Did I miss it. Why was there a bounty on Rose and her father.
shareI think it had to do with her father pushing the uncle & killing him. That's the only thing I can think of. Which I don't know why she had a bounty on her, unless I missed something as well.
shareYes, they were blamed for the death of the wealthy dude.
shareI doubt if a killing in Scotland would have created a bounty on people in America during that time period. Maybe.
But it doesn't really matter. The bounty was just the "MacGuffin" in the movie. Without that, there would not have been much of a plot, other than a boy looking for his lost love.
Look up the term, if you aren't familiar with it. It's a device commonly used in films.
Which means he would have known about the bounty the whole time.
It needs a lot of work but could be a great movie!
No. Rose, her father and Jay all assumed the crime would not be followed up outside of Britain.
shareWhether it would be a crime at all is one question (Ross is defending his daughter when he hits Cavendish and Jay and other witnesses can confirm the death was accident at an inquest); if it was deemed a crime it would probably be manslaughter or even just assault.
More important, in 1870 there were transatlantic telegraph cables. If it was known which ship Ross and Rose were on the authorities in its destination port could be told to hold them when they arrive. Even if the exact port wasn't known it would be possible to inform all ports.
They could always use different names. Plus the US and Canada both were populated by other immigrants who hated Britain's guts and would turn a blind eye to turning anyone in. Also the police in major eastern cities were corrupt and did nothing unless they were paid off.
You saw the outlaw saying he made a fake wanted poster? How were you supposed to recognize a real reward from a fake one. Back then and even in recent years rewards are offered by people and groups who don't pay off later.
I don't know everything. Neither does anyone else
It'd be the immigration department, not the police that would deal with them. There's a reward for them, so the police would be paid off if they were involved. Descriptions would deal with any false names (that's how Crippen was caught, though that was via radio). An officially notified reward would be more effective than a wanted poster anyway - indeed, if wanted posters are so unconvincing why is everyone chasing after Ross and Rose?
Above all, though, there's no need to run. An unfortunate accident by a man protecting his daughter with a lot of witnesses. The Coroner's jury probably wouldn't even leave the box before recording accidental death.
There were no immigration departments in 1870. They are being chased because this is a movie and not a very realistic one.
You gave no concept of what life was like in Ireland under the English. I read up the various Lord Hawarden;s who ruled part of Tipperary. A priest Father Nicholas Sheedy was accused of treason for speaking out against the penal laws. For this Hawarden and a jury of his friends had Sheedy hung, drawn and quartered at Clonmel. His death was stuck on a spike as a warning to the Catholics. His sister came for years until they finally left her have her brother's head to take home and bury.
During the Potato Famine which last about three years upwards of 1/3 of the population died. People died where they fell and were eaten by wild dogs. An American raised money and sailed his own ship to Ireland loaded with food. The British refused to let him land.
There are documents where the English officials plainly stated they wanted as many Irish to die as possible. I read many years ago of research done on which British army detachments were stationed in Ireland. They guarded wholesale food shipments to ports where the crops and meat were sent to England. He listed the manifests
You are so full of ignorant crap,
What does what you say you read about "Ireland under the English" have to with a film with no Irish characters set in Scotland and the USA in 1870?
shareEveryone kept stumbling around about the accent on the second main character. He plainly stated his father died in IRELAND and his mother later died in CANADA where a great many Irish famine victims fled. In 1870 he would have been of an age to have been one of those who left or were forced out by the English. That means most of his adult life was spent on this side of the Atlantic so his original accent faded. He was not from Scotland.
Incidentally, Northern Ireland is still controlled by the Scots-Irish who are protestants. These were lowland Scots sent to Ireland by the English to plant their heel on the Catholics. They were given Irish property which was seized and given to them. They are called Scots Irish because they were born in Ireland but are Scots by descent. When I say they are lowland Scots it means they don't go around wearing kilts like highlanders. They lived along the Scottish border with England and are more like the English/
Once more. THE SECOND MAIN CHARACTER WAS AN IMMIGRANT FROM IRELAND NOT SCOTLAND.
I don't know everything. Neither does anyone else
However, John Maclean http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/interviews/slow-west-i-wanted-make-film-about-desperation says Jay's Scottish. If Jay was already living in Canada he wouldn't need to buy a guide to Canada.
Lowland Scots don't come from the Borders - the people there are the Borderers, as you might expect - but from the Midland Valley, the area around Glasgow and Edinburgh. The Plantation was carried out by James VI and I in his role of King of Scotland.
Most protestant emigration was in the eighteenth century, whereas many more roman catholics left in the nineteenth. Northern Ireland wasn't much affected by the famine - that was mainly in the Gaelic-speaking West. One of the reasons the famine was so much worse there was because there was a steadily increasing population dependent on one crop. Arthur Young, for example, saw the likelihood of something like that happening in the eighteenth century.
I realize Jay was a newcomer from Scotland. JAY was the one who bought a guide book. I'm talking about Silas played by Fassbinder who helped him. Fassbinder was also an immigrant but had been in North America much longer than Jay.
I assumed Jay was considered the main character in this movie and that Fassbinder was considered the secondary character. The whole movie revolved around Jay's quest.
The really poor Irish grew dependent on the potato as the mainstay of their diet. The west of Ireland has an angry Atlantic ocean with high cliffs. (It finished off the Spanish Armada on its return trip to Spain. So even though there was an ocean the Irish had only very small rowed boats and hand nets and had great difficulty fishing for food. The Poor Law Unions made the Irish get rid of all assets before handing out watered down soup. They had to sell what poor means they had of catching protein sources from the sea before getting any charity.
I consider what the English did as a form of genocide. Just like the enclosure movement in Scotland and England, homes were pulled down to make sure no one could move back.
I don't know everything. Neither does anyone else
I still don't understand what you're trying to say? We know Fassbenders character was Irish. It just has nothing to do with this thread.
shareWell-noted! I thought along the same lines.
shareYou are totally in the wrong country. This film had nothing to do with Ireland. Scotland is a different country.
shareJay's father wasn't just an important man, he was a lord. He was 'something or other'in line for the crown. Accident or no, Rose's father would have the full force of the govt trying to bring him to justice.
shareI liked the movie, but quite frankly this particular script device, to enable a plethora of bounty hunters to be introduced, was ridiculous. As if a Scottish father and daughter would have a $2000.00 bounty on their heads in (the middle of nowhere) frontier USA (a fortune in those times) for the dad being involved in the accidental death/possible manslaughter of Jay's uncler, who we were told was a Scottish peer (just to ramp things up a bit). On top of that, Rose wasn't directly involved at all anyway.
Much as I like it, it's a short film both in length and at times logic.🐭
The film was about injustice, lawlessness and luck/bad luck.
Many bounties were incorrectly applied, or were offered outside the law. The Scottish family could have sought their apprehension to stand trial, or they could have been tried in absentia.
The 'west'. which was often the midwestern states in those years, was in anarchy and filled with aimless outlaws and ruthless ruthless hunters.
And remember that this is a Scottish film. We love our Nessie, but anyone who is not Scottish will never understand how we think about it. Never take a Scottish film or book for what it seems to be. :-)
And remember that this is a Scottish film.Actually a UK/ New Zealand co-production. Nessie (??) has arguably as much influence on the film, as a flock of the finest NZ sheep.
... anyone who is not Scottish will never understand how we think about it.So only haggis - eaters will understand Slow West? LOL! I quite liked it, though I thought it was a little short on logic at times.🐭 share