MovieChat Forums > The Outlaw (1946) Discussion > Does it hurt to have your ears Shot Off?...

Does it hurt to have your ears Shot Off??


Today, Sat. March 20, 2010 and just finished watching 'The Outlaw' on TCM. I've never seen this movie but as others have stated, it's a fun movie to watch and hilarious at times. Beutel (as Billy) and Jane Russell are horrible actors and whenever the movie tried to be serious I found myself laughing. When they went for the comedy (with the background trumpet going wah wah wah wah wah) I didn't even crack a smile. I do like movies that have a certain 'campyness' to them and when they're so 'bad' that they're 'good', well it makes it all the better. I did find myself fixated on two 'objects' thru much of the movie but enough has been mentioned about that. It's also hilarious that the three men (who much of the time claim to be 'best friends') were always trying to murder each other. Now that's brotherhood! Funniest scene to me (Spoiler alert) is towards the end. Pat Garret draws on Billy and Billy refuses to draw. Pat keeps demanding that Billy draw but Billy holds his ground and keeps his hands at his sides. Pat shoots him first in the right hand and Billy doesn't flinch. Pat then shoots a good portion of Billy's right ear off and no reaction from Billy. Pat then shoots most of Billy's left ear off and Billy doesn't even grimace or move. Billy stands there with both ears bleeding and mostly gone now, and talks very calmly for 5 minutes before lighting a smoke. After shooting Billy's ears off, Pat walks up and hugs him like a son and the earless Billy returns Pat's affection while calmly speaking. Call me old fashioned but 'Doesn't it hurt just a little bit when someone shoots your ears off?' For some reason this scene really cracked me up. Like I stated, this movie is pretty bad but it makes it fun to watch. Huston is good as always and Jane has two good points that are often filmed in closeup. I would watch this movie again for some reason and I recommend you check it out just for it's humor value.

reply

huh?what?!?

when i do good no one remembers,when i do bad no one forgets

reply

If you guys were really tough, you would know that having your ear shot off is just a minor annoyance.

reply

Well I guess the premise is that he merely "nicked" Billy's ears. They look like good sized chunks but there are no missing ears. Billy is so butch that he couldn't let on that it hurts.
They whole idea is preposterous naturally. But his ears weren't "shot off".

reply

Well.. agree with you for most part.. but it was Doc who shot Billy's ears off and not Pat :-)

reply

Two corrections: (1) It's Doc who shoots The Kid's ears, not Pat Garrett; and (2) the sequence of light wounds to The Kid's is right hand, left ear, and right ear.

You have a point, though. The scene is so utterly unbelievable that it was released in the movie just because the director and the producer were the same person.

The colorized version enhances the feeling that the «light wounds» do eliminate the ear lobes and additional cartilage from both ears, and the back of the right hand is indented deep enough (though without the rivers of blood that we would expect...) to prevent him using the hand for the fast draw that had made him so famous!

reply

...according to this movie apparently not! LOL! For some reason I keep flashing Back to Monty Python and The Holy Grail and the battle with The Black Knight. "Oh it's just a flesh wound! Nothing to be alarmed about."

reply