Never saw the movie. Thanks for telling me what it was about. Eastwood sure is a tough guy. He sure can put on a tough looking face. I never met a cop like Dirty Harry. He fought with his own department and won all the time. What a guy! Must have taken a lot of guts to make a movie like “The Unforgiven.” Or could it have something to do with filthy lucre? Doesn’t sound like the kind of guy I like to ride the dusty plains with.

Comment by joe rorke —

MY REPLY:

A cop like Dirty Harry would be in prison, as you know.

Respectable conservative worship and drool over uniforms.

You and I both know that in the 1930s a general or a cop could be like MacAthur or Patton.

Patton actually fought a real gun-battle with Mexican bandits.

But a general today is not just a bureaucrat, he must be a particularly pathetic, groveling bureaucrat.

If you are a cop who aspires to scrambled eggs on your cap, you have to be an Olympic-class groveler.

I don’t make the rules, I just stayed alive by seeing them.

Back to Eastwood.

No, it wasn’t filthy lucre that caused “The Unforgiven.” He had gotten lots of bad reviews for his money-making movies so he decided to make one the critics would rave about.

So what how would any reasonably intelligent person make the New York Jews rave?

This ain’t brain surgery, gang.

We are dealing with people who are as predictable as an atomic clock.

New York Jews HATE the whole Legend of the West. They KEEP trying to prove that everbody at the Alamo was an abject coward.

You know that gunfight Patton had as a young man? That’s why he wore those sixguns. The movie Patton had nothing about it.

Patton, all alone — in the REAl world — shot down the charging Mexicans one by one. When the Mexican leader dropped his gun, Patton waited for him to pick it back up, and THEN shot him down.

This does not happen in a Woodie Allen film.

So how do you make a movie the New York Jews and their Faithful Goy Companions will rave about?

You make every white gentile in the Old West a Woody Allen, but without Woodie Allen’s honestly about what a coward he was.

That’s what Eastwood was after. The critics went nuts over the film with all the unpredictability of an atomic clock telling the time.

Eastwood is rich beyond anything he could ever need. He does NOT give all that money to charity.

Eastwood is now the darling of Serious Cinematic Criticism.

Neither of these statements makes him a moral paragon.

He is not after the Title of Paragon.

Eastwood got exactly what he wanted.

Do I approve?

A more meaningful question is:

Does Eastwood give a rip whether I approve or not?

If and when he calls and says, “Bob, do you approve of me?” I will let you know.