Analysis of UNFORGIVEN wrong???
Posted: Jan 11, 2009 7:23 pm
I believe the Dramatica Analysis of Unforgiven misses the author's intent. This is a story about how a character can repress their dark side, but can't truly change it. In this post, I argue that Munny is STEADFAST, not CHANGE, that he is a do-er, not a be-er, and that the Judgment is Good. Please indicate where you think I'm wrong, because I just don't agree with the Dramatica analysis. It would greatly aid my understanding of applying the Dramatica principles. Okay, here we go . . .
The Dramatica analysis pegs Munny as a change character because "he starts out a family man who has relinquised his hard-drinking, man-killing ways and is drawn back to killing for money." But if this is the case, his "change" occurs early in act 1 (minute 16:50 to 18:45), not the final act of the story. No influence is needed from the IC for Munny's "change" to happen. Munny makes the decision because his farm is failing and he needs money to raise the kids. Nor did he change because anyone challenged his worldview. Indeed, Ned even tries to talk him out of it: "you wouldn't be doing this if your wife were still alive" (minute 25:05). Not even this guilt trip dissuades Munny from the journey.
Munny is a STEADFAST main character who has simply repressed his hard-drinking, man-killing ways until the day the Skofield Kid arrives. He doesn't like pursuing the reward money but does because his farm is failing and he need to provide for his children. Later, when he discovers that Ned has been killed, his resolve hardens further and he decides to pursue the killing of Sheriff Bill as well.
Ned (the IC) is the one who really changes. When Munny and Ned first meet, Ned admits that killing is never easy, but he puts up little resistance to partnering up with Munny. They ride off at the end of Act 1 (minute 28:00). After the trio kills the first cowboy, and before the job is completely finished in Act 3, Ned decides killing isn't for him and he parts company with Munny and the Skofield Kid (minute 94:10). When Ned first meets Munny, he is willing to pursuing killing for the reward, but after the first killing, he wants no more of it -- hardly the mark of a steadfast character. Ned is even willing to give up his share of the reward to pursue his "changed heart." That makes him a CHANGE impact character.
To the the minor extent the Skofield Kid plays an IC role, he, too, represents change. When Munny and the Skofield Kid are overlooking Big Whiskey after they've killed the second cowboy (minute 105:40), the Skofield Kid openly declares that killing isn't for him (and this is before the whore arrives with news of Ned's death at minute 109). Munny remains steadfast.
Another big clue to Munny's steadfastness comes in the written epilogue prior to the movie's credit roll (minute 124:45). Does Munny stay a killer? No. After Munny has finished killing Sheriff Bill, he takes his kids, moves to San Francisco, and becomes a successful businessman. Once again, his dark side simply goes into remission (presumably until the forces in the world force him to summon it again).
Okay, now on to the do-er vs be-er debate. The Dramatica analysis pegs Munny as a be-er because "after a kicking by Little Bill, Munny doesn't even seek revenge; this doesn't happen until Ned is killed." I see this more a result of his logical problem-solving style, knowing he must restrain his desire to fight back, both to stay alive and to achieve the objective of collecting the "whore's gold." And as the bar confrontation is set up, what could Munny possibly do with six guys pointing guns at him? Both do-ers and be-ers, if they were smart, would probably behave in the same meek way Munny did. Little Bill had a fearsome reputation.
I believe Munny is a do-er because he pursues the goal of solving his failing pig farm problem by pursuing the goal of killing the cowboys and collecting the reward in a very EXTERNAL way. He does not internalize his failing farm problem or the fact he can't provide adequately for his kids through INTERNAL means.
Okay, now on to the Judgment. The Dramatica analysis pegs the judgment as BAD because " . . . the dark side of his nature that he's suppressed for years has resurfaced. He's become a mean killer again, drinks hard liquor, and will surely be haunted by the faces of his new victims." This is in direct contradiction to the the epilog at the film's conclusion, which portrays the MISUNDERSTANDING that his wife's mother had about Munny's character. In fact, Munny becomes a successful businessman in San Francisco, and apparently only Munny's wife really understood that there was also a good side to his character, that he wasn't all bad, that he could suppress his evil ways, his killing, and his thieving (and did so when he got married).
