The Outlaw Josey Wales

[zalena]

I just finished watching The Outlaw Josey Wales an Eastwood film about a Missouri man whose wife and child are killed by a maurauding party of Union militia. The war is functionally over, but he rides with a group of guerilla fighters trying to get even. The odds are stacked against him. At the advice of their leader, the riders turn themselves in to take an oath of loyalty to the Union, only to be shot down in cold blood (and an early model hand-cranked machine gun) by Union soldiers. As the only rider who refused to swear fealty to the U.S. gov't, Josey is the lone survivor and a wanted man.

I didn't expect to like this movie, but I was oddly moved by Eastwood's performance. I was also struck by some of the interesting characterizations in the film including Chief Dan George as an elderly Cherokee who rides along with Josey. He gives a very humorous, and human performance. Apparently, this is one of the first Westerns (1976) to be noted in its positive portrayal of American Indians.

Two major thought tracks occurred to me while I was watching this film:

1. One reason I dislike Westerns is that I have very little historical context for the period. For me, watching Westerns is like watching something in a foreign language in which one is not completely fluent. I can follow what's going on, but I have no sense of nuance. It occurred to me that this is what Jane Austen is like for a lot of people. If you have no sense of the social circumstances outside the inevitable search for a husband, the whole thing seems quite trite. But with a sense of nuance, there is a richness in the struggle, the fashion, the inflection. I'm guessing Westerns have the same potential, I'm just not keyed into the cues.

This strikes me as being completely absurd. I know all this trivia from the Napoleonic Era, enough to be able to recognize uniforms and whether or not fashion is accurate within certain years, but know relatively nothing about Western expansion. I live in the Western landscape for X's sake, how can I know so little about the period? (I do have a rough smattering of trivia about pre-Gold Rush CA, an early obsession of mine after reading Two Years Before the Mast.)

It also made me wonder if most Westerns are set in an actual time period, or if there is a Western fantasy altiverse where most of these movies take place. (I'm always wanting to know if the guns are accurate, if the fabrics make sense. For example, in this movie, I was horrified that one of the settler woman had so few layers on. Someone just rips off her dress and SHE IS WEARING NO STAYS, PETTICOATS, OR UNDERTHINGS OF ANY KIND! She is supposed to be a respectable woman. What were they thinking?) One of the things that's great about Josey Wales is there is a definite sense of time and place. Just after the Civil War, heading from Missouri to Texas.

2. One of the things I've always disliked about the Western is the strong sense of xenophobia. I think it was The Searchers that really turned me off to the Western (and John Wayne, generally.) The whole idea of hunting down ones abducted daughter so one can kill her because she's been sullied by the native taint, I found incredibly offensive. With a family like that, she might be better off with the natives! (This is coming from someone who has read far too many captivity narratives.)

Women, particularly well-rounded women characters, are a scarce commodity in the Western. One can argue that they were also a scarce commodity historically, but I've always felt that they are lumped in with the Other in Western films, as a part of the landscape or the native peoples.

And this is what makes Josey Wales so interesting (along with other outlaw films, really.) Josey's choice to run instead of swear fealty puts him in the realm of The Other. He picks up all these Others along the way. First the elder Cherokee, then the Navajo woman, then the two women from the wagon train, finally a down-at-the-heels town with its token floozy and suspicious European. These are all Others within the context of the Union and the idea of Western expansion. (Un-American!) Josey joins them, and they join him. Together their forces defeat the Union posse sent out against Josey. (There is also an interesting scene in which Josey makes a pact with a Comanche warband, also Other. He comes to them and says, "I know I look like The Man, but I intend to fight with you as The Other.")

Suddenly, everything I thought about Westerns is turned on its head. The lone gunman is not the dominate force, he is a manifestation of Other. He is not civilization, not gov't, not rule-of-law. It was a total a-ha! moment. Now I understand why so many people like these films. It's not just about the individual against the larger structure (which very often in the nature of Western tragedy results in defeat) there is also a sense of the Other against normative structure. It is a kind of romantic manifesto on devient behavior.

