Which is a shame because after an admittedly slow laborious first third, the film kicks on from the moment the Kiowa Indian's turn up asking for the return of their kin. The film is gorgeous to look at (Franz Planer shooting out of Durango, Mexico) and benefits from some sterling performances from those involved. Big bad Burt Lancaster broods as the big brother, and it was wonderful to see Audrey Hepburn playing a down to earth character, no glam and glitter here; in fact it was kind of special watching her with rifle in hands firing away. The ending took me a little by surprise (but in a good way), and I was fully satisfied that I had just watched an involving and entertaining genre piece. If Huston did indeed consider this one of his worst films then I look forward to catching many more of his misfires. 7/10
Add a Review
-
hitchcockthelegend1 October 2010
-
jpdoherty2 February 2010Released through United Artists THE UNFORGIVEN (1960) is an engaging drama set on the Texas Panhandle of the American west. Nicely photographed in Panavision and colour by Franz Planer it was skillfully directed by John Huston, who it has to be said, was something of a stranger when it came to directing westerns. Written for the screen by Ben Maddow it was based on the novel by prolific western writer Alan LeMay ("The Searchers"). Burt Lancaster not only headed a fine cast but he was also producer of the project with his partners Ben Hecht and James Hill.
Lancaster is Ben Zachary the inscrutable and patriarchal elder son of the Zachary family who are raising cattle on their barren land. Together with his two brothers Cash (Audie Murphy), Andy (Doug McClure) and his partner Zeb Rawlins (Charles Bickford) they are preparing to drive their herd to market. Then, appearing out of the blue one day comes an old sword wielding saddle tramp (James Wiseman) who begins to spread the story that the Zachary brothers sister Rachel (Audrey Hepburn) is in reality an Indian who was adopted by Ma Zachery (Lillian Gish) as an infant. On learning this the local Kiowa tribe want her returned to them resulting in the Zachary's unbridled resistance leading to an all out battle to the death.
Performances generally are excellent throughout! Lancaster as usual is superb and gives a perfectly measured portrayal of the man left with all the decisions. Audrey Hepburn in the most unusual role of her career is also excellent though her London accent does sneak out now and then. But the surprise performance comes from Audie Murphy who, eschewing his matinée B picture cowboy image is quite amazing as the Indian hating brother ("hellfire Ben we can kill them before breakfast"). This was the actor's second best ever performance! The other being his brilliant portrayal as the young troubled Yankee trooper in "The Red Badge Of Courage" (1951) which was also directed by his director here - John Huston. Also notable is the appearance of Lillian Gish (1893/1993) as the mother. The female star of such great silent classics "Birth Of A Nation" and "Intolorance" is terrific as Mattilda Zachary an old woman who for years has concealed a crucial secret. But it is curious that John Saxon's striking portrayal as the half breed Johnny Portugal gets to be written out of the picture! His part looked very promising in the early stages of the movie but all of a sudden and without any reason he disappears and is never seen again.
Adding greatly to the atmosphere is the marvellous score by Dimitri Tiomkin. With an attractive and lingering main theme the piece was a minor hit in the early sixties when a cover version was recorded by piano duo Ferrante & Teicher. Also there is some exciting cues for the cattle and horse sequences and ominous music underlines the scenes for the Indian attacks on the Zachary's humble sod cabin. It is one of the composer's best scores! Unfortunately however it is not very well recorded. There is a pervading echo quality from the music throughout the picture which at times is a tad irritating. Tiomkin conducted the score in Rome with an Italian orchestra.
THE UNFORGIVEN wasn't a particularly well liked movie by critics. Even Huston himself didn't like it. But over the years it has slightly gained a cult following and gets better with each viewing. For me its high production values, its great cast, performances and its racist undertones make it a compelling movie. -
bkoganbing9 February 2007This film, The Unforgiven, as opposed to Clint Eastwood's classic is taken from a novel by Alan LeMay who also wrote The Searchers. Both stories are about the post Civil War Texas frontier. But in this one we have the Indians seeking out one of there's who's been taken by whites and raised as one of their own. The person in question is Audrey Hepburn who's been raised by Lillian Gish as her own daughter and sister to her three sons, Burt Lancaster, Audie Murphy, and Doug McClure.
It was an unwritten law of Hollywood that no one shoots a film in Monument Valley except John Ford. So John Huston made due with Durango in Mexico which had become a favorite western location site also. Huston got some good performances out of his cast although he had many problems.
Audrey Hepburn fell off a horse and was injured for a few weeks. Audie Murphy nearly drowned in a river. Topping it all off, according to a recent biography of Burt Lancaster was the fact that Lillian Gish served as a kind of back seat driver to John Huston. She was forever telling him that D.W. Griffith did this or that a different way. But apparently Ms. Gish was satisfied with the finished product because she acclaimed Huston as another Griffith when it was over.
The story really gets going when some Kiowas come knocking on Lillian Gish's door demanding Audrey Hepburn's return. When it's discovered that Hepburn in fact is an Indian, the reaction of the neighbors and some of the family is to send her back. Lancaster, Gish, and McClure aren't having it though.
The Unforgiven was butchered in the editing department. One role that was mostly left on the cutting room floor apparently was John Saxon as a halfbreed named Johnny Portugal. Standing out though is Joseph Wiseman as the crazy ex-cavalryman now turned preacher who has a hate for Audrey Hepburn. Why he does you'll have to see the film, but it's an interesting problem.
Its parts, its individual performances make The Unforgiven an uneven film where the whole is not greater than the sum of those parts. -
TheLittleSongbird23 January 2011I wasn't expecting to like The Unforgiven. Don't get me wrong I don't mind westerns and I am a fan of both Audrey Hepburn and John Huston. However, prior to seeing this film I heard a lot of negativity on it. After seeing it for myself, I think it is very underrated. It is flawed, but I do admire this film.
It does begin in a lethargic manner and I personally thought the final scene could have been better thought out. Also, despite my love for her, I was not entirely convinced by Audrey Hepburn. She is graceful, charming and elegant and I applaud her for taking on a completely different role to any other she's played, but she was never quite believable in her role, to me her accent sometimes came and went and she felt somewhat out of place.