Okay, that's it. Thanks in advance for any replies.
The Dramatica analysis pegs Munny as a change character because "he starts out a family man who has relinquised his hard-drinking, man-killing ways and is drawn back to killing for money." But if this is the case, his "change" occurs early in act 1 (minute 16:50 to 18:45), not the final act of the story. No influence is needed from the IC for Munny's "change" to happen. Munny makes the decision because his farm is failing and he needs money to raise the kids. Nor did he change because anyone challenged his worldview. Indeed, Ned even tries to talk him out of it: "you wouldn't be doing this if your wife were still alive" (minute 25:05). Not even this guilt trip dissuades Munny from the journey.
Munny is a STEADFAST main character who has simply repressed his hard-drinking, man-killing ways until the day the Skofield Kid arrives. He doesn't like pursuing the reward money but does because his farm is failing and he need to provide for his children. Later, when he discovers that Ned has been killed, his resolve hardens further and he decides to pursue the killing of Sheriff Bill as well.
Ned (the IC) is the one who really changes. When Munny and Ned first meet, Ned admits that killing is never easy, but he puts up little resistance to partnering up with Munny. They ride off at the end of Act 1 (minute 28:00). After the trio kills the first cowboy, and before the job is completely finished in Act 3, Ned decides killing isn't for him and he parts company with Munny and the Skofield Kid (minute 94:10). When Ned first meets Munny, he is willing to pursuing killing for the reward, but after the first killing, he wants no more of it -- hardly the mark of a steadfast character. Ned is even willing to give up his share of the reward to pursue his "changed heart." That makes him a CHANGE impact character.
To the the minor extent the Skofield Kid plays an IC role, he, too, represents change. When Munny and the Skofield Kid are overlooking Big Whiskey after they've killed the second cowboy (minute 105:40), the Skofield Kid openly declares that killing isn't for him (and this is before the whore arrives with news of Ned's death at minute 109). Munny remains steadfast.
Another big clue to Munny's steadfastness comes in the written epilogue prior to the movie's credit roll (minute 124:45). Does Munny stay a killer? No. After Munny has finished killing Sheriff Bill, he takes his kids, moves to San Francisco, and becomes a successful businessman. Once again, his dark side simply goes into remission (presumably until the forces in the world force him to summon it again).
Okay, now on to the do-er vs be-er debate. The Dramatica analysis pegs Munny as a be-er because "after a kicking by Little Bill, Munny doesn't even seek revenge; this doesn't happen until Ned is killed." I see this more a result of his logical problem-solving style, knowing he must restrain his desire to fight back, both to stay alive and to achieve the objective of collecting the "whore's gold." And as the bar confrontation is set up, what could Munny possibly do with six guys pointing guns at him? Both do-ers and be-ers, if they were smart, would probably behave in the same meek way Munny did. Little Bill had a fearsome reputation.
I believe Munny is a do-er because he pursues the goal of solving his failing pig farm problem by pursuing the goal of killing the cowboys and collecting the reward in a very EXTERNAL way. He does not internalize his failing farm problem or the fact he can't provide adequately for his kids through INTERNAL means.
Okay, now on to the Judgment. The Dramatica analysis pegs the judgment as BAD because " . . . the dark side of his nature that he's suppressed for years has resurfaced. He's become a mean killer again, drinks hard liquor, and will surely be haunted by the faces of his new victims." This is in direct contradiction to the the epilog at the film's conclusion, which portrays the MISUNDERSTANDING that his wife's mother had about Munny's character. In fact, Munny becomes a successful businessman in San Francisco, and apparently only Munny's wife really understood that there was also a good side to his character, that he wasn't all bad, that he could suppress his evil ways, his killing, and his thieving (and did so when he got married).
Okay, that's it. Thanks in advance for any replies.