I find it interesting that an actor who has probably killed dozens of people on screen with guns over the course of his movie career(or with knives like in the Magnificent Seven)would choose late in life-actually his last ever role-a movie that is so anti-violence.
It's heartening to think that maybe some people do learn and grow as they get older.
Nice words.
shareI really would not say that any of Coburn's films are pro violence. Even the 'Magnificent' Seven in which at the end, everyone who survives realizes how little they gained.
"Stupid friends are dangerous"
But what I learned of course is that the woman in the trunk used the gun to save her life, by all accounts "violence", but surely you would not deny her the right to save her life?
shareCoburn's character left home at sixteen (forging his mother's signature) so he could go to war. During the war, he presumably kills more than his share of the enemy--we see two or three of these on screen in flashbacks, and he later tells the priest that he has killed many people, some of them with his bare hands. He also doesn't seem to be particularly phased by the stories he collects.
From this I conclude that the character isn't anti-violence, so much as he is anti-killing-the-wrong-people. I'm curious as to what you see here that is anti-violence in tone?