Of course, Eastwood is notorious for creating this kind of transformation in the Western. And I think I'm moving past the respect phase and into the fan phase. People always comment on his limited acting skills. (Ex loved to tell this anecdote where Eastwood and another actor lose their jobs as stuntment or something. "What are you going to do now?" Eastwood asks the other actor. "I can act, what are you going to do?" the actor responds.) To an extent, I agree with the criticism about his lack of range. On the other hand, his stillness and taciturness is not something easy to portray on film. Silence is the hardest thing to work through on film, and its something he does incredibly well. I'm always watching, wondering what he's thinking.

In anycase, I haven't been turned completly to Westerns, but I'm willing to watch where I wasn't before.

P.S. Other as Southerner.

P.P.S. Operates by a code of ethics not necessarily the same or even compatible with the rest of society, but a code of ethics nevertheless.

Now for a poll/question: If you had to choose five films to stand in for what you would like others to know about you, what would they be? I'll add mine after I've had a chance to hear what you have to say.

Comments

Some more questions about Westerns:

[zalena.livejournal.com]

What role does exceptionalism play? Are there different ways in which the West/Western expansion/Western history can be imagined? Is there some way out of the binary opposition between the law and lawlessness besides a shoot out on Main Street? Why do the final showdowns very often occur in populated or "settled" settings when most of the movies occur in the wide-open landscape? What does the Western tell us about the U.S.' 'melting pot' philosophy in which alien cultures are absorbed, instead of remaining seperate?

Do you have a favorite Western?

Re: Some more questions about Westerns:

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

Och, I'm not prepared to think about the first several questions right now (though they are interesting), but one thought on why the showdowns happen in the settled areas is because it shows that it is not man vs. nature, but man vs. man that causes the strife. What a different effect it would be to have the enemies meet in the barren wasteland, no one around to see their struggle but the cacti (and maybe a vulture or two), eh?

I'm not fond of Westerns, myself, but I was thoroughly impressed by "Unforgiven." Again, it's Eastwood, although it's mature Eastwood who has learned to act, and acts very, very well.

I'm an Eastwood fan, though. I'm not too keen on his early works because he really hasn't learned to act yet, but... hell, he pulled off "Bridges of Madison County" for pete's sake! (Merryl Streep doesn't hurt, though.)

I'm trying to think... It's very possible that "unforgiven" is the only Western I've seen. THat doesn't seem possible, but it's the only one I can remember.

Re: Some more questions about Westerns:

[sakuratea.livejournal.com]

Have you read Waswo's essays on the western?

Re: Some more questions about Westerns:

[zalena.livejournal.com]

Nope, who's Waswo?

Re: Some more questions about Westerns:

[sakuratea.livejournal.com]

He wrote "The Founding Legend of Western Civilization: From Virgil to Vietnam" One of the chapters is on the Western and the western landscape.

On The War Between the States

[zalena.livejournal.com]

Has our country healed from The Civil War? Why is the South still regarded by many as being rural/inferior/ignorant? Why is it only now that some of the nastier aspects of the Union are emerging from behind the shadow of Lincoln? (Conscription of the Irish for one!)

Why was I so poorly educated about the Civil War and totally uneducated about everything that follows?

Why are we forced to read Huck Finn in school and not Little Women?

Re: On The War Between the States

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

Why are we forced to read Huck Finn in school and not Little Women?

Because there's the stupid belief that boys won't read stories about girls. It's going on the stupid prejudice that boys don't like to read, so the curriculum is slanted towards things they might be interested in. (And is it any wonder that, boy-heavy lit that we get, women understand men better than men understand women?)

Re: On The War Between the States

[sakuratea.livejournal.com]

Reconstruction didn't go well, would be the heart and soul of my argument on that one. They didn't heal, the South's infrastructure was destroyed, and a piece of the civil war was about keeping the south from industrilizing with slave labor (rural).

