Compare and contrast the representation of the man with no name in A Fistful of Dollars and William Munney in Unforgiven

MEDIA COURSEWORK ESSAY TITLE 2004

BY CRAIG DON 10HS

Compare and contrast the representation of “the man with no name” in “A Fistful of Dollars” and William Munney in “Unforgiven”. Do we have sympathy with these re- worked heroes? Your answer should include reference to film language, especially the use of generic conventions and iconography.

The Western genre is an extremely important film type as some of the world’s most revolutionary productions originated from the ideas that Western films portrayed, such as, Star Wars. They represent honour, courage, good and bad along with many other important themes. This essay will discuss the similarities and differences of the “the man with no name” and William Munney. It will focus on three main areas; they are character, relationships and representation.

First of all, the similarities between the two characters, “the man with no name” is fearless this is evident to see on more than one occasion, for example, after a few bandits shot at his mule to scare it away he returned back later demanding an apology for his mule even though he was out-numbered. When they refused he shot them all without even batting an eyelid. In the final scene he faces the main family who have committed multiple murders and crimes. Even though he had his shooting hand crushed earlier on in the film and he had to teach himself to shot with his weaker hand and he was out-numbered with only his trusty pistol. He showed no fear and defeated the enemy for good with the help of his loyal Mexican friend. William Munny also shows that he is fearless when at the end of the film he fights Little Bill and his gang on his own. He decides to do this after he found out that Little Bill had tortured and later killed his loyal companion using a whip. Even though he was heavily out-numbered he managed to defeat all of his rivals including Little Bill with only one bullet left in his gun, this shows true courage and determination.

This is a preview of the whole essay

In both films “the man with no name” and William Munney give a very tough impression which are symbolised by certain objects. “The man with no name” uses his poncho, which broadens him making him look larger and more intimidating and chews tobacco to make himself look even harder. William Munney does not have a certain object that makes him look tough perhaps from his hat, which disguises a majority of his face and his long coat this signals his change back to a ruthless killer. The director uses low angle camera shots to give the impression that he looks down on people and uses his superiority to daunt people, this occurs in the final scene when he stands over Little Bill just before he shots him. Even with their tough persona they are actually kind at heart and they show this when “the man with no name” helps a family escape from danger and William Munny protects the Scholfield Kid.

Their tough guy image is dented when both are brutally assaulted by different groups of men, “the man with no name” is attacked by the rival family of the family he helped escape and William Munney by Little Bill and his gang. They both remained emotionless throughout the whole experience but “the man with no name” unsuccessfully attempted to fight back whereas William Munney just allowed the attack continue without an attempt to restrain the attackers.

The main characters of Spaghetti Western’s are associated with being good and fighting against the evil even though in “A Fistful of Dollars” and in “Unforgiven” they both do their fair share of good. For example, “the man with no name” defeats the bandits and William Munney gains revenge for the saloon girls. In contrast to this both characters commit acts of unkindness “the man with no name” did not help the boy and his father and William Munny killed innocent people. The maintenance of their macho appearance induces others to feel intimidated by these characters.

If “the man with no name” continues living the life he currently has it will become predictable that in the future he will probably turn out to be the same as William Munney. They have the same characteristics such as being fearless and acting extremely tough and they are both bounty hunters who search for money.

The similarities have now been discussed and it is necessary to endeavour to talk about the differences between “the man with no name” and William Munney. First of all, the way in which the characters change throughout their concerned films. “The man with no name” changes in a good way when we first see him he allows a child and his father to be abused by a group of men so we distinguish him as being bad and uncaring. Later on in the film “the man with no name” aids a family in escaping from the town and defeats a group of bandits who were causing trouble so we now distinguish him as being good and caring. William Munney changes in a bad way, the complete opposite of the change that occurs with “the man with no name”. At first we perceive him as being good as he wants to help the saloon girls gain revenge but we see him as weak because he is unable to mount a horse. The change from weak to strong in William Munney is emphasised by his frailties in the opening scenes such as the inability to mount a horse, when he falls when attending the pigs and the way the director uses camera shots to make it seem that the Scholfield Kid is looking down on William Munney making him insignificant compared to a young man. As the film progresses he becomes stronger but with his new found strength it brings along a bad streak, which we are able to see as he kills all of his rivals with no sign of remorse and his strength is shown as he is able to defeat Little Bill and all of his gang. William Munney is a changed man but he can change back to normal if he wanted to as he has done it before but he is scared of doing so.

Another difference is the way in which the authority that provides the law in both cases a Sheriff treats “the man with no name” and William Munney. The Sheriff in “A Fistful of Dollars” does not stand up to “the man with no name” and just allows him to walk away after shooting the four bandits.

In “Unforgiven” William Munney is treated in a very harsh manner and is brutally attacked by Little Bill in the bar on the suspicion he was carrying a firearm. Both of these scenes were at the beginning of each film and the characters have not yet shown much change in their traits, “the man with no name” is still bad, powerful and would intimidate any man whereas William Munney is still at the stage of being weak and fragile and he looks as if would be an easy person to assault.

Eventually both men are seen as very powerful “the man with no name” is presented to be powerful with the usage of camera shots such as low angle to make him seem superior to any other man and close-ups of certain attributes to create the feeling of authority. The actions that occur also make him seem dominant such as the poncho broadening him and the chewing of the tobacco, while William Munney becomes powerful and the change from weak to strong creates a contrast. There is also a contrast in the way both films represent violence. In “A Fistful of Dollars” violence is glamorised, admirable, satisfying and stylised but in “Unforgiven” violence is horrific and morally ambiguous it ia a twist in the formula.

In “A Fistful of Dollars” the relationship between “the man with no name” and his Mexican friend is different from the relationship between William Munney and the Scholfield Kid in “Unforgiven”. “The man with no name” shows respect to his friend as he allowed him to stay in his Inn but omits to show compassion, when his friend is being beaten up he does not react and just watches as the beating continued. On the other hand William Munney does show his sympathy for the Scholfield Kid because after he kills a man for the first time William Munney comforts the Scholfield Kid and reassures him that everything will work out in the end.

So in conclusion from all of the information that is collated in this essay “the man with no name” and William Munney do have certain aspects of their character that are the same and some that are different. The main bulk of this essay concentrates on the character and indicates that “the man with no name” and William Munney are incredibly similar and with only a minority of characteristics differing. The main point to be remembered from this essay is if they do some good or bad along the way they only do it for their primary objective, which is to make money.