It's interesting that I see a lot of complaints on this board about the happy "Hollywood" endings that many fims have, yet a film such as this one, that had a decidedly unhappy ending, flopped at the box office, and the ending was considered the main reason why at the time.
shareSomebody here said they marketed it as a western and it's definitely not that.
I wouldn't hesitate to call it horror but horror fans wouldn't like it, save for a couple of scenes. Suspense maybe?
So who would the audience be for this movie?
Marianne
Anyone who likes really well made awesome movies.
shareSince taste is subjective everyone would say that they movies that they love are "really well made awesome movies." For them they are awesome. For others they are not.
Marianne
The Beguiled should have been marketed for arthouse cinema goers, not Clint Eastwood action fans. Eastwood desperately wanted to enter the movie at the Cannes Film Festival but Universal's president, Lew Wasserman, stoutly refused.
shareI can't help but wonder what the benefit of NOT entering it in a film festival would be. Anybody?
Marianne
Apparently, Wasserman, as an old Hollywood patriarch, didn't see the value of French film festivals and wasn't willing to dish out the meager expenses that such an entry would have required. The Beguiled turned out to be Eastwood's only flop of the 1970s, and the studio's inattention furthered the star's growing disenchantment with its brass. A few years later, in 1975, the actor-director left Universal for good.
shareBy the way, examining the original theatrical trailer, the studio didn't quite market The Beguiled as a Western, but it did try to make the film seem rather action-oriented, almost like a Civil War military drama of some sort. It probably imagined that such a strategy constituted the greatest hope of attracting ticket buyers, but again, Universal had the wrong audience in mind.
shareThe ending made the movie great.
Clint's character was not a hero. He may or may not have deserved his fate - but he didn't deserve a "Hollywood ending".
[deleted]
I'd definitely say it's in the Gothic tradition. I'd possibly label it a Gothic Drama if I was to call it anything. Still, I prefer to see intriguing films like this go unlabelled.
Pavlova
The term Western Gothic was invented for this film when it premiered as I recall. Critics loved it but it wasn't promoted correctly. Audiences expected an action film and they were confused and disappointed by the new genre. It wasn't a financial success. I loved it, though.
Bored now.
Somebody here said they marketed it as a western and it's definitely not that.
I wouldn't hesitate to call it horror but horror fans wouldn't like it, save for a couple of scenes. Suspense maybe?
So who would the audience be for this movie?
I for one, thought this movie had one of the best endings ever in a film! Clints movies are definitely different, there are quirks all the way through. However, the rest of the movie was not nearly as good as the ending. The ending was it's strongest part. The dream sequence where he is in bed with the headmistress and the teacher in a threesome was just plain stupid. I have it on DVD and watch it once in a while, but when it comes to the dream parts I fast forward past that!
Not my favorite Clint movie (Clint is my second favorite movie star, John Wayne was always first with me) but it was okay.
I L-O-V-E dark movies! But, this had a seriously WTF?! ending. So, the supposedly God-fearing women go psychotic and kill Eastwood's character. Is that supposed to be the moral of the story?
Dark endings are fine. But, when they come completely out of left field with characters doing sudden, 180-degree turns in who they were up to that point, that's where the problem was here.
I. Drink. Your. Milkshake! [slurp!] I DRINK IT UP! - Daniel Plainview - There Will Be Blood