War in The Outlaw Josey Wales

I have for years thought that I needed to catch up with The Outlaw Josey Wales... but it turns out I have seen it. I don't know how long ago, but I distinctly remembered almost every scene, and knew the general outline of what was going to happen next. I also remembered that I didn't think much of the film, that it seemed a pretty standard Western story (which probably meant that I saw it when I was much younger as well, as this story isn't especially common.)

I have to say that I'm really glad that I watched it again because it has certainly gone up in my estimation in this viewing.

Clint plays the title character who finds himself in the middle of the Civil War after a Union troop destroys his house, rapes and kidnaps his wife and kills his son. When the war finishes and he finds himself on the losing side, he cannot pledge allegiance to the Union, and finds himself an outlaw, being chased across the land, from Missouri to Texas.

But my question about this film comes in the short introduction that Clint, in his current aged appearance, makes to the film. He says that it is "about the destructiveness of war"... which puzzled me. There is a brief war montage at the beginning of the film, but almost all of the film takes place in the aftermath of the Civil War. I believe the director, so it caused me to reconsider what this film was really about. Suppose it was all about war, how would it be read?

First, the situation comes as a result of war. Clint's family is killed and he is thirsty for revenge because a group of men was given licence to ravage uncontrollably, which really would happen only in wartime. The betrayal of his men comes from the hatred and distrust of even honorable men that occurs in wartime. Clint is declared an outlaw because he refused to put the war behind him. Everywhere he went the bodies stacked up because no matter where he was the war followed him. Even though many had put the war behind them, he didn't because his thirst for revenge hadn't been fulfilled, and there were many who wanted to take revenge on him. The large price on his head was also an aftermath of the war, in which war crimes were overlooked (or even rewarded with promotions). Because of this continuing war, Clint could never settle down, never relax, never create a new homestead.

There are signs of peace between individuals. Hatreds can be set aside between individuals, and battles can be agreed to be avoided between individual leaders. But this cannot happen, it is agreed, between governments. Governments must fight and kill the innocent because they have no choice. [spoiler]At the end, the man whom Clint thought betrayed him declared his peace, saying, "The war is over." But this is only because the government's official records declared the outlaw dead. War can only end in the face of a lie. [/spoiler]

How does this fit into Clint Eastwood's filmography and politics? I think it is clear that Clint supports the individual right of violence, but opposes any institutional violence. Institutional violence kills too many innocents, ruins the independent nuclear family/homestead ideal, and destroys lives long past the war's cessation. Clint is close to a libertarian, seeing government as a largely malevolent force, creating a context in which the individual is forced to be an outlaw to survive.

While the ethics and politics I might question (especially any support of redemptive violence), I think that this film presents such an ideal in a marvelous way. It is often subtle, and the brutality of the story is often softened by the beauty of the landscape, not unlike The Searchers. The cinematography and pacing is certainly reflective of Leone's influence, although Eastwood doesn't have the patience of Leone to really develop an intense suspense. This film is about as close as I've seen Eastwood get to an epic film, in both theme and size of landscape. 

Sanjuro and the Man With No Name

The "Man With No Name" Series, a.k.a. the "Dollars" films:

Yojimbo (1961, Kurosawa)

Sanjuro (1962, Kurosawa)

A Fistful of Dollars (1964, Leone)

For a Few Dollars More (1965, Leone)

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966, Leone)

Many people know that A Fistful of Dollars was a remake of Kurosawa's Yojimbo.  The plot goes pretty much scene for scene from the original, although Eastwood plays a slightly different hero than does Mifune. For a Few Dollars More may have borrowed some elements from the Japanese sequel, Sanjuro, but it is quite different.  For a Few Dollars more takes the character of the Man with No Name in a certain direction-- he has a sense of humor, but Eastwood is certainly for sale. By the time that trilogy ends, his morality is determined by the Almighty Dollar.

In Sanjuro, the character becomes more moral, taking on the cause of the underdog, even offering to sacrifice himself and proves himself wise in the arena of politics with a military twist. As per usual, the Man with No Name (who names himself "30-year Camellia" on a lark) arrives in a town split by violent factions. In this case, one faction is behind truth and justice and the other is not. As usual, our anti-hero gets involved, and his methods are... unusual. At the very least, unexpected. The "good" faction are often fighting about whether to listen to the man.

What is most unique in this film is the insertion of a female, even gentle, point of view. Recognizing Mifune as a "glinting sword" an older woman recommends that he would be better off as "a sword in a sheath." We find our anti hero questioning himself, even making errors, because of his excessive violence and self-assurance.

I love Mifune's take of this character, at one point lazy, another yelling, another deeply considering as he rubs his face.  So full of life and joy.  I am really beginning to appreciate the appearances of Tatsuya Nakadai, here as Mifune's counterpart on the corrupt side of the equation.  This is the one place where I can see a similarity between Sanjuro and For a Few Dollars More-- in the uncomfortable camaraderie of equals.  That aspect truly enriches both films, although it is minor in Sanjuro.

One of the fascinating aspects of Sanjuro, which is also played with in Harakiri, is the facade of dishonor, even betrayal, for the sake of loyalty and honor.  The nine young samurai are often discussing whether Mifune is simply unorthodox in his approach to nobility, or is actually ignoble. This aspect makes this film more true to real life, for there are many people in which the appearance of disloyalty is the same as disloyalty, as if a criticism of a nation is equal to a lack of patriotism.  "The proof is in the pudding", so to speak.

Should actually be titled
"The Bad, the Bad and the Bad"

Although out of the whole series, I find For a Few Dollars More the more entertaining ride, I find Sanjuro to be both funny and introspective, both filled with action and a call to gentleness. If Tarantino would ever get off of his revenge kick, I'd love to see him do a remake of this classic film.

For the record, I consider The Good, the Bad and the Ugly the worst of the five films. I dislike the depths of selfishness the Eastwood character goes to and the development of that character as a money-grubbing criminal.  Obviously I don't have a problem with immoral characters (see my review of Sword of Doom), but I find that the Man With No Name isn't very smart in this last film.  Sigh.  Oh well.