Talk:Revisionist Western

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Unjust Removal

Why were There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men removed from the list of Revisionist Western Films?

No Country for Old Men is a revisionist western, 100%. If the Three Burials of Melquadies Estrada qualify for this list so does No Country For Old Men.

There Will Be Blood also qualifies. Daniel Plainview may not be a cowboy, but the film as a whole show a nontraditional picture of times. It contains cynicism, black humor, criticisms of big business and religious institutions as well as scenes of graphic violence. That's practically all the elements of a revisionist western.

There is no rational reason for their removal. I am returning them to the list.

75.4.28.47 (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be an edit war going on over the inclusion/exclusion of the film No Country for Old Men. Can anyone made a solid case, or better yet, cite a reference, for either view? — Loadmaster (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Defintion?

I don't see any coherent definition here or any rason at all behind the use of the term revisionist. What's to differentiate it from simple historical fiction. Also: the idea of the western didn't arise until after WWII. Who made this definition? I hope someone can answer these, as I see no grounds for an article here. --DanielCD 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm confused

What definition? The idea of the western didn't arise until after WWII? The Virginian? Karl May? The Great Train Robbery? More explanation, please.

dino 02:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Me too

Who made the definition? It's pretty simple. What's to differentiate it from simple historical fiction? Give where this is referred to outside of this article. Is this something someone just made up, this division? The reader wonders. Some citations are needed to strangthen the case here, that's all I'm saying. What is the big difference between before and after WWII other than that time point? The article leaves the reader thinking it's complately arbitrary. But there must be a reason.

Some historians define the Revisionist Western as any Western made after World War II.

In a nutshell, cite this line. That would greatly improve the quality and believability of this article. Why the term "revisionist"? --DanielCD 03:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Got rid of it

Who is responsible for that line I do not know. I agree, it's nonsense -- think of the TV Westerns of the 1960s. I rearranged things & gave better explanations.

dino 20:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I was thinking there was nothing more to this than an arbitrary time division. I knew there had to be more. Thanks.
BTW, I took out Brokwback Mountain as it seems to me a little grand to call this a western. It's really more of a drama and only takes place in the west. I didn't know what other people thought of that. There weren't any Indians or gunfights or Clint Eastwood-types there. The formula is of a contemporary love story and doesn't seem at all akin to High Plains Drifter or the like. --DanielCD 20:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Brokeback Mountain...?

Is that a western at all? Medico80 10:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Brokeback Mountain??

Wide-screen, panning scenery shots, set in Wyoming of sheepherders (OK, not cowboys, but close), a few gunshots, men who almost never talk, ... if that's not a Western, ... it sure isn't a romantic comedy.

dino 18:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brokeback Mountain???

Its definitely a Western, but I think it would qualify more as a Neo Western. Due to the fact that its a present day story (well, 1960s present day). Same with The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada

[edit] The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

From the article (2007-07-28):

Revisionist motives can be seen in spaghtti westerns such as The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966), in which the hero is no better then the bad guy and does good things only because he is driven by greed.

I think that the motivation for Eastwood's "Good" character is a matter of opinion, or at least varying interpretation. The scene where he gives a dying Union soldier a last puff of a cigarette is an example illustrating that he really is good deep down, in contrast to van Cleef's "bad" and Wallach's "ugly" characters. True, he's after the money, but he's still fair to people along the way. — Loadmaster 03:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Unjust Removals

I'd like to know the reasoning behind removing Blazing Saddles, Don't Touch The White Woman! and Heaven's Gate.69.45.100.129 (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)