However, it looks gorgeous with the cinematography beautiful and the scenery magnificent. The music is very rich and wonderful, the dialogue is thought-provoking and the pace in the middle I had no problem with. I was pleasantly surprised at how ambitious the story was, the subject of racism could have easily been dealt with in a heavy-handed way like in Crash, but it doesn't thanks to the construction of the story which is quite impressive and it also helps that the characters are surprisingly credible. John Huston's direction is also terrific, and the acting ensemble is very good generally. Burt Lancaster is a charismatic presence, while Audie Murphy is a sheer delight in this movie.
In conclusion, it is a good movie despite the miscast(I do say this with a heavy heart) and one or two scenes that could have been better judged. 7/10 Bethany Cox -
ma-cortes2 March 2013This splendid film is an accurate picture of post-Civil War Texas life , much as John Ford had earlier done with Alan LeMay's "The Searchers" . The neighbors of a frontier family named Zachary (Burt Lancaster , Audie Murphy , Doug McClure and their mother excellently played by Lillian Gish) turn on them when it is suspected that their adopted daughter was stolen from the local Kiawa tribe . Then , the battle between white men and Kiowas go on the warpath . Problems emerge when a secret about a mestizo results to be discovered . As a Kiowa tribe claims that the daughter (it was Audrey Hepburn's only Western) is one of their own , stolen in a raid and she will be excluded for both races .
Offbeat Western about racial intolerance focuses an enjoyable family and the dramatic deeds happen when a dark secret surfaces . It's an interesting western with exceptional interpretation from protagonist duo , Burt Lancaster and Audrey Hepburn . However , Audrey Hepburn was seriously injured when she was thrown by a horse between scenes spent six weeks in the hospital healing from a broken back, and when she returned to the set was able to complete her role wearing a back brace, John Huston blamed himself for the mishap and hated this movie, and Hepburn bore no ill will towards the director ; while Audrey was in hospital, Huston filmed scenes using a double . Furthermore , a likable Doug McClure as his kind brother , he is very fine as well as Audie Murphy as Cash, the hotheaded brother who reacts violently to learning his sister is a red skin Indian . Special mention to Lillian Gish as their affectionate mummy and Joseph Wiseman as the crazy Kelsey . The picture was well produced by Harold Hecht/James Hill/ Burt Lancaster ; they wanted to ensure its commerciality and change the film's direction , they wished to cast Kirk Douglas as Lancaster's brother, which would throw off the balance in the brothers' relationship. The first effort at a rewrite did not work and after fifty pages into the second rewrite, the original writer , J.P. Miller , quit the film and broke off his relationship with the producers and being hired Ben Maddow who wrote the script based on the novel written by Alan LeMay . Glittering and shimmer cinematography is perfectly reflected on spectacular outdoors and colorful interiors by cameraman Franz Planer , though Oswald Morris says in his memoirs he was offered this film. Emotive as well as thrilling musical score by the classic Dimitri Tiomkin .
The motion picture was compellingly directed by John Huston who saw the film as an opportunity to make a serious comment on race relations, but the company thought anything along those lines should take a back seat to making it a commercial success as action/adventure . The flick was made in a good time of the 50s and 60s when Huston resurged as a filmmaker of quality films and with the momentum in his favor, as John hung around in Hollywood this time to write and/or direct some of the finest American cinema made including The African Queen , The jungle of asphalt (1950), Red badge of courage (1951) ,Moulin Rouge (1952), Moby Dick (1956), The unforgiven (1960), Misfits (1961), Freud (1962), The night of the iguana (1964) , they were for the most part, well-regarded but certainly not close to the level of his earlier revered work . He also experimented behind-the-camera with colour effects and approached topics that most others would not even broach, including thought-provoking themes and psychoanalysis . He subsequently directed successes such as Fat City, (1972 ), The man who would be king (1975) and Wise blood (1979). He ended his career on a high note with Under volcano (1984), Honor of Prizzi (1985) and Dublineses (1987). Rating : 7'5 above average , worthwhile watching . This odd western , ¨The unforgiven¨ , is one of John Huston's main films , a model of his kind , definitely a must see if you are aficionado to Western film . Huston broke a new ground with this landmark movie , providing exciting scenes and unforgettable dialogs . -
MissSimonetta14 June 2020Well-shot and well-acted, with a solid story about racial prejudice to boot, I'm shocked THE UNFORGIVEN sports such a bad reputation today. It's hardly the best western I have ever seen, but it isn't half-bad either. The biggest problem I have with it is that Audrey Hepburn and Burt Lancaster have no chemistry to speak of, but otherwise, this is a decent movie with some heartbreaking moments.
-
r_knight29 April 2011A very mature western with big Burt at his best in this picture that takes on some very risky subjects for its time - incest and racism. It is beautifully shot under the direction of Franz Planer who really understands the romantic west. The lead Indian character is played by Carlos Rivas, surly the best looking portrayer of plains Indians ever to grace the screen.
These ingredients are augmented by a wonderful sound track by Demitri Tiomkin, including the theme tune 'The Unforgiven' that is both haunting and romantic. I have to try to pick up a copy of this beautiful tune one of these days. -
wes-connors23 May 2010In the old American West, an apocalyptic horseman startles lovely, dark-haired Audrey Hepburn (as Rachel) with some prophetic proclamations. Later, matriarchal widow Lillian Gish (as Matilda Zachary) takes aim at the old codger, but he leaves without enticing a bullet from Ms. Gish's shotgun. Gish runs her ranch with three very able bodied sons - Burt Lancaster (as Ben), Audie Murphy (as Cash), and young Doug McClure (as Andy). Ms. Hepburn is the fair-haired clan's adopted sister. As it turns out, a local Native American (Kiowa) tribe wants to right an old wrong by taking Hepburn away from her adopted family. Or else, everyone dies!
