As most of you will know the premise of Unforgiven is that a killer comes out of retirement after 11 years to do one last killing for money when he hears about a prostitute who has been disfigured by two cowboys. The story follows his journey and explores the debunking of western myths and the savagery underneath the newly civilised West.

What interests me is that there is not a word out of place. Every word has its place and use in terms of furthering the plot. There is no fluff or padding, nothing is redundant. Yet, between those words and the superb actors – Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman, Frances Fisher, and Richard Harris – delivering those lines, the whole world of the new west is exposed. The heroic myths of the cowboy and gunslinger are set up to be knocked down. The screenplay allows the actors to finely draw their characters through its actions and few words.

It is a slow burner. There is no rush about the action. Even the final shootout is extended longer than most western shootouts to show the grim reality of the situation. The change of Eastwood’s character from vaguely sympathetic to mean, cold blooded killer at the end is quite chilling and surprising to the other characters left alive in the town.

The only major sub plot is that of the fate of English Bob, the dandified gunslinger hired by the Railroad company to shoot absconding Chinese coolies, with his biographer who paints a romantic picture of the gunslinger for his publishers. His meeting with Little Bill Daggett, town marshall, betrays the reality of his encounters and enables us to see the ferocious interior of Daggett despite his early affable exterior.

The plot is slight and spare. It could have been an episode of a western series. But the attention to detail and the excellence of the screenplay make it a riveting film with suspense and interest in the characters throughout. If you want to look at how to blend plot, character and dialogue seamlessly to deliver a colourful and interesting story then go no further than this.

In the same year came one of the best of the recent westerns. Glory was the story of the first black regiment to fight for the North in the civil war and how they overcame prejudice from their own side to gain respect and dignity for blacks in America. Directed by Edward Zwick, it lit the tinderbox for the careers of a young Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman and told a moving story about the difficulties faced by them and the young white officer charged with leading their regiment.  The ending always brings a lump to my throat when I see it. Oscar glory followed with 3 gongs for best supporting actor (Washington) and best cinematography (Freddie Francis).

Westerns became cool again. The next year we were treated to Dances With Wolves (1990), a stirring Kevin Costner western, looking at prairie life from the point of view of the native Americans and a disaffected cavalry officer. Costner collected 2 Oscars for it and went on to make other westerns but never reached the heights that he did with this film. Open Range was a return to form but Dances With Wolves was the pinnacle.

Clint Eastwood successfully returned to westerns in 1992 both acting in and directing Unforgiven. This film was a gritty and realistic account of how Clint’s character is paid to avenge the disfigurement of a prostitute. It is a character-led piece with occasional bursts of explosive and bloody action. The supporting cast are pitch perfect and some of the myths of the west are exposed. It won 4 Oscars including best picture and best director.

Gettysburg (1993) directed by Ronald F. Maxwell recreated the famous civil war battle and gained many admirers for its attention to detail and stirring battle scenes. It also spawned a prequel – Gods and Generals (2003) – showing the events leading up to civil war.

So the western is alive and well and can still thrive in the mainstream. When Spielberg does mini series about westerns (Into The West) and old stories can be reinvigorated to reach a new generation then it will always have a place in Hollywood.

First and foremost, I must say that the sentiment, to try and view the same event from both sides, is highly commendable. It is easier to do it when there is a substantial time elapsed afterwards. It could not be done even handedly nearer the event because of emotions running high on both sides. I can still remember the old John Wayne war film – “The Sands of Iwo Jima” which was basically US propaganda determined to show the Japanese as evil enemies and fuel up support at home for the War. “Flags of Our Fathers” shows the US propaganda machine at work trying to extract money from the American public for the war by using the the remaining soldiers from the iconic photograph of raising the flag on Iwo Jima and parading them as heroes. “Letters from Iwo Jima” traces the last days of the doomed Japanese defenders of the island and the internal conflicts between them as well as the battle raging about them. Both films have a black and gray look taking their cue from the photograph and the barren volcanic rock that is Iwo Jima but the similarities end there. There is no real intermingling of the films.

These films act more as historical documents with the benefit of hindsight, more so “Flags of Our Fathers” which concentrates on what happens to the three remaining soldiers when they are paraded back home to help the war effort. While it is extremely interesting to see ordinary guys being branded as heroes and used by the government and the armed forces, the lack of a strong central performance causes the film to lose its way a little bit. The battle scenes are bloody and harrowing but the lack of character development at the beginning means that the emotional pull is not as strong as it should be. In the heat of battle it is difficult to know who is getting shot or blown up. The use of flashbacks rather than clarifying the story adds to the confusion in my opinion. The later attempts to take you into the later lives of these men are poorly realised.

“Letter from Iwo Jima” on the other hand is the better of the two films simply because the script (by Iris Yamashita)  is better, the characters are better developed in the first half of the film and the use of flashbacks is limited but telling in the overall feel of the film. The internal conflict between the old guard loyal to the Emperor and an honourable death and those just trying to survive is brought out clearly. There is irony and pathos in abundance. Not even the presence of sub titles could detract from the telling of the story.

It is helped by two strong central performances, one by Ken Watanabe as the commander-in-chief of the Japanese defensive force and one by Kazunari Ninomiya as one of the less than willing conscripts. The story is told through their eyes. You cannot help but get emotionally involved with the characters and as one by one they die you are left with the feeling of an awful tragedy. A strong and affecting film which deservedly received an Oscar nomination for best picture.

The two films are nevertheless an outstanding achievement by Clint Eastwood (and Steven Spielberg as producer) and together have added depth and complexity to the war film genre.