Oslo Jargo (Bartok Kinski) *** This review may contain spoilers *** *Plot and ending analyzed*When I first saw The Unforgiven in 1960 at the premiere film opening, with John Huston in attendance, I was wholly disgusted with the film. I could not believe the audience was applauding it. Somewhere inside, I was inherently sickened by the ending. The ending lacked any basis for humanity or compassion, or even understanding. If you are not familiar with it, it seems totally uncharacteristic and vile. It's like a gush of utter viciousness just came out of nowhere. Audrey Hepburn, who we find out is actually an adopted Kiowa, shoots her own Kiowa brother, who only wanted to find her. Then it ends on a peaceful note with the Anglo family hugging each other. I spoke to John Huston about it, but he was so busy with big-wigs to have a prolonged conversation. I later met with committees of Comanche, Kiowa, and Sioux Native Americans and organized a lecture by guest speakers. We spoke about the degradation of the Native Americans in film. It was the least one could do after facing such a harsh portrait on the screen.Further scenes are also rather repulsive, for example, Burt Lancaster had a Kiowa, who came on peace terms, shot dead outright. There are plenty of illustrations in the film. Audie Murphy is his usual reprehensible anti-Indian self and he's just unpleasant . I never liked him as an actor at all. The whole film has a mean streak to it.The attack on the homestead takes a large part of the ending. Kiowas would have had an easy time to get rid of the people in the homestead, the family would have not killed off their warriors in such a ridiculous scene. It was bad enough that the Kiowa attack on the homestead was preposterous, piling up enough dead Kiowas in a long, haphazard scene, but the driving point is that Audrey Hepburn doesn't care about her past at all. She hates being an "Indian". I suppose I side with Kiowas more since I lived with Kiowas, Comanches and Apaches and have studied their language and culture. They have a rich, vibrant history and a tradition of great culture. It seems like the whites don't think that way, thus they were demeaned as vile enemies in films and regarded as utter savages.Even without the demeaning ending, the film is merely average. It is the message that is inhuman that still affects me to this day.

vincentlynch-moonoi The first part of the mess that I noticed is the score. Terrible. It seems to have nothing to do with the film at all. Sort of like someone said, "We have to have background music," so they found an old record and slapped it in. And I don't know how to explain it since it is Dimitri Tiompkin responsible for it. The score was recorded in Italy and also just sounds flat.Then there's the first 1 hour and ten minutes (give or take) of the film. A waste of celluloid which will pretty much lead you to dislike almost every character in the film.Finally, with the film more than half over, beginning with the segment leading up to and including the hanging, things get quite a bit better. Until the conclusion. The ending sort of leaves us hanging. What is going to happen now with the family? One big happy family, or will the realization that the daughter is actually a Kiowa Indian lead to disintegration of the family? If they stay together, do they have to leave their home since all the surrounding Whites now hate them? In a sense, those story lines are potentially more interesting than what was covered in the film.So what was left to like? Not much. Perhaps SOME of the acting. Burt Lancaster was strong as the father-figure in the film; he was also involved in the production of the film. Audrey Hepburn seems an odd choice for the girl who is thought to be white, but is actually Kiowa...even with some darkening makeup she just doesn't look the part at all (remember, she is not a half-breed, but rather full-Indian), though her acting is fine. Audie Murphy is terrible here as one of the brothers of Lancaster; Murphy was a decent actor...but not here. John Saxon played an Indian, but pretty much just seems to disappear after a while. Charles Bickford has a decent role as another rancher who is quite gruff, but this is not one of his more impressive performances...though that is more the fault of the direction than him as an actor. It's interesting to see the famous Lillian Gish as the mother, and it is a substantial role...though not particularly impressive. Perhaps it's because of later roles in which I remember him, but Albert Salmi in his role as a family member seems unbelievable. But if there's one role and actor that proves the poor direction, it's young Doug McClure. In the first half of the film I thought he was playing a mildly mentally retarded "son"; in the second half of the film we realize he's just naive.And to me, all the lousy aspects of this film come down to the director -- John Huston. John Huston had about 8 really great films to his credit as a director, other run-of-the-mill films, and a few that were forgettable. But this one was not just forgettable...it's lousy. He could be very impressive as a director, but this film is a failure, at least from my perspective (and I understand he said it was his worst film).So here you have Huston, Lancaster, and Hepburn...and a theme of exposing racism at a time when that was not a common film theme (so rather gutsy), and my take on it is -- pass it by or watch it while holding your nose.

SnoopyStyle Ben Zachary (Burt Lancaster) with brothers Cash (Audie Murphy), Andy (Doug McClure), and adopted sister Rachel (Audrey Hepburn) live with their mother (Lillian Gish) on a dusty ranch. When an old crazy loner arrive spreading rumor that Rachel is actually a red Indian who was taken as a baby, everybody around her starts acting differently. Then the local Kiowa tribe wants her returned believing her to be a long lost sister.John Huston expertly film the vast dusty territory. However it's not the big landscape that's noteworthy but the morally complexity that's most important. This movie is full of ever shifting moral land mines. How can we truly root for the Zacharys? But does all the past sins permit the natives to exact revenge? The racism towards Rachel from the white community is well put forward. But the rest is full of moral contradictions.I still can't accept Audrey Hepburn playing native American. Granted it's the old Hollywood. I can't expect much better. The problem is the audience knows she's as white as the driven snow. Playing so far against her persona really makes it problematic.There are some great shocking scenes like Ma Rawlins shouting Red N1gger and the hanging scene. But the tone at the start is too light hearted. It needed to start dark and stay that way. With all the moral confusion, it's still very compelling. But it's a hard watch to see all those Indians get killed. It's very old Hollywood. And the incestuous undertones between Ben and Rachel really throws me off.

r_knight A 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.