John Huston's "The Unforgiven" is a flawed, but excellent film. It does seem like some positive thesis regarding race relations - explicitly "Injuns" / implicitly others - was being attempted. But, however well-meaning the project started out, the end result is a negative. All was lost, for me, the moment Mr. Lancaster orders young Mr. McClure to make a pivotal killing. That doesn't mean the movie isn't exciting or aesthetically appealing. Hepburn's authenticity should invite no criticism; remember, she is supposed to be fooling even Mr. Murphy's keen sense of "Injun" smell; yet, she sounds too liltingly "finishing school" sophisticated for the role.
As good as he is, Lancaster doesn't really command the film's attention, either. He and Hepburn are saddled (sorry) with a love story subplot dependent upon the characters being aware they are not really brother and sister, and Hepburn being ready for action. This goes nowhere. There are several other great performers in the cast, but the film belongs to the "Zachary" family members. McClure as Lancaster's wide-eyed younger brother is nicely cast. But, the real energy comes from the characters played by Gish and Murphy; both have a couple of great cinematic moments, though, like others involved here, they had off-screen problems during the filming.
******* The Unforgiven (4/6/60) John Huston ~ Burt Lancaster, Audrey Hepburn, Lillian Gish, Audie Murphy -
jones3812 December 2006This classic film from one of the greatest directors of the 20th century boasts an incredible cast: Audrey Hepburn, Lillian Gish (silent films), Burt Lancaster, Audie Murphy (war hero), a young Doug McClure, all of whom show classic acting at its finest. Go beneath the dialogue and watch the body movements, facial expressions and withheld, unspoken emotion of these superb actors (esp Gish and Lancaster). Check out the incredible performance of the wraith-like, howling itinerant evangelist (Joseph Wiseman) who seems to know the "secret". The score by Dmitri Tiomkin is terrific, with a minimum of Hollywood-style Native American drumming (and flute playing. Indeed, the music played by the Kiowas during the "break" was fascinating. Although the story is set in 1800s Texas panhandle, the theme is universal and hard-hitting: racism, and a family divided by their differing views. I found the portrayal of the Kiowa culture to be accurate, esp the use of costumes and rituals. Remember, this film was made in 1960, a time when racial intolerance was rarely put on film, and the fair presentation of Native Americans was almost non-existent. Indeed, this is why Huston wanted this project. Remarkably, this film is NOT pro-Indian or pro-settler, rather it's an honest depiction of a clash of cultures. My only disappointment, a minor one, was that the film ended rather abruptly for my taste, almost as if they ran out of film. But then again, I'm not a director! I found interesting background on the making of this film at dvdverdict.com
-
JamesHitchcock15 January 2014"The Unforgiven" is based upon a novel by Alan Le May, who also wrote "The Searchers", and in one respect the two films can be seen as mirror- images of one another. "The Searchers" deals with a young white girl who is kidnapped by Comanche Indians and brought up as a member of their tribe. "The Unforgiven" deals with a Native American girl adopted by a white family. Both women have much stronger loyalties and emotional ties to their adoptive kin than they do to their blood relations.
Rachel Zachary is a young woman living with her family in Texas. (The film was actually shot in Mexico). Her life is turned upside-down when a half-crazed old man, Abe Kelsey, arrives in the area, claiming that she is an Indian, much to Rachel's dismay; she knows that she is adopted but has always believed herself to be white. Abe is known to have quarrelled with Rachel's late father Will, and has a long-standing grudge against the family, so his allegations are dismissed by Rachel's three adoptive brothers, Ben, Cash and Andy, and their mother Matilda. These allegations, however, are believed by the local Kiowa Indians whose chief, Lost Bird, believes Rachel to be his long-lost sister and, increasingly, by other white people in the area whose bitter racism against Native Americans also extends to anyone they suspect of having Indian blood. Eventually, Matilda is forced to admit that Abe's story is the truth and that Rachel is indeed a Kiowa, saved and adopted by her late husband as a baby after her parents were killed in a massacre.
Audrey Hepburn was an unusual choice to play Rachel; she was not an actress associated with Westerns (this was her only one) and she is not convincing as a Native American. The film-makers, however, clearly wanted an established star in the role, which would have ruled out casting any actress of American Indian blood, and as the plot involves a romantic attraction between Rachel and Ben casting a white actress might have eased any possible problems with the Production Code. (The Code still officially banned mixed-race on-screen romances, although this tended to be overlooked if the non-white character was played by a white actress). Audrey herself may have been attracted to the movie by her own experiences of racism (she lived through the Nazi occupation of Holland) and by a desire to expand her range as an actress. Although she is best remembered today for light-hearted romantic comedies she was always anxious not to be typecast and, throughout her career, tended to alternate between this sort of film and more serious fare, appearing in the likes of "War and Peace", "The Nun's Story" and "The Children's Hour". In the event, she did not enjoy making "The Unforgiven", especially after she was injured falling from a horse, which perhaps explains why she never made another Western. She recovered from her injuries, however, and returned to the screen the following year with "Breakfast at Tiffany's", perhaps her greatest performance.
Burt Lancaster was another actor who struggled successfully against typecasting, in his case as the hero of films noirs or of swashbuckling action-adventure movies, and by 1960 was starting to appear in the sort of serious, thoughtful roles which were to become his trademark in the latter part of his career. He gives the best performance in this film as Ben Zachary, the eldest of the three brothers, and a man torn between his instinctive honesty and his desire not to believe the unwelcome truth about his adoptive sister which, if generally known, would make the family pariahs in the eyes of their racist neighbours.
The director John Huston is said to have described this as his least satisfying film, something which has always surprised me as he made a number of films far worse than this one, such as the tedious "The Bible" or the lame Bond spoof "Casino Royale". (Not everything Huston made was a "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" or a "Red Badge of Courage"). Much of his dissatisfaction seems to have stemmed from a dispute between him and the production company. Huston wanted to make a serious statement about racism in the Old West (and, by extension, in modern America), whereas the studio wanted a more conventional action Western, which they felt would be both more commercial and less controversial. The resulting compromise seems to have pleased neither party.
