Classic Film Talk: ‘The Unforgiven’ (1960)

Today we reminisce about

The Unforgiven (1960)MV5BZjIxM2ZkYWQtOGM1Yi00NWMwLTk5NzUtMWVmOGIxMWMyZjE4XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMDUyOTUyNQ@@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1265,1000_AL_Directed by John Huston

Starring: Burt Lancaster, Audrey Hepburn, Audie Murphy, John Saxon, Charles Bickford, Lillian Gish

* Published specifically for the Audrey at 90: The Salute to Audrey Hepburn Blogathon hosted by Sister Celluloid *le-vent-de-la-plaine-1Premise

In the American Frontier circa 1870, the Zachary family lives on their sprawling property located on the Texas Panhandle. They are cattle ranchers who pool together with other cowhands in the area to herd combined cattle drives to Wichita. In this part of the country, it is dangerous to go off on your own and moreover, community support increases chances of survival.

While the menfolk are gone, mother Mattilda (Lillian Gish) and adopted daughter Rachel (Audrey Hepburn) must manage things on their own. They try to keep things as normal as possible so not to lose a track of time or the hope that their loved ones will come back alive. Luckily, the three Zachary sons come back safe and found. Ben (Burt Lancaster) is the oldest and has taken on the role as man of the house since his father’s untimely murder a few years earlier while Cash (Audie Murphy) and Andy are often at his side. They are all quite close with the Rawlins family headed by father Zeb (Charles Bickford) who wishes for his son Charlie to court Rachel so that their great families can be joined through matrimony.

All seems peaceful until one day when a strange old man who refers to himself as a prophet of God surfaces. Rachel meets him by chance while horseback riding and is startled by his claim that she is “not a Zachary” but does not think too much of it at the time. When the man comes close to the Zachary ranch, Mattilda becomes very upset and considers shooting him with a shotgun though she loses her nerve. She does not tell Rachel why she is so upset but Ben knows. The man is connected to the Zachary’s past, specifically in regards to how the girl came to be adopted into the family and is trying to cause trouble for them by spreading a false rumour that Rachel is a Kiowa Indian. Ben and his brothers, along with their hired helper Portugal (John Saxon), eventually track him down and bring him to be confronted by the other townspeople who have become suspicious of Rachel’s ethnicity. Meanwhile, the Kiowa tribe believe Rachel to be the long lost sister of their current chief, Lost Bird. They initially approach the Zachary’s in a peaceful fashion to try to get their kin back but it soon turns to violence as the family refuse to give Rachel up.

Audrey Hepburn, The Unforgiven (1960, John Huston) starring Burt Lancaster

Is this crazy man mistaken and inventing this story about Rachel being a native Kiowan? Of what benefit is it to him? If it is proven that Rachel is in fact of Indian heritage, how will she and her adopted family deal with the situation especially since the Kiowa tribe wants to reclaim her as their own?


Background

There are times when you are inexplicably drawn to specific filmmakers or certain actors and actresses which give you the chance to discover a good portion of their work. For me, that person has been John Huston. I had seen a handful of his films in the past but it was only recently that I really got into some of his better, and lesser, known pictures, not taking long to further my initial affirmation that Huston was a gifted storyteller as both a screenwriter and as a director. 1949 was undoubtedly the year he received the most critical compensation, winning Academy Awards in directing and adapted screenwriting for The Treasure of Sierra Madre. He would receive countless other accolades throughout his long-spanning filmography.

MV5BZjRiMjY0OTItMDhhMi00NzQxLWFjMWYtZGE5ZThjOGFjMGE5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjY0NzAxOTk@._V1_
John Huston on-set with Lillian Gish.

Huston was nearly at the midway point in his career when he signed-on to make The Unforgiven, originally referred to as The Siege at Dancing Bird / Burg. The film’s financing came from Hecht-Hill-Lancaster (HHL), a production company that had recently renewed their contract with distributor United Artists. Burt Lancaster had achieved much past success with his two partners, Harold Hecht and James Hill (then married to Rita Hayworth), especially in the films in which he had also starred. Sources say that Huston and HHL did not see eye-to-eye on the project, making it so that the two parties could not find a satisfactory middle ground. Nonetheless, Lancaster continued on being a complete professional performer and somehow the picture got finished in a timely manner.

From the start the film had unusually large shoes to fill. Its screenplay was based on a 1957 novel by author Alan Le May who penned a great number and short stories that were often set in the American frontier, some of which were adapted for the big screen. His most well-known works were The Searchers and The Unforgiven; the aforementioned being Le May’s third novel to be made into a feature film and was by far his most successful venture. Today, The Searchers is considered to be one of the best films ever made and is currently ranked in 12th place on the AFI’s list of 100 Greatest Films. The triumph of The Searchers put pressure on Huston to make The Unforgiven a meaningful film to match John Ford’s legacy and on HHL to have the same commercial impact. The end result was less than satisfying for all parties and the public seemed to agree as The Unforgiven failed to recuperate its costs, earning a paltry $3.2 million against a $5 million budget.

