We all recognize this phrase as the opening sentence to a tasteless joke, frequently involving a confused bartender who inspires the punch line by asking a “why” question towards the protagonist. In this case, it is not a humorous anecdote, but rather the climactic, slowly developed, long-awaited, gun-slinging showdown of two classic westerns–Shane (1953) and Unforgiven (1992).
Ending aside, the films share a few other similarities, such as pleasantly surprising critics at the time of their release. Bosley Crowther reviewed George Stevens’ Shane for the New York Times on April of 1953 and said “With ‘High Noon’ so lately among us, it scarcely seems possible that the screen should so soon again come up with another great Western film.” Nearly 40 years later, the Western had become a lost art, so when director/star Clint Eastwood created his masterpiece, Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times exclaimed, “The Western is back with a vengeance. Saddle up or get out of the way.”
They also have outstanding supporting actors playing the villain role. In Shane, Jack Palance gives an Academy Award- nominated performance with a minimal amount of screen time. He managed to portray one of the coolest characters I have ever seen on screen, Jack Wilson. With his black hat, long skinny frame, creepy smile, and skeleton-like face, he stands out from the other characters in the picture and holds a bad-ass reputation unlike anyone else as well. In Unforgiven, Gene Hackman won the Academy Award for his role as Little Bill Daggett; a role in which he had to be talked into and had such little faith in that he didn’t want his name in the credits.
The build-up to the action-packed finale doesn’t start or stop with having just a great antagonist. Both protagonists, Shane (Alan Ladd) and William Munny (Eastwood), have an interesting history/reputation of their own. Both attempt to quit the life they once led until an external factor forces them to realize what they really are.
The word Shane is of Hebrew/Irish origin and means “Gift from God.” And that’s what he was to the homesteaders, fighting a battle for them that they were incapable of winning. He tried to live life without a gun around his waist but it was short lived. The surname Munny is a play on words because all William cared about was having MONEY for his children. He also tried to live a regular life but just wasn’t any good at it. We see that in the film’s opening when he builds a lousy rocking chair that breaks once he parks his rear in it.
Throughout the films we acquire a verbal history of their past lives but never witness the characters in action. There are fisticuffs and shooting at rocks in Shane, and William Munny kills a man with a rifle from a long distance but feels bad about it, but the true characters do not reveal themselves until they walk into a bar. By then the anticipation has mounted immensely over a two-hour span. We are ready to walk into that bar as well and watch them become everything we knew they could be.
But after all the patient waiting, these two movies wouldn’t dare disappoint. The stakes are raised as the hero’s walk into a stacked deck of guns alongside our super-cool, quick-on-the-draw, gun-fighting antagonists and blow them all away.
These scenes have a powerful effect and leave the audience on an adrenaline high. I wish more filmmakers today concentrated on developing story, building intrigue, and creating a character’s legendary status, instead of using a pre-sold franchise with expensive special effects (Die Hard 5) that lacks story and emotional attachment to the character. Maybe we need more guys to walk into a bar.
Craig is an avid moviegoer and aspiring screenwriter with Bachelor degrees in both Cinema and English.