That does not mean, however, that it should not please the viewer. "The Unforgiven" is in many ways an exciting film, although not in the conventional action-adventure sense. Some of the action sequences, such as the Indian attack on the Zachary homestead, seem a bit too protracted. (And were the Indians such poor military tacticians as to waste so many lives attacking unimportant objectives? Lost Bird seems to have sacrificed around thirty of his best warriors in this assault). The excitement, rather, derives from the interaction of the various characters, the interaction between Abe, who is about to be hanged for horse-stealing, and Matilda, as she desperately tries to get him to admit that what he has said about her daughter is a lie, is almost unbearably tense. And despite Huston's reservations the film does have something significant to say about race relations; the position of people like Rachel, Indian by blood but white by culture, is something rarely explored in Westerns. This is an unusual Western, but a good one. 7/10 -
stuartdbond-919-6625862 February 2019Not a usual one for these but, having caught it on a TCM matinee, and remembering and enjoying as a child, decided to watch again. Wish I had not. How can you go wrong with Lancaster and Hepburn as your leads in a strong moral tale from 1960, but is it? Synopsis, Man old enough to be her father (Burt), having grown up with her as a sister (Audrey) his entire life ultimately wishes to marry her. So devoted to his lust/love he will wreck his families relationship with lifelong friends, endanger his own family, force his child brother to commit murder in order to prove loyalty to his family, refuse to even allow a reasonable request from a brother to meet his natural sister, allow his mother to knowingly hang a truthful man, affect his "sister" that she developed Stockholm syndrome and kills her own natural brother to prove loyal. *Gasps for breath* Know I am left wondering is he the hero of the piece? Should have consigned to my past. On the plus side The Searchers rocks.
-
aimless-4624 January 2006Not to be confused with Clint Eastwood's 1992 film "Unforgiven", "THE Unforgiven" is a 1960 John Huston film that is almost worthy of joining Eastwood's as one of the top ten westerns of all-time. That it falls slightly short of that status could be because Huston withdrew from the project in post-production, after the studio insisted on toning down his message of racial tolerance to give the film more commercial appeal. Although this tampering tends to cloud his political message, it is still there if you do conduct a little analysis. "The Unforgiven" does lay claim to the distinction of being the most ambitious western of all time.
Based on an Alan LeMay novel, as was John Ford's "The Searchers", "The Unforgiven" presents the flip side of the search for a missing sister. Here it is an Indian looking for his sister who was abducted as a baby by a white man and then adopted by his family. The obvious complaint is that the Indians are the villains in both films, by a kind of damned if you do-damned if you don't logic. But there is a distinction as the little girl in "The Searchers" was abducted when she was nine years old and she retained a desire to be reunited with her white family. The girl in "The Unforgiven", Rachel (played by Audrey Hepburn), has only known her adopted family.
John Huston once said that a good story should have "excitement, color, spectacle and humor, adventure, high drama, tragedy, good conversation, truth and irony". Even the studio version of "The Unforgiven" does a pretty good job of bringing all these elements to the screen. The most obvious sign of studio tampering is the inconsistency in John Saxon's character (Johnny Portugal), a half-breed who is often harassed by the local cowboys and is meticulously set up to be Ben's (Burt Lancaster) rival for Rachel's affections. But Portugal mysteriously disappears from the film by the half-way point and there is no attempt to resolve his situation with Ben and Rachel.
Ben is the eldest son of a ranching family. Audie Murphy is the middle brother Cash. Doug McClure is Andy, the youngest brother. Lillian Gish is their mother Mattilda. Since their father's murder by the Kiowas Murphy has been a violent racist.
The film's title refers to the attitude of Abe Kelsey (Joseph Wiseman-later to play Dr. No), a bearded half-crazy avenger who has tormented the family for many years, ever since his son was abducted by the Indians and Ben's father refused to trade Rachel for Abe's son. The twist is that only Wiseman and Gish know that Rachel's biological parents were Indians, everyone else (including Rachel) believes that she was the only survivor of a massacred settler family.
Rachel has grown up to be a loving and happy young woman. Huston's intention is to demonstrate that one race is not inferior to another; that while cultural differences are very real, there is no biological reason for racism. When Rachel's actual parentage is revealed it divides the family; Cash leaves to go on a wild bender, the other two brothers distance themselves from Rachel and she from them, and the surrounding settlers shun the family.
One scene is absolutely riveting, Rachel is comforting the mother (played by June Walker) of the boy she was to marry. Walker slowly looks up at her and then suddenly goes absolutely ballistic. Hepburn's stunned reaction appears to be absolutely genuine, as if Huston had altered the script and not told her about the change.
Interestingly, the climax actually occurs just after this and before the final shoot-out. The Indians come to the homestead to take Rachel. She attempts to join them, reasoning that they will spare her family once they have her. Ben physically restrains her and has Andy shoot one of Indians, rendering Rachel's intended sacrifice useless because the Indians will now attack to avenge the killing. But more important, this demonstrates to Rachel that they still consider her their sister, the first sign of this since everyone learned of her Indian parentage.
You can quibble that Hepburn is physically miscast, at a minimum they should have made her hair darker, but the story requires that the character look "non-Indian" as she has been successfully passing for a white girl for many years. Watch for the scene where she is on the corral fence watching the cowboys break horses. She simply glows in this shot. How ironic that someone who was so closely associated with high fashion and glamor would look her most beautiful as a dusty tomboy and a dirty-faced flower girl.
My only real criticism of the film is the moronic nature of the final shootout. There was no need for a war party, a handful of Indians would have been better. Otherwise this is a thoughtful and entertaining story that moves along briskly as Huston nicely crafts a number of rounded characters. He utilizes a variety of camera angles and positions, which enhance the story without drawing attention to the technique. Lancaster is excellent as man of character and conviction who manages to convey the conflict between brotherly love for his adopted little sister and the growing sexual attraction between them. Gish is amazing and Murphy turned in the best performance of the whole ensemble, playing against type and showing an unexpected range..
Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. -
Tweekums2 June 2012Rachel Zachary is the adopted brother of Ben, Cash and Andy; their late father rescued her after the local Kiowa Indians killed her parents; at least that is what they all believe. Things change after a strange old man, armed with a sabre turns up; soon afterwards a small group of Kiowa turn up at the house and demand that the family give Rachel to then; claiming that she was kidnapped from their tribe. They are shocked to hear such a suggestion and deny it but others who live nearby start treating the family differently. In order to find out what the old man's part in it was they ride out and capture him; he claims that what the Kiowa said was true; he'd been part of a raid on an Indian village where the Zachary's father took the baby. Shunned by everybody they return home and the mother admits the truth of the story; Cash can't take the idea of having an Indian sister so leaves. Not long afterwards the Kiowa return and a battle ensues; ultimately Rachel must decide whether to return to the tribe with her real brother or stay with the adoptive brothers she has known all her life.
This was an interesting western; I thought it was well acted although I couldn't buy for one minute that Audrey Hepburn could be a Native American... which was a bit of a problem given that she was meant to be a full-blooded Kiowa! Burt Lancaster did a fine job as her older brother and Audie Murphy was good as Cash... although personally I found him more entertaining in various B-Westerns I've seen. The action was well directed and exciting; especially the prolonged confrontation at the end. Taken as a piece of entertainment it was good enough but I must say I found the racial politics highly suspect; I felt we were meant to sympathise with the white family as they fought to keep their adopted sister rather that to side with the tribe she was kidnapped from... even after the family start the conflict by murdering a Kiowa when they came in peace to talk! Overall I'd say it is worth watching if you are a fan of the genre although rather sit down and watch a cheap B-western personally! -
mallaverack15 April 2020A sufficient number of reviews here have identified characters and outlined the plot so I will not comment further. My main beef is that the over-acting by several members of the cast is really embarrassing. Did Huston really want to portray his characters as half-wits? Some here have commented on the acting performance of Lillian Gish. From the very outset it was just so difficult to take her seriously when her painted white face made her look like a character from a zombie movie. Truly awful.
The music also tended to be over the top and dominated far too regularly. Four stars is generous. Plenty of viewers will find too many characters annoying. No wonder Huston wanted to disown this effort. -
elevenangrymen2 January 2013The Zachary's are a proud family of five on the Kansas frontier. Mattilda is their mother, and she rests easy. Ben is the eldest son, he is charming, and well respected within the community. Rachel is his adopted sister, who is carefree. Cash is quick and easily made angry. Andy is still a boy, yearning to experience manhood. Their father was murdered in a Kiowa raid, so they hold a grudge against the tribe. One day, Rachel sees an old one eyed man, who stares at her peculiarly.
When the man visits her home, her mother picks up a shotgun, and threatens to kill him. She doesn't, and in no time, her brother Ben comes home from a cattle drive to Wichita. They hold a dinner for a neighboring family, and Ben's partner in the cattle drive. Flirtations abound, and Charlie Rawlins, a neighbor, asks Ben permission to date Rachel. He begrudgingly agrees, as he loves his sister.
Then one day, a local Kiowa tribe shows up on the Zachary's doorstep, claiming that Rachel is one of their tribe. The racist town quickly begins to turn against the Zachary's, and even the family itself begins to question their loyalties.
As you read above, the film had a tough time making it through production, and Huston and Lancaster were constantly at odds. One meant for the film to be a straight up western, while the other meant to make a serious commentary on racial relations in America. Obviously their visions clashed. This could have made for a very interesting hybrid, but unfortunately, it was Lancaster's vision that reigned supreme, and the film was a pretty ordinary western, stylistically.
I do wish that Huston could have had his way with the film, and created something different. However, some of Huston's vision still remains. These parts feel stylistically different from the rest of the film, which made the film a little muddled. However, it is still an interesting film.
I am a big Hepburn fan, and this was a very interesting performance. She gave her typical charm in the first half, but in the second half she showed her shame, and confusion at her circumstances. It reminded me of a similar performance in The Nun's Story. Lancaster has always been an interesting actor, at least for me. At his best, he shows man ferociously in love with his sister, and yet ashamed of her roots. At his worst, well, he is stilted and his delivery feels forced. Thankfully, he is at his best for most of the film, especially during the thrilling climax.
War veteran Audie Murphy gives the best performance of the film, however. Cash is a force of nature, his blithe hatred of the "injun" runs deep. He is the most fully realized character in the film. Lillian Gish is good as well, and her performance reminds me of her similar character in The Night Of The Hunter. The cinematography perfectly captures the sun-baked landscape of the west, as most westerns do. I found nothing particularly special in the way it was shot, nor in its overall look.
The score is over the top on strings in the way all Tiomkin scores are. It is unmemorable to say the least. Huston's direction is good, but I feel as if he was holding back a little. The film was certainly ambitious, for a western at the time, and I cant help but feel as if the film had great potential, but it wasn't carried out in the way it should have been. I really do wish that Huston could have had his way, it would have made a much more interesting film.
There are of course two things that some may find shocking. For one, Ben's love for Rachel. It goes farther than brotherly love. I understand that they are adopted siblings, but I find it shocking that this kind of taboo subject was seemingly okay in 1960. Still, that was the year of Psycho...
The other concern of mine applies not only to this film, but most westerns of the period as well. The racism is so rampant and seemingly accepted, that I felt incredibly sorry for the native Americans who are killed because one of them wants to see his sister. Indeed the prejudice is so shocking, that it even surpasses The Searchers, which is incredibly racist as well. I don't want to seem all PC, but at points it can be shocking. Cash threatens his sister, whom he loved and grew up with and knew all his life, just because of her origins.
I do wonder what the title has to do with the film. Who is The Unforgiven, is it Rachel, can she not be forgiven because of her roots? Is it the town, for rejecting a respected member just because she was born of native American parents? Is it Ben, for wanting his adopted sister? I guess given the date and context, the first explanation is the one that is most applicable. Or perhaps they just thought the title sounded really cool (it does).
