AnnieLola It's certainly a high-powered cast and director, and some fine performances ensue. Lovely, genteel Audrey gives it her best, but she makes such an implausible Indian that 'willing suspension of disbelief' has a hard time keeping suspended... and the whole story hinges upon her Indian-ness. From her first appearance, folksily shooing cows off the roof in cultured Old-World tones, she's simply nothing whatever like a Kiowa or even any rural Texan-- not that the other Kiowas really look very Native American either. When her passed-off-as-white secret is threatened and one hears the remark that she's "darker than most" it's hard to buy, since in spite of some ruddy foundation (that comes and goes) she's in fact lighter than most of the cast except the very pale Gish-- and how did either of them stay pale out there in the wide open spaces anyway? Joseph Wiseman delivers a riveting portrayal of crazed old coot Abe Kelsey, but he really looks too young for the part, and in fact was only 42 when this was filmed. Lillian Gish is superb as always, despite Huston's irreverent attitude towards this enduring screen legend. During filming the hapless Gish was forced to repeat her "breasts hurting with all that milk" speech again and again, probably just because the director enjoyed embarrassing her. And the day-for-night scenes detract further from the realism. Well, fuss, fuss fuss, it's still a very impressive picture and a well-intended filmization of the source novel (whatever one's opinion of that). The music is a bit overblown here and there, but that's typical of older movie soundtracks. Well, one simply has to watch this film with an uncritical eye and accept it all at face value.

James Hitchcock "The Unforgiven" is based upon a novel by Alan Le May, who also wrote "The Searchers", and in one respect the two films can be seen as mirror- images of one another. "The Searchers" deals with a young white girl who is kidnapped by Comanche Indians and brought up as a member of their tribe. "The Unforgiven" deals with a Native American girl adopted by a white family. Both women have much stronger loyalties and emotional ties to their adoptive kin than they do to their blood relations. Rachel Zachary is a young woman living with her family in Texas. (The film was actually shot in Mexico). Her life is turned upside-down when a half-crazed old man, Abe Kelsey, arrives in the area, claiming that she is an Indian, much to Rachel's dismay; she knows that she is adopted but has always believed herself to be white. Abe is known to have quarrelled with Rachel's late father Will, and has a long-standing grudge against the family, so his allegations are dismissed by Rachel's three adoptive brothers, Ben, Cash and Andy, and their mother Matilda. These allegations, however, are believed by the local Kiowa Indians whose chief, Lost Bird, believes Rachel to be his long-lost sister and, increasingly, by other white people in the area whose bitter racism against Native Americans also extends to anyone they suspect of having Indian blood. Eventually, Matilda is forced to admit that Abe's story is the truth and that Rachel is indeed a Kiowa, saved and adopted by her late husband as a baby after her parents were killed in a massacre. Audrey Hepburn was an unusual choice to play Rachel; she was not an actress associated with Westerns (this was her only one) and she is not convincing as a Native American. The film-makers, however, clearly wanted an established star in the role, which would have ruled out casting any actress of American Indian blood, and as the plot involves a romantic attraction between Rachel and Ben casting a white actress might have eased any possible problems with the Production Code. (The Code still officially banned mixed-race on-screen romances, although this tended to be overlooked if the non-white character was played by a white actress). Audrey herself may have been attracted to the movie by her own experiences of racism (she lived through the Nazi occupation of Holland) and by a desire to expand her range as an actress. Although she is best remembered today for light-hearted romantic comedies she was always anxious not to be typecast and, throughout her career, tended to alternate between this sort of film and more serious fare, appearing in the likes of "War and Peace", "The Nun's Story" and "The Children's Hour". In the event, she did not enjoy making "The Unforgiven", especially after she was injured falling from a horse, which perhaps explains why she never made another Western. She recovered from her injuries, however, and returned to the screen the following year with "Breakfast at Tiffany's", perhaps her greatest performance.Burt Lancaster was another actor who struggled successfully against typecasting, in his case as the hero of films noirs or of swashbuckling action-adventure movies, and by 1960 was starting to appear in the sort of serious, thoughtful roles which were to become his trademark in the latter part of his career. He gives the best performance in this film as Ben Zachary, the eldest of the three brothers, and a man torn between his instinctive honesty and his desire not to believe the unwelcome truth about his adoptive sister which, if generally known, would make the family pariahs in the eyes of their racist neighbours. The director John Huston is said to have described this as his least satisfying film, something which has always surprised me as he made a number of films far worse than this one, such as the tedious "The Bible" or the lame Bond spoof "Casino Royale". (Not everything Huston made was a "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" or a "Red Badge of Courage"). Much of his dissatisfaction seems to have stemmed from a dispute between him and the production company. Huston wanted to make a serious statement about racism in the Old West (and, by extension, in modern America), whereas the studio wanted a more conventional action Western, which they felt would be both more commercial and less controversial. The resulting compromise seems to have pleased neither party. That does not mean, however, that it should not please the viewer. "The Unforgiven" is in many ways an exciting film, although not in the conventional action-adventure sense. Some of the action sequences, such as the Indian attack on the Zachary homestead, seem a bit too protracted. (And were the Indians such poor military tacticians as to waste so many lives attacking unimportant objectives? Lost Bird seems to have sacrificed around thirty of his best warriors in this assault). The excitement, rather, derives from the interaction of the various characters, the interaction between Abe, who is about to be hanged for horse-stealing, and Matilda, as she desperately tries to get him to admit that what he has said about her daughter is a lie, is almost unbearably tense. And despite Huston's reservations the film does have something significant to say about race relations; the position of people like Rachel, Indian by blood but white by culture, is something rarely explored in Westerns. This is an unusual Western, but a good one. 7/10