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

Not thinking about it overly much, I'd say:

Defending Your Life
Spiderman 2
Dogma
12 Angry Men
Being John Malkovich
Akeelah and the Bee

Shit. That's six, isn't it? There.

[zalena.livejournal.com]

Spiderman 2. Really? Why?

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

Various reasons. I like comic book movies, and this one really resonated with me. I like the occasional blockbuster movie (yes, I'm a snob, but I'm not above it all!). Spiderman... Peter Parker is one of the more interesting comic book characters... The constant struggle between identities, along with the joy and freedom each one gives.

I'd be able to go into it more in depth if I had seen the movie more recently, but as it is... Mostly it's a matter of fun and excitement that the other movies aren't showcasing, or at least not in as obvious and straighforward a way.

[zalena.livejournal.com]

I like comic book movies, too. I was just curious as to why this one. I've never been a Spiderman fan, but I've really enjoyed the movies.

You saw Batman Begins, yes?

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

Oh, Batman Begins was awesome! That was one of the best comic book movies ever (and just a very good film), and I did think about putting it down instead, but the Spiderman movies are more fun.

[cawriter.livejournal.com]

I don't like Westerns much. I always worry about the horses.

Five films--

Topsy Turvy and Croupier are both successful for me in terms of conveying what it's like to try to put something together that works--very much the process of being a writer.

All the President's Men--Again, a great look at gathering the bits and pieces to make a story.

Jackie Brown--love the dialogue in this, and how Pam Grier plays Jackie as a strong woman but also a woman who is scared out of her mind at times.

Twelve Angry Men--I love this one most for the real-time look at persuasion. How difficult that is in real life, and how rarely is it focused on in art.

[zalena.livejournal.com]

I hate Gilbert & Sullivan, but I loved Topsy Turvy. I recall we both share an interest in Kevin McKidd?

I just saw Jackie Brown about two weeks ago. (It was one in the stack given to me.) I insisted I didn't like Tarantino. My friend insisted that with my interest in noir, I had to see the film. My friend was right. The film was not as ha-ha violent as most Tarantino pictures. It focused more on the patter and manipulations. The ending made me really sad because it was clear there was a connection between Jackie and the Bail Bond guy, but the criminal aspect of what they'd done (somewhat out of character for both of them) would come between them. Tough choices. And she's absolutely gorgeous while also being bigger and older than your average female lead.

I haven't seen the other films. I will check them out.

[cawriter.livejournal.com]

Croupier is all Clive Owen. He plays a writer desperate for a story who becomes a dealer at a gambling club. Owen narrates and shapes the story.

I love Kevin McKidd's voice in Topsy-Turvy. That movie is an excellent example of a character piece where everyone gets a turn and every character is distinct and interesting.

Jackie Brown is the only Tarantino I've enjoyed, but I absolutely love it. Another character piece and Jackie is just spectacular.

[sachie.livejournal.com]

Outlaw Josy Wales is my favorite Clint Eastwoom Western.

Part of the apeal of Westerns is the idea that misfits that can't funtion in more civilized parts of the coutry can find a place for themselves in the untamed West. Although I agree that most of the time, it seems to end badly for the misfits. What does that say about this culture that simultaneously glorifies and tears down the individual? Right now, I'm generally feeling pessimistic about the world, so I'm going to say that the tragic ending for the misfits is the honest portrayal of what happens to people who try to march to their own beat. Letting the misfits win in the end always seems to make the misfits something other than the lovable misfits that they were. By defeating the mainstream, they become part of the mainstream. They are now the ones dictating the fates of others. That just seems wrong.

[zalena.livejournal.com]

Josey Wales has an interesting compromise. He wins, but only by taking on a different identity.

I asked my brother about why he though shoot outs always took place on Main Street. He said, "Because they are fighting over who controls the forces of civilization."