Anyways, I am not saying the film is bad. It is quite watchable, even entertaining. It is suitably dramatic, at points and light at other. The climactic shootout and the first hour are a bit too long, but it gives you time to meet the characters. It may not be Huston's best film, but it is interesting enough to hold your attention for 121 minutes. It sounds like a failure, but it feels like what it is: a western.
The Unforgiven, 1960, Starring: Burt Lancaster, Audrey Hepburn and Audie Murphy Directed by John Huston 7/10 (B)
This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review ever John Huston movie. You can view this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/) -
Jeliosjelios30 January 2014The unforgiven is a nice movie, western. That is a good story which find in this movie a good adaptation for the cinema. This story is about a Indian woman who live since she was baby with a white farmer and cattle and horse breeder family. and naturally with the impulse and the coming of an old man who know the true, the Indian Kiowa want to rehabilitate the girl.
The story is the opposite (inverse), contrary of the searchers (1956) with John Wayne and Nathalie Wood.
In the unforgiven the girl make a different choice for the issue of the story. The story is good because the mystery and a little suspense appear, and it is on the top with the Indians.
One of assets in the unforgiven is the photography. We have beautiful pictures in this film.
And we find a great Audrey Hepburn, who give something magic and mysterious anytime she is on the screen.
A nice western to see.
jelios jelios@hotmail.fr -
Jos.Rock23 June 2007In many respects "The Unforgiven" is a dreadfully stereotypical 1950's western. Forty Indians attack, hundreds are killed, and forty ride off (sadly, this would have represented most of the able-bodied warriors in the Kiowa tribe at the time this film is supposed to have occurred). Most seem to be played by Italians. Values are again stereotypical, but the film has aged in a rather unusual way: the lead characters, who were written and directed to be sympathetic and largely admirable people, are changed in the light of modern values into the role of antiheroes. Lillian Gish, here recast in her "Night of The Hunter" role of a shotgun-toting grandma, has hidden a dark secret, allowed innocents to die in her efforts to preserve it, and won't reveal it even to her daughter until impelled by her entire family. It is a lie that poisons her life and that of her family for years. She is cast as virtuous for keeping that secret, but clearly, she would have had a better hope of happiness if she had not kept the lie. Burt Lancaster here reprises Gregory Peck's role of a strong but obsessed cowhand in "Duel in the Sun" (a film that also starred Lillian Gish, with a role for Walter Huston), this time with his obsession focused on Audrey Hepburn but bottled up even tighter. His madness and his moral vacancy is revealed when he threatens to kill men for saying something that he knows may be both true and important, and still more when he kills an Indian under a flag of truce because he would rather die with Audrey than surrender her to her birth family. Audrey, finally, surrenders her nobility when she starts to kill her family, starting with attacking warriors and ending with her own brother, who has braved death several times just to meet her, and has never raised a hand against her. He, the only heroic character in the film, never speaks to her. I could go on to discuss the gaping character flaws in some other characters - played by Audie Murphy and Charles Bickford - or the sparks of nobility seen in the tortured villain Kelsey, played by the early television star Joseph Wiseman - but the pattern is clear; Huston, aided by the passage of time and the recasting of social values, has turned virtue and vice around in this film until the stars are all antiheroes.
-
When I first became aware of the cast list (Lancaster, Gish, Hepburn, Murphy, Bickman, Wiseman) & the director (the great John Huston) for this movie, I just knew it was going to be a great Western, but I was sadly disappointed. The acting is good, no doubt about it, & the direction is fair, but there are a few things that go too far astray here. I mean, really, could you fall in love with & want to marry a person who you thought was your sibling for the past 20+ years?! Another problem here is that Lancaster's character seems to be portrayed as the noble defender of his family & as such, the Indians are made out to be his enemy, so they would seem to be the "bad guys," when all they're trying to do is repatriate one of their own (initially in a very peaceful manner). If the white settlers were to do the same thing, they would be considered heroes for doing so, & they'd make a movie about it with John Wayne as the hero & call it "The Searchers!" Kidding aside, there is too much injustice here that is left unconsequated (such as the killing of dozens of Indians & the killing of an innocent man who was only attempting to speak the truth) for this to be a satisfactory film for me. Audrey Hepburn is miscast here. Also, the score by Tiomkin is OK, but did the music have to dominate in such a loud manner as to drown out all other aspects of the film, including some dialog? I rate this only a 5/10.
-
Nazi_Fighter_David28 February 2001John Huston's "The Unforgiven" is an unusually sensitive Western about racismnever to be confused with Oscar Winner "Unforgiven" with Clint Eastwood... The film (adapted from a novel by Alan LeMay, author of "The Searchers") is a study of racial, intolerance on the Texas frontier...
The film lacks the sweep and dramatic impulse that would have made it a great picture... Even so it is an interesting and offbeat tale of Indian racial prejudice and warfare among the white settlers, set in the Texas Panhandle of the late 1860s...
Lancaster clicks as the 'terrible temper charmer,' the stepbrother of Audrey Hepburn who turns out to be a full-blooded Kiowa, the Indians claim for their own... John Wisemanthe mysterious deranged ex-soldier on horseback, armed with the "sword of God," spread the word that Hepburn is a Kiowa child...
The story has its moments of excitements, but it moves a little too deliberately across the screen to create the suspense needed to hold audience interest taut through a two-hour film...
Audie Murphy plays his role convincingly as Lancaster's hot-headed brother whose hatred of Indians pushes him to desert his family... Murphy is reckless, impulsive, yet capable of spurts of heroic deeds and loyalty...
Audrey Hepburn is too delicate as the troubled Indian girl, the 'turmoil,' the target of the haunted pioneer family...
Huston moves his players carefully through the great outdoors in such a way that they didn't take too much away from some excellent camera views of the noble scenery...
The legendary Lillian Gish plays Mozart on piano out on the prairie to scare away an Indian attack...
