The movie has to be judged as a movie and by what you see without having read the book; but in the book Everett is the narrator, so in that sense he's kind of the main character, although the focus of the action (both in APPALOOSA and the subsequent volumes of the trilogy) is Virgil. Even in the movie, however, I felt that we are kind of seeing things through Everett's eyes. Often when we learn about Virgil it's from Everett discussing his friend with others.
In the book, also, the events after the shootout with the Sheltons and Bragg's eventual return to Appaloosa are more detailed and drawn out. Some of this was filmed but edited out. In the missing scenes you can feel Everett's increasing anger with Bragg and so his ultimate challenge isn't that much of a surprise. But even in the movie, as is, it seems like Everett is a lot more angry with Bragg than Virgil, and Everett knows about Allie cheating with Bragg, which Virgil doesn't.
As has been discussed here before, Bragg was a good shot with a rifle--at least against men who weren't expecting him to shoot them. With a handgun, facing an opponent who was equally skilled and determined (and with Everett, I would say moreso) . . . not so much.
reply
share
silakkalaatikko
15 years ago
Very good points you made there. I haven't read the book so I see things only through the movie. If I had remembered that the narrator in the beginning was indeed Everett, I probably would have guessed that he survives the fight.
Another thing I somehow missed was Everett as the point of view. Come to think about it, there indeed were many scenes that followed Everett instead of Virgil. I wasn't surprised that he challenged Bragg, I was surprised that he walked from it alive. I was expecting the fight to lead to the climax with Virgil and Bragg. It worked better this way, though.
reply
share
samantha3
15 years ago
Most of what you see in the film is through Hitch's eyes, and you watch him watching other people, or interacting with them, far more than you see Virgil. For example, you never, except for one brief glimpse, see Virgil and Allie together without Hitch's also being there. EH uses the nonverbal equivalent of voice-over through the film when he lets VM show you by his face and body language what he is seeing and thinking.
It's an interesting way to tell a story. EH said he wouldn't have done it without VM, whose particular acting skills the part calls on. EH knew about those from working with him on HISTORY OF VIOLENCE. In that film a lot of their characters' interactions are nonverbal, including one long sequence in which the two actors simply look at each other, saying everything with their faces. It takes a particular skill to make that work, and both actors have it. You can see both of them use it in other work they have done over the years.
It also takes a director who recognizes the nonverbal interactions and uses them, and many directors seem to be afraid of doing that, especially in the age of the MTV cut, which allows for no acting subtlety whatever.
reply
share
silakkalaatikko
15 years ago
Yes, I agree on that. Many fantastic scenes are ruined with words. Not on this movie, the main characters are very complex and the acting and direction gives the viewer a lot to think about by him/herself. It's like you can almost read their thoughts.. I think I'll have to give this one another view sometimes :)
reply
share
nosuchluck220
14 years ago
@ silakka . I agree with this "Many fantastic scenes are ruined with words. " I find that movies these days tend to shy away from that unlike older movies used to. So much can be conveyed through none verbal scenes giving the right actors and how its done . New movies would benefit much more by applying this to there films.
reply
share
samantha3
14 years ago
A lot of the lack of wordless or nearly wordless scenes seems to be the filmmakers' fear that they won't hold the audience's interest. And the short, MTV-style cuts don't help the situation, either. Modern films tend to be much busier than older ones, for fear of the audience's short attention span.
It's nice to see the occasional filmmaker who isn't afraid of longer, silent or almost silent shots, but they tend to occur in auteur films and art films. And not all actors like them, either, because so many of them have never learned how to act them.
In FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING both Elijah Wood and Sean Bean were very happy that their climactic scene together could be shot in long takes, sometimes even with both of them in the shot. They both commented that it felt much more real, and thought it enabled them to do the scene better. Some of the rest of the cast, who had worked only in film, were just awestruck. The were acting like stage actors. And they liked doing it!
reply
share