elevenangrymen The Zachary's are a proud family of five on the Kansas frontier. Mattilda is their mother, and she rests easy. Ben is the eldest son, he is charming, and well respected within the community. Rachel is his adopted sister, who is carefree. Cash is quick and easily made angry. Andy is still a boy, yearning to experience manhood. Their father was murdered in a Kiowa raid, so they hold a grudge against the tribe. One day, Rachel sees an old one eyed man, who stares at her peculiarly.When the man visits her home, her mother picks up a shotgun, and threatens to kill him. She doesn't, and in no time, her brother Ben comes home from a cattle drive to Wichita. They hold a dinner for a neighboring family, and Ben's partner in the cattle drive. Flirtations abound, and Charlie Rawlins, a neighbor, asks Ben permission to date Rachel. He begrudgingly agrees, as he loves his sister.Then one day, a local Kiowa tribe shows up on the Zachary's doorstep, claiming that Rachel is one of their tribe. The racist town quickly begins to turn against the Zachary's, and even the family itself begins to question their loyalties.As you read above, the film had a tough time making it through production, and Huston and Lancaster were constantly at odds. One meant for the film to be a straight up western, while the other meant to make a serious commentary on racial relations in America. Obviously their visions clashed. This could have made for a very interesting hybrid, but unfortunately, it was Lancaster's vision that reigned supreme, and the film was a pretty ordinary western, stylistically.I do wish that Huston could have had his way with the film, and created something different. However, some of Huston's vision still remains. These parts feel stylistically different from the rest of the film, which made the film a little muddled. However, it is still an interesting film.I am a big Hepburn fan, and this was a very interesting performance. She gave her typical charm in the first half, but in the second half she showed her shame, and confusion at her circumstances. It reminded me of a similar performance in The Nun's Story. Lancaster has always been an interesting actor, at least for me. At his best, he shows man ferociously in love with his sister, and yet ashamed of her roots. At his worst, well, he is stilted and his delivery feels forced. Thankfully, he is at his best for most of the film, especially during the thrilling climax.War veteran Audie Murphy gives the best performance of the film, however. Cash is a force of nature, his blithe hatred of the "injun" runs deep. He is the most fully realized character in the film. Lillian Gish is good as well, and her performance reminds me of her similar character in The Night Of The Hunter. The cinematography perfectly captures the sun-baked landscape of the west, as most westerns do. I found nothing particularly special in the way it was shot, nor in its overall look.The score is over the top on strings in the way all Tiomkin scores are. It is unmemorable to say the least. Huston's direction is good, but I feel as if he was holding back a little. The film was certainly ambitious, for a western at the time, and I cant help but feel as if the film had great potential, but it wasn't carried out in the way it should have been. I really do wish that Huston could have had his way, it would have made a much more interesting film.There are of course two things that some may find shocking. For one, Ben's love for Rachel. It goes farther than brotherly love. I understand that they are adopted siblings, but I find it shocking that this kind of taboo subject was seemingly okay in 1960. Still, that was the year of Psycho...The other concern of mine applies not only to this film, but most westerns of the period as well. The racism is so rampant and seemingly accepted, that I felt incredibly sorry for the native Americans who are killed because one of them wants to see his sister. Indeed the prejudice is so shocking, that it even surpasses The Searchers, which is incredibly racist as well. I don't want to seem all PC, but at points it can be shocking. Cash threatens his sister, whom he loved and grew up with and knew all his life, just because of her origins.I do wonder what the title has to do with the film. Who is The Unforgiven, is it Rachel, can she not be forgiven because of her roots? Is it the town, for rejecting a respected member just because she was born of native American parents? Is it Ben, for wanting his adopted sister? I guess given the date and context, the first explanation is the one that is most applicable. Or perhaps they just thought the title sounded really cool (it does).Anyways, I am not saying the film is bad. It is quite watchable, even entertaining. It is suitably dramatic, at points and light at other. The climactic shootout and the first hour are a bit too long, but it gives you time to meet the characters. It may not be Huston's best film, but it is interesting enough to hold your attention for 121 minutes. It sounds like a failure, but it feels like what it is: a western.The Unforgiven, 1960, Starring: Burt Lancaster, Audrey Hepburn and Audie Murphy Directed by John Huston 7/10 (B)This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review ever John Huston movie. You can view this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

edwagreen Very disappointing 1960 film dealing with racial prejudice.Audrey Hepburn at some turns seemed emotionally detached from her role, as an adopted girl who discovers on the frontier that she was an Indian baby taken by the Zachary family at the time of an Indian massacre.Hepburn shows restraint in some scenes as the nun she showed a year before in "The Nun's Story." Burt Lancaster, as her adopted brother, shows some similarities to his Oscar winning performance that same year in "Elmer Gantry." He is again a stalwart,showing religious convictions and no prejudice whatsoever.Audie Murphy is the real rebel here, as another brother who can't accept the fact that his adopted sister is really an Indian and abandons the family to pursue romance with Kipp Hamilton, late sister-in-law of television's Carol Burnett. For me, Hamilton made her mark as the distraught former student of Jennifer Jones in "Good Morning, Miss Dove," 5 years before this film.Veteran pro Lillian Gish is gutsy in the thankless role of the mother. She will do anything to hide the truth.The movie just tells about a group's prejudice reaction. It doesn't go into the necessary detail.Hepburn's rejection of her real life comes into focus at the end, but by this time the film has degenerated into "A Gunfight at the OK Corral-like atmosphere.