It has been noted that Huston was not happy with this film and held a low opinion of it for the rest of his life though he never outright disowned it. Along with the disappointment of not being able to make a film that was more historically poignant, several behind-the-scenes incidents bore him a heavy burden. Ironically, Huston’s next film The Misfits would be even further marred with dysfunction and tragedy.

duke_130
Huston (with his back turned to the camera) giving directions to the ensemble cast.

Thoughts & Discussion

A majority of past critics did not have much redeeming praise for The Unforgiven, a sentiment which is still prominent amongst modern critics. The films averages three out of five stars and currently holds a lacklustre 59% Fresh rating from Rotten Tomatoes. Film reviewer and author Ronald Bergan had this to say in his reference book The United Artists Story:

“Although the film did not lose its pictorial felicities, it never lived up to the initial brooding atmosphere created by direct(or) John Huston. The screenplay by Ben Maddow took up themes but failed to develop them, and the characters remained skin-deep despite a promising cast.” (pg. 197)

This is a time that I must disagree with overall opinion although there are points to the story that definitely could be been improved and built upon. I feel quite lucky that I saw The Unforgiven before The Searchers and that I had no knowledge of the link between the two films because I had no expectations.

The-Unforgiven-Burt-Lancaster-Audrey-Hepburn-8X10-Photo

The foremost thing that draws you in to the film is the fantastic panoramic shot of the unspoiled countryside. It immediately immerses you in the setting of what life was like back then in the Old West. In fact, you get the impression that you are casually dropping in on the Zachary family rather than having them introduced to you in a formatted manner at the beginning of a story. As far as you know, the Zachary’s have always been there and will always remain, even after the film has finished. This very up close and personal perspective allows you to grow closer to the characters and really get a taste for what it was like to live as a pioneer. I really appreciated Huston’s direction and Franz Planer’s cinematography which had a very natural feel to it, making it seem as you were more than just a casual observer of events. (Planer had previously worked on the Western epic The Big Country and would later work with Audrey Hepburn on two other films: Breakfast at Tiffany’s and The Children’s Hour.)

An amazing cast also helps bring the characters fully to life. Veteran stage & screen actors Lillian Gish and Charles Bickford are simply incredible and, as always, seem effortless in their roles. One Variety reviewer boldly states that Gish “has a tendency to over-react emotionally” though seems to forget that this more pronounced emotional display was an important part of Mattilda’s state-of-mind. We never get to know Mattilda as a happy housewife; rather, she is a widow whose husband was slain by Kiowas, the same tribe that soon threatens to take her daughter away. She must also relive the loss of her biological child who died right before Rachel came into their family. Speaking from a mother’s vantage point, I was trembling with anxiety along with Mattilda and understand every decision that she had to make. Most of the cast were playing characters that were much younger than their actual ages but it is not overly noticeable or troubling. Lancaster was very good as Ben and in having consistency in his character. Ben was not a fun-loving kind of guy as he had a massive amount of responsibility on his plate. His romantic feelings for Rachel are not overly obvious but, at the same time, he was technically her brother and it was unlikely that they could ever have a feasible future together. The idea of Ben and Rachel loving each other like this has been considered as quite scandalous but they always knew that they were not blood-related.

MV5BNmJhZmE0ZjYtNzYyYy00ZGNkLTk5ZTEtZmNiZDlmODg0NTJiXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjkzNjUzODY@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,810,1000_AL_

As for themes related to racial relations, I really do not know how the film could have done a better job showing the cultural differences between the white settlers and the Kiowa Indians. Rachel had a choice to make in the end that was hers and hers alone. Neither the settler nor the Indians were more correct than the other. I do not believe that there was any specific lesson to be learned from this film rather than to appreciate the story for what it is. One thing that did perplex me was the lack of Portugal’s character development. He seemed to be a prominent secondary player and then just disappears from sight after the old man is captured and brought to the Rawlins’ ranch for questioning. There is a moment in the film when he takes a petal out of Rachel’s hair and gets promptly attacked by a jealous and disapproving Ben. It is said that he would be let go from the cattle drive but not too long after this Portugal is accompanying them on the hunt for the old man. The film ends just as it began, with no flashy goodbyes or conclusions which are perfectly fitting in my opinion.