Toward the climax there are a number of effective scenes in the Indian raid, and a happy ending in which a couple appears bound for marriage... -
jack.hunter12 June 2000I believe this western to be one of the most overlooked western films of the period. When one looks at the westerns made before 1960 it is difficult to find many that come close to comparing with the realism, adult themes and complex characterisation of this film. I have viewed this film multiple times over a period of years and enjoy it more with each viewing. The movie is brilliantly cast with especially great performances from Charles Bickford (Zeb Rawlins), Joseph Wiseman (Abe Kelsey), Lillian Gish (Mattilda Zachary)and June Walker (Hagar Rawlins). This western has it all; uniformly wonderful performances from the entire cast, excellent dialogue, and a real look and feel of the western frontier. I give this film a 9 out of 10.
-
Armin_Nikkhah_Shirazi11 February 2022In the trivia section it says that the director John Huston wanted to make a "serious statement on race relations", but that the direction of the movie was changed, yet he decided to hang on to the project because he needed money to complete a house and saw the movie as an opportunity to indulge his interests in pre-Columbian art.
In short, he sold out. And not only him, but also Burt Lancaster, who co-produced the film, and helped change the original screenplay by Delbert Mann and J. P. Miller which, we may guess, treated the Kiowas a little more like actual humans than mere gun fodder, in the interest of the film's financial viability.
For most of the movie, the movie does actually do as decent of a job as one could expect for 1960 in raising issues of racism. Never mind that, save for a single person (the brother of the female protagonist), the Kiowas are not depicted in any kind of individualized manner in order for us to be able to think of them as "persons", and that even that one person's characterization is cardboard-thin.
Even a racially progressive movie (for its time) like "To kill a Mockingbird", which came out two years later, suffers from this problem: any consideration of racism is strictly from white people's perspectives and the victims of said racism are never granted any agency in the movie for their own perspective. Thus, any condemnation of racism in these films at the meta level, to the extent that there is any, is set against a baseline of "white savior" racism.
But we can chalk this up to the social standards of the times, and indeed that is not why I think the movie is morally repugnant.
No, the reason is that while the movie is ambiguous on on the moral aspects of the racism depicted for most of its duration, it takes a definite stand at the very end in condoning it.
I don't mind moral ambiguity in movies: it forces you to think for yourself about the issues they raise, rather than spoon-feeding you the conclusion they might want you to draw. So, if the movie had stayed morally ambiguous to the very end, I would have had absolutely no problems with it.
But, to the disgrace of John Huston and Burt Lancaster, it does not stay ambiguous. The movie concludes with a final wide-angle shot of birds in the sky flying away towards the horizon, accompanied by happy if not triumphant music and leaving no alternative interpretation than that it is being sold to us as a happy ending. This immediately following a massacre of dozens of Kiowas, including an instance of fratricide. The massacre is committed by a family which was in the wrong from the start, and is itself initiated with an unprovoked murder by order of the protagonist. As if that was not enough, the order itself is then revealed at the very end to be at least partly due to quasi-incestuous feelings. The movie invites us to root for a family that responsible for a number of atrocities which happened due to almost no one else's fault but its own.
Not being able to compare the story in the film to its original screenplay, my guess is that the moral ambiguity in the main part of the film is a carryover from the original version of the screenplay, and the ending was changed in the interest of making the movie financially successful.
I know some people who would give the lowest possible rating for movies that they find morally repugnant, but I do not think that way.
The movie is well-made in all technical and artistic aspects, and I do not think its reprehensible moral stance should completely negate these. If, for instance, the movie had stayed morally ambiguous until the very end, I would have likely given it a 7, which indicates in my way of rating a good but not very good or excellent movie. -
paulo2014 May 2010This film is an unlikable mess and somehow I got suckered in to watching the whole stupid thing. No well-ordered review here; I'm just going to list things about the movie I hated (which is just about everything).
At the beginning of the movie, there is a weird old man who wanders in. He knows a scandalous secret and comes to tell it. The secret is that one Rachel Zachary, living amongst her adopted white family for all her life, is not white herself but an Indian.
That's right, the film would have us believe that Rachel Zachary (Audrey Hepburn) is a full-blooded Indian (of the Kiowa tribe) somehow living amongst her adopted white family for a number of years before the secret is out. I could accept that she is a "half-breed" (and indeed I was under that impression for most of the film), which would go a long way towards explaining how the secret could be kept for so long, but, really, to reveal that she is a full-blooded Indian (and that she needs to be stripped down in order to confirm this) is simply an insult to the intelligence. BTW, the weird old man ends up getting hung, but I couldn't for the life of me say why.
This movie is making some sort of statement about racism. Well, if it wanted to give the idea that whites were racists against Indians, mission accomplished. Everybody in this movie hates Indians, and that includes Rachel, even after she finds out she is Indian. And at one point, after she makes the point that she is a Kiowa, her adopted brother, Ben (Lancaster) declares "only in blood, not in anything else." Let's just say my sympathies were not with the Zachary family from this point.
Actually, they had already lost my sympathies when Ben orders his youngest brother to kill a Kiowa who had come in peace. The Indians also learn Rachel's secret and want her back into the tribe. They're willing to barter for her and come to the Zachary home under a flag of truce. Then Ben gives his order, which effectively ends any peaceful negotiation. The Indians then besiege the Zachary home. But here I find even if my sympathies somehow were with the Zacharys, I would have little need to worry. Because every single shot the Zacharys fire, hits and kills and Indian. Every. Single. Shot. Even Rachel, conflicted over her heritage and loyalty to her family, manages to kill one without even trying. The Zacharys meanwhile, suffer one fatality, Mother Zachary. And the Kiowas don't seem to have a single firearm. Later, when the Zacharys are cornered in their cellar by a fair number of Kiowas, another brother of Rachel's comes to the rescue and turns the tide all by himself. It's another insult to the intelligence.
The reason Ben orders his brother to kill an Indian is because Rachel intended to go to the Kiowas willingly and Ben did as he did to prevent this (also, his family became ostracized after Rachel's secret was revealed, so Ben felt there was no way out in any case). But Ben's love for his sister is revealed to be more than fraternal, which is disturbing despite the obvious fact that Rachel is not his biological sister. Rachel, meanwhile, ends any doubt that she hates Indians when she murders one (who turns out to be her own, biological brother) at point blank range.
