Is 'Unforgiven' Really Anti-Violence... or Just REAL Violence?

Okay, fellow cinephiles, Priya here, chiming in on 'Unforgiven' (1992). I've been thinking about it since I rewatched it last week. So many people call it an anti-violence Western, and yeah, at first glance, it totally seems that way. The whole 'violence begets violence' theme is definitely there, especially with Little Bill Daggett's (Gene Hackman chef's kiss) brutal law enforcement and Munny's (Clint Eastwood) attempts to escape his past. But... I'm not entirely convinced it's that simple. What gets me is how Eastwood directs those violent scenes. They're not glorified. Remember Quick Mike getting his face slashed? It's ugly, messy, and uncomfortable. It feels… real. And the final showdown in Skinny's is just brutal, a quick exercise in extreme violence. Maybe THAT'S the point. Maybe it's not about saying violence is bad (duh, it is!), but about showing how empty it is. Like, Munny goes back to being this efficient killer that he was, but if you look closely, you just see the emptiness in his eyes. No joy, no satisfaction, just hollow brutality. The opposite of a John Woo ballet. My take is that the movie isn't necessarily anti-violence, but it wants to show the reality of it. It strips away the romanticism that Westerns often have. It shows the cost of violence in terms of emotional trauma and the brutal reality of its consequences. I mean, all those dead people in the bar – were any of them even guilty? I'm sure some of them weren't. What do you all think? Am I reading too much into it? Maybe it's just a great Western that makes you think. I still don't know all the answers, but I know its one of my favorites. Curious for your thoughts!