Audrey Hepburn

Audrey-Hepburn-The-Unforgiven-Movie-Scene-High-Quality-_57

Some people found it surprising that Audrey was cast in The Unforgiven, a film that was a considerable departure from the more light-hearted romantic comedies in which she had mainly appeared. She was also around a decade older than Rachel Zachary who was still just a naïve girl in certain ways. At 30, Audrey was married and awaiting a child while Rachel was at an age that seemed barely suitable for courting. Rachel’s specific age is never mentioned in the film although it is suggested through her sometimes juvenile behaviour as well as from the hesitant reactions of her family, independent of them being overprotective. From my own judgement, I would say that Rachel is an older teenager at best which falls in line with how Audrey portrayed the character. (In doing a little research on the subject of post-Civil War marriages, I found that the general age for girls to get married was starting from around age 20. Considering that this was the Old West, some females could be married off as child brides while others could be more selective and wait until they were slightly older. Since there were relatively few people living near the Zachary’s and it was a mutual wish to have the Rawlins and Zachary families unite, the choices were obviously limited.)

Audrey’s Rachel is naturally free-spirited and curious about life. She knows what society expects from her as a woman and is able to complete associated tasks such as doing housework and preparing food. However, she is bored by these mundane chores and is easily distracted by other things. In the beginning of the film, she wanders off from the house to take an impromptu ride on her horse, Pago, while her mother is churning butter. When she comes across Abe “the prophet” on her stroll, she is not afraid of him per se though she is taken aback by his claims of her having Native American heritage. Back at the house later on, she is mystifyingly charmed by his odd presence as if he were a legendary figure. Her fearlessness is noted by Ben one afternoon when he and some other men are rounding up horses for an upcoming trip. Rachel’s presence there is not only out of place for woman folk whose place was in the home but also dangerous because she could have been severely injured or even killed by untamed horses. Although she was aware of these issues, she was too intrigued to stay away. To me, Rachel was a dreamer who saw the best in people and never questioned their actions. These characteristics stem from the sheltered environment in which she was raised but also from her natural, generous nature.

From my viewpoint, it is unimaginable to think of anyone other than Audrey playing the role of Rachel. Audrey brought freshness to this character that is mimicking of carefree youth, where everything is beautiful and the world is one’s oyster. At the same time, she showed intelligence and deep thinking that showed her more mature side. When it was time for Rachel to finally grow up once and for all, which occurred during the ending shoot-out, she assumed her responsibilities. I personally neither questioned Audrey’s age when I first saw this film a few years ago nor when I recently watched it again. It did not appear to me that a grown woman was attempting, and failing, to look much younger. Audrey’s youthful looks certainly helped her but it was mostly the attitude she brought to Rachel that was the most convincing aspect. Having seen a large majority of her films, it is not difficult for me to say that this is one of her best performances. I also admire her determination to finish the picture despite the huge setbacks she faced during filming, which including breaking her back and suffering the devastating loss of her unborn child. Ms. Hepburn was a fighter, consummate thespian and just an all-around beautiful person.

hepburn-blogathon-banner-4

To honour Audrey’s legacy of humanitarianism, I’m including the link to Unicef where you can make a donation in her memory.

https://www.unicef.org/

unicef-for-every-child-logo


17 thoughts on “Classic Film Talk: ‘The Unforgiven’ (1960)

  1. Great piece on a much underrated film. While it’s far from being one of my favourite Audrey Hepburn films, I think it is far from being her worst film. The film itself may well not be much of a masterpiece, but her performance is very good indeed. This is a different Audrey than we are used to seeing and her performance is interesting to watch.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you so much, Maddy! 😁
      I actually prefer ‘The Unforgiven’ to ‘The Searchers’ but acknowledge that the film has a much better reputation on the whole in France were it is considered a masterpiece. It’s definitely a different role for Audrey, just like the one in ‘War and Peace’, but showed her ability to more than just beautiful and funny.