There is happy music at the end of the movie, when the Zacharys (sans Mom Zachary) walk out of their house and stand awkwardly in the sunshine, beholding all the dead Indians and a flock of birds flying in V formation, symbolizing...something...
Anyway, I detest this film. It makes me feel ill just thinking about it. I can completely understand why director John Huston didn't like it either. -
claudio_carvalho31 December 2006When the weird Abe Kelsey (Joseph Wiseman) with his saber appears in the Zachary's ranch threatening the matriarch Mattilda Zachary (Lillian Gish) and her stepdaughter Rachel (Audrey Hepburn), she does not tell to her sons Ben (Burt Lancaster), Cash (Audie Murphy) and Andy (Doug McClure). Later, when Rachel comments about him, Ben and Cash unsuccessfully chase him in a sand storm. Meanwhile, Kelsey poisons the relationship of the Zachary's family with their neighbors and the Indians Kiowa disclosing that Rachel would be a Kiowa baby stolen years ago in a raid by Kelsey himself and Mattilda's husband, when her parents were killed. Later, he wanted to trade Rachel per his son, captured by the Kiowa, but the old Zachary did not accept his proposal. The racists' neighbors turn their backs to the Zachary's family, while the Kiowa siege them in their house while trying to bring Rachel back to their tribe.
"The Unforgiven" is a western about the impressive intolerance between Caucasians and Indians in the beginning of the colonization of North America by the whites. The story is very well developed, with the usual outstanding direction of John Huston. Joseph Wiseman has a magnificent performance in the role of a despicable villain, a revengeful man capable of destroying many lives. Burt Lancaster is also great in his leadership, while Lillian Gish is amazing in the role of a protective mother. Audrey Hepburn and John Saxon are convincing as Indians. My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): "O Passado Não Perdoa" ("The Past Does Not Forgive") -
moonspinner5529 September 2007Cattle rancher in post-Civil War-era Texas, still embittered over the murder of his father by Kiowa Indians years ago, has to face down local gossip and new attacks by the tribe after word gets out that his adopted sister may in fact have "a red hide". Director John Huston gets this long, involved saga off to a lethargic start, with inconsistent details and disappointing photography and music. The overwrought screenplay, adapted from Alan Le May's novel, is full of hot-blooded melodramatics yet also has several beautifully literate passages, giving stars Burt Lancaster and Audrey Hepburn a handful of excellent scenes together. Hepburn may initially seem tremendously out of place in a dusty, violent western, but she incorporates herself nicely in this scenario and looks terrific to boot! The film has that quirky edge Huston as a filmmaker is so well-known for, though at times it's unclear how we're supposed to respond to certain sequences--resulting in some overbaked theatrics which may provoke derisive laughter. Once wound up, Huston had a tendency to pitch his hysteria right over the top, yet "The Unforgiven" still isn't bad. Supporting cast is quite good, including Audie Murphy (who gets the chance to do some honest emoting for a change) and Lillian Gish as the family matriarch who hides a terrible secret. **1/2 from ****
-
classicsoncall9 May 2007If as I've read, that director John Huston didn't like this movie, it's totally understandable. I'm more curious as to why he might have taken on the project given the inconsistent elements in so many parts of the story and characters. Perhaps he felt he could have melded these issues into a coherent picture, but if so, it was undone by the film's editing after he left the set.
Examples abound, beginning with the Zachary family at the center of the story. Early on, we come to understand that the Zachary brothers are returning home from Wichita to their mother and sister. Later on, in a scene with Ben (Burt Lancaster) and Rachel (Audrey Hepburn) on horseback, talk turns to the possibility of romance, with Ben mentioning that they are not even related. It's all revealed later of course, but wasn't it just a bit creepy that two people raised as brother and sister would suddenly begin to see each other in romantic terms? That premise managed to keep me off balance for much of the rest of the movie.
I also had difficulty with the central characters making one hundred eighty degree reversals in nature and temperament. Ben starts out as a noble character, willing to hire an Indian (John Saxon as Portugal) because of his skill with horses, even defending him against the racist local ranchers. Later though, he has no problem ordering brother Andy (Doug McClure) to kill an Indian under a flag of truce. Similarly, when Rachel learns of her heritage, she's willing to go off with the Kiowa camp, but has no difficulty taking up arms to shoot them when the family home comes under siege. Audie Murphy's character as brother Cash is possibly the most extreme; having been raised with Rachel as his sister, he doesn't even need one second to renounce her as a 'dirty Injun', demanding that Ben send her away. In all of these examples, there wasn't even a hint of any of the characters being conflicted about their decisions, they just managed to turn on a dime as the story called for. As for Johnny Portugal, what ever happened to him? He seemed to be set up for a role in the outcome, possibly as a rival for Ben, but that never materialized.
Before knowing that the film's basis was Alan LeMay's novel, I found myself mentally comparing it in some respects to John Ford's "The Searchers", starring John Wayne. Interestingly, that was also based on a LeMay book. In that movie as well, I couldn't understand why Wayne's character wanted to find his niece to kill her, having been kidnapped by Comanches, and unable to escape through no fault of her own. The harsh aspects of racism that underlie the themes of both stories are strong enough to make one focus on birthright and family relationships, so on that score, both have some value. Comparing the two, "The Searchers" is the stronger film.
The one thing I haven't seen anyone comment on in this forum though, are the shocking terms spoken in the movie in an era before political correctness became the norm. When Hagar Rawlins (June Walker) unleashes on Rachel as 'red ni--er as ever was', it was a genuine sit up and take notice moment in the story. The phrase 'red hide ni--er' was also used later on, again in an entirely inflammatory context, the only time I've ever heard the term used in film to this point.
On a final note, I agree somewhat with other reviewers who feel Audrey Hepburn was miscast as an Indian. However, for a Plains settler, I found it a bit ironic that when Burt Lancaster went for a swim, he was as white as if he had never been out in the sun with his shirt off. Not too convincing for a Western hero.