was probably more aggressive than the average sheriff/lawman in the Old West, but...aggression was a pretty standard trait for lawmen at that time. It just takes a little more to get me worked up about "violent men" in Westerns (I mean, he's no Liberty Valance! *shudder*)

I guess what I notice a lot about people who comment on UNFORGIVEN (and since this movie seems to be one of the more popular Westerns, a lot of people are familiar with it) is the idea of Little Bill as the dispenser of disproportionate retribution while not mentioning the retribution set into motion by (IMO) vindictive prostitutes. The thing is, Little Bill is the lawman in rural 1880s Wyoming, which at the time was still a Territory. Thus, men like Little Bill had WAY more jurisdiction, both in law and in practice, because of the territory status and their general isolated location. No, Ned did not deserve to die, and for me that was when Little Bill took things too far (I don't fault his decision in the aftermath of Delilah's scarring, since being a marginalized woman in this type of environment, it would have been fairly realistic to have seen Skinny as the wronged party). For some reason, I personally never found Ned that likable, so while I found his death unnecessary and a little bit startling, it didn't really rattle me. In fact, Munny is consistently selective in his body count. Beauchamp, for example, he could have killed "just because," but he didn't. If he really was a "cold-blooded villain," he would have taken advantage of the prostitutes like every other man in the story (including Ned). For me, it's not so much Munny as a reformer that I'm drawn to (since I argue his "reformation" had already taken place by the start of the film), but rather his acting out of desperation and a desire to provide for his family. Sure, it's a pretty slippery-slope way of doing it, but people in the 1880s West didn't have as many options as we do.

However, I can't argue with your last paragraph. If Little Bill had let the courts handle it, the events of the story would not have been set into motion (HOWEVER, I am unsure if Wyoming's Territory status would have impeded that...it's been a long time since I studied the American West).

[–] belstaff-35222 7 years ago

The filmmakers obviously didn't feel the need to show his past crimes because it goes against what they're trying to tell us about Munny, i.e. he's no longer that man. He's no longer in the grips of the evil alcohol that controlled him. Besides, his history is not in dispute and showing it would be counter productive to gaining the audience's sympathy/empathy. Not showing something leaves it to the audiences imagination and leaves some room for ambiguity. It's the same reason why the filmmakers chose not to show Ned's death.

It's interesting to hear your opinion on Ned. He was a very important character because he represented Munny's conscience and provided a bit of humour which was a respite to the very dark and serious themes. I liked the character but even if I hadn't, his torture and untimely death would have had the same effect on me of cementing Little Bill as the real villain.