      Like

  2. I agree! This is still a near-excellent movie, and Hepburn is superb in it. She is believable as a girl in her late teens, and the transition from innocence to maturity once she finds out about her roots, is beautifully done. At the same time I can understand why John Huston, might have not have liked the film. His movies like “The Maltese Falcon” (1941), “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” (1948) which you’ve mentioned, “Key Largo” (1948), “The African Queen” (1951), “The Night of the Iguana” (1964) and “Annie” (1982) are all masterpieces!! So “The Unforgiven” (1960) and “The Misfits” (1961); pales in comparison! But still they come close to excellence, the critics were wrong to pan in down, to that degree!!
    Only Huston films that were not that great were, “Reflections in a Golden Eye” (1967); and the original “Casino Royale” (1967), which he co-directed with various others. But still they were Average, not bad! In fact “Reflections in a Golden Eye” Averagely Good!!
    When it comes to classic westerns, my two favourites are Fred Zinnemann’s “High Noon” (1952) and; the one you spoke of, i.e. John Ford’s “The Searchers” (1956)
    When it comes to Hepburn’s performances, there is no Hepburn movie I dislike, with exception of “Green Mansions” (1959) which was a rare film directed by her husband, Mel Ferrer! Yet, it’s watchable, thanks to Audrey Hepburn and Anthony Perkins!!
    Very well researched insight into the background of “The Unforgiven”!!!!
    Enjoyable Read!!!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you so much, Nuwan! 😀
      It’s true that Audrey was naturally youthful looking but there was so much expression in her body language and dialogue delivery that also helped her be convincing as Rachel. I really love the scene when she talks with Ben about her feelings for him, sort of hinting at “what if?” because she is still clearly a girl yet she had some very mature thoughts going through her mind. Huston had some personal issues such as alcoholism which did not help his appreciation of his work. Admittedly though, it was certainly a frightening task to do this film as an unofficial companion to ‘The Searchers’. You are so right about ‘Reflections in a Golden Eye’, which is about one of the most bizarre films I have ever seen. Brando seems to still be off my radar to a large degree, as well!
      I don’t believe I’ve seen ‘Green Mansions’ but being a big fan of Tony Perkins, I would gladly give it a try. Mel was an interesting fella and I recently enjoyed his performance in ‘Scaramouche’ very much.
      Again, I appreciate your kind remarks! I personally learned so much about the behind-the-scenes details of this film. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

    1. You are always so generous in your appreciation, Paddy. Thank you! 🙂
      I agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts. There are definitely moments that are a bit odd, such as the impromptu Zachary & Rawlins reunion after Ben brings home the piano. Cash’s reaction to Georgia was quite something, especially since she was rather attractive and there was not an extraordinary amount of competition/choices for marriage. The “trial” of old man Abe is another one. I like the fearlessness of this film to be imperfect in those aspects. I sure hope that more people will try to see ‘The Unforgiven’ in a more positive light and that it will garner more praise for it’s story and performances.

      Like

  3. A great and very complete review of this underrated film, Erica! I’ve only seen it once and quite a long time ago, but I remember liking it despite some of its problems. I also believe it’s the first Burt Lancaster’s film I ever saw!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you ever so much, Virginie! 😊 Sometimes I feel like I “owe” it to a film to be very thorough, especially when my opinion goes against the grain. This is truly an underrated film and am glad To see that you recognise it as such. What a way to be introduced to Burt! He was so physical in this. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Well, the film did disappoint me. It has some interesting elements and a great cast, but overall, I thought it was lesser Huston. I do want to re-watch it — your review gives lots of things to think about. BTW, Bette Davis was offered Lillian Gish’s role, but turned down.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That’s perfectly understandable. In fact, I sas disappointed by ‘The Searchers’ which I watched after this. It’s funny to see how films touch us differently. 🙂
      Huston is a director with whom I’m becoming familiar but not on an emotionally intimate level like David Lean, for example. Thank you for remaining open to my thoughts! How interesting that Bette was offered the role. Lillian was just lovely but billed well below where she and her legacy deserved to be.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I tend to like Huston’s movies. He hit some rough patches, but overall, his movies are good/interesting. But, yeah, I see what you mean. I don’t love Huston the same way I love Lean, Wilder or Hitchcock …

        Liked by 1 person

  5. It is a pretty interesting film. You’d never expect European sophisticate Audrey Hepburn to play a Western gal, but there it is. I can’t say it’s got the subversive themes that made “The Searchers” so good, but at least John Huston seems to be on the right side of history. Your article makes me want to watch the film again. Superb article!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I appreciate your kind words, Victor! 😊
      That is a good observation about Audrey! In fact, I read that Rex Harrison had reservations about her playing Eliza as a commoner in ‘My Fair Lady’ because he regarded her as having grown up with a silver spoon in her mouth. Audrey’s natural low browness would prove otherwise, opening her up to roles like Rachel.
      I wonder if it would have made a difference casting Wayne instead of Lancaster? 🤔
      I hope you get a chance to watch the film again and really enjoyed hearing your thoughts on it.

      Like

  6. Fantastic review, Erica! An absolute joy to read from start to finish! 💚 I’m a dreamer and like to think Ben and Rachel were married and had a family. She and Burt’s chemistry is divine. Thank you again for writing so wonderfully about this film.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You are too kind, Gabriela! 🤗 I really think that they ended up together especially considering that he finally openly acknowledged his feelings for her after keeping them buried for so long. It’s only sad that their chance for happiness had to come at such a bitter price. I appreciate the fact that you have a positive opinion about this film, too. 😊

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s