Unforgiven

[Discombobbled]

So, for my final class this term we have to watch the Clint Eastwood movie Unforgiven and then discuss the legal ramifications. My Prof has already stated that she thinks the movie is about legal application. Personally, I think the movie is about personal demons, and reconciling personal demons. Did I completely miss the point of this movie?

Don't get me wrong guys/girls. The Phd process is all about different modes of thought. Does anybody else have thoughts on this issue?

 

[nash]

unforgiven

You are bang on. Clint Eatwood does a great job. Rarely does a gunfighter come across as a feeling person. It is one of my favorites.

 

[Discombobbled]

You are bang on. Clint Eatwood does a great job. Rarely does a gunfighter come across as a feeling person. It is one of my favorites.

Thanks Nash!! I appreciate the input!!

 

[planetsmurf]

i always thought that clint eastwood was trying to seek atonement for what he did before he married his wife. but i guess the legal ramifications would be whether or not he was justified in killing that guy.

 

[Discombobbled]

i always thought that clint eastwood was trying to seek atonement for what he did before he married his wife. but i guess the legal ramifications would be whether or not he was justified in killing that guy.

Now were' getting into some of the deeper questions. What do you think Smurf? Was he justified?

 

[dexi]

It's all about perspective. Your law prof thinks it's about legal application cause he's a lawyer.

It's like that old joke about how to the actor hired to play the gravedigger, Hamlet is a story about a gravedigger who meets a prince.

but i guess the legal ramifications would be whether or not he was justified in killing that guy.

Justified or not, it's never legal to kill someone in a premeditated fashion.

An interesting take might be to discuss how justice is meted out in a land that is essentially hostile and lawless. Would the end result have been different had the law been applied in court rather than via a vigilante? Would the Gene Hackman character and all his flunkies have hanged for their crimes and ended up dead either way?

 

[sheldon-mit]

So, for my final class this term we have to watch the Clint Eastwood movie Unforgiven and then discuss the legal ramifications. My Prof has already stated that she thinks the movie is about legal application. Personally, I think the movie is about personal demons, and reconciling personal demons. Did I completely miss the point of this movie?

your back I thought you were banned. nice to see you back i think

 

[Discombobbled]

It's all about perspective. Your law prof thinks it's about legal application cause he's a lawyer.

It's like that old joke about how to the actor hired to play the gravedigger, Hamlet is a story about a gravedigger who meets a prince.



Justified or not, it's never legal to kill someone in a premeditated fashion.

An interesting take might be to discuss how justice is meted out in a land that is essentially hostile and lawless. Would the end result have been different had the law been applied in court rather than via a vigilante? Would the Gene Hackman character and all his flunkies have hanged for their crimes and ended up dead either way?

Wow man/she. Fuckin intense insights!! Never thought of it that way before. I guess I'm still too within the box. Thank you, much appreciated. You should consider a PhD.

 

[Discombobbled]

your back I thought you were banned. nice to see you back i think

Yes, I was banned for a while. I think I was trying too make too much fun of the human condition. I guess it wasn't appreciated, although it did make some laugh. Anyway, I'll try to be more acceptable from this point on!!

 

[hitrack]

In the 1800's shit wasn't held up by red tape and "curb side justice" was how to do it.

He needed some quick coin, and wasn't about robbin innocent folk to do it. But was totally down with doing in some yello belly pole cat that went and cut up a chick, even a ho...damn well cut up her teets to.....so I heard.

But when they dun killed Ned and stuck him out in front for everyone to see it was personal at that point.

I don't see shit all legal about it. I see a buncha fukks who needed to be brought down a peg or two. A cock sucker who had a small dick and a smaller brain who was just a bad seed and did the world a favour by dropping off it when the kid plugged him on the shitter. And a hooker who was glad to be outta that hurtin life and settle down with a family like folks shoud back then.

 

[Discombobbled]

In the 1800's shit wasn't held up by red tape and "curb side justice" was how to do it.

He needed some quick coin, and wasn't about robbin innocent folk to do it. But was totally down with doing in some yello belly pole cat that went and cut up a chick, even a ho...damn well cut up her teets to.....so I heard.

But when they dun killed Ned and stuck him out in front for everyone to see it was personal at that point.

I don't see shit all legal about it. I see a buncha fukks who needed to be brought down a peg or two. A cock sucker who had a small dick and a smaller brain who was just a bad seed and did the world a favour by dropping off it when the kid plugged him on the shitter. And a hooker who was glad to be outta that hurtin life and settle down with a family like folks shoud back then.

Hitrack, you can try to pass off your intelligence with others, but I don't buy it. I think you're probably the most intelligent person on this board, yet you play the role. Your choice. So, if you choose to address this question with what you have available, it's this' Does the ingrained belief of oneself dictate the furture, or does the belief simply fall away when one realizes the truth?

 

[FuZzYknUckLeS]

...Does the ingrained belief of oneself dictate the future, or does the belief simply fall away when one realizes the truth?

To get to the bottom of truth, one has to get to the bottom of oneself, and that is not an easy thing to do, aggravated by the problem of not loving oneself. It naturally follows that if one wants to learn to love oneself, there must be hate present, and we are caught in the world of duality.

 

[Discombobbled]

To get to the bottom of truth, one has to get to the bottom of oneself, and that is not an easy thing to do, aggravated by the problem of not loving oneself. It naturally follows that if one wants to learn to love oneself, there must be hate present, and we are caught in the world of duality.

Ha, ha, now the real Fuzzy comes out. Your insight is profound. However, I do have a question, if we are caught in a world of duality how do we really know what is real? Is it what we perceive, or is it what we beleive?

 

[FuZzYknUckLeS]

Ha, ha, now the real Fuzzy comes out. Your insight is profound. However, I do have a question, if we are caught in a world of duality how do we really know what is real? Is it what we perceive, or is it what we beleive?

That`s all discussed in another thread here

 

[hitrack]

nothing unreal exists

 

[Discombobbled]

nothing unreal exists

I Hear yah, but what is real? What we feel? What we think? What we hear?The fact that we experience anything must make it real doesn't it? Unless of course it's all a dream?

 

[planetsmurf]

i think in that time he was justified because of mentallity back then and i my favorite part of the whole movie was the end speech he did when he said if he see anybody he going to shoot them and if anybody takes a shot at him, he going to kill them,there family.... pure gold

 

[DJLAW]

personally, i always thought that the movie was simply about showing what happens to "the man with no name" or others like him when they get older.

or it could be about something like "you can change your future but you can never escape the past"

is he justified in killing the two cowboys? no. they never did anything to William. is he justified in killing the sherriff? hell, i dont know. it certainly wasnt legal back then.

Little Bill: "you just killed an unarmed man."
William Munny: "he should have armed himself."

 

[Discombobbled]

personally, i always thought that the movie was simply about showing what happens to "the man with no name" or others like him when they get older.

or it could be about something like "you can change your future but you can never escape the past"

is he justified in killing the two cowboys? no. they never did anything to William. is he justified in killing the sherriff? hell, i dont know. it certainly wasnt legal back then.

Little Bill: "you just killed an unarmed man."
William Munny: "he should have armed himself."

I suppose one could think of it like this:

Littile Bill: "I don't deserve this:
William Munny: Deserves' got nothin to do with it"

The answer to this is really what I'm looking for? Any responses?

 

[georgebushmoron]

i guess the legal ramifications would be whether or not he was justified in killing that guy.

He was morally justified. Legal is another matter, but legality is nothing more than a system of "rules" which are interpreted by their word over their underlying principle. And besides, the "rules" change with the wind anyway.