OK, here's my take


How could somebody be raped or killed by a ghost? Or why would a ghost need a bath or sleep, or whiskey, food, etc...lol. I think he's the brother and learned of exactly what happened, so is seeking revenge (hence the same name, Duncan). Heck, he could be a fraternal twin (which means they don't look alike) and has psychically relived the torture. There are a lot of explanations, including he is the same man and doesn't look the same because of a beard, longer hair, maybe scars, etc. I just can't believe the ghost theory for some reason.

reply

A few years ago, Clint Eastwood revealed that the idea was that he was a friend or brother (can't remember which) who had come back for vengeance. He has also maintained that whether or not it was a 'living' avenger or a ghost was something that was left ambiguous on purpose...that he felt leaving that aspect to the audience's imagination made it a better film (which I agree with him on.)

Still.....personally.....I like the ghostly avenging angel angle best myself.



The bad news is you have houseguests. There is no good news.

reply

Wow, I didn't know Clint Eastwood said that... however, he made a beautiful movie that can be ambiguous, which is part of its excellence. The ghost thing combined with westerns had never (to my knowledge) been made before, so it was groundbreaking for those who interpret it that way. I'm on the fence, but nevertheless I think it is a great movie, however you interpret it.

reply

Eastwood said that when he made the movie, the studio did not like the ambiguous angle and wanted him to reshoot the ending in such a way as to make it clear as to who his character was.....he refused, saying it was far more interesting if you left it open to interpretation.

He was right!

The bad news is you have houseguests. There is no good news.

reply

The Entity answers part of your question.

reply

How could somebody be raped or killed by a ghost? Or why would a ghost need a bath or sleep, or whiskey, food, etc..


Agree. He not only needed sleep, food, shave, bath, etc., he also dreamed (a human brain chemical reaction), plus he quite purposely avoided Cassie's gunfire.

I think he's the brother and learned of exactly what happened, so is seeking revenge (hence the same name, Duncan). Heck, he could be a fraternal twin (which means they don't look alike) and has psychically relived the torture.


He could be, and that's the way I'm leaning, but he didn't show much interest in the town until the town found interest in him - the hired gunfighters picking a fight with him in the barber shop, Cassie attacking him, and then finally the town committee convincing him to protect them against the three convicts by paying him with anything he wanted. But.. to counter that is the fact that he wanted Mordecai to put Duncan's name on the grave and the cryptic quote: "yes you do" to Mordecai not knowing the stranger's name.

There are a lot of explanations, including he is the same man and doesn't look the same because of a beard, longer hair, maybe scars, etc.


Well, Duncan was bullwhipped to death - he would have had whip scars on his body which weren't there when he took that bath. Also, a whipping suitable to cause enough facial changes to not be recognizable to townsfolks would have left him horribly disfigured.

What do I think? Split between the stranger being Duncan's brother (his dream of the bullwhipping fits because he would have heard about the method of his brother's death) and a regular guy who was somehow possessed by Duncan's spirit. The possession is a long shot because the stranger's personality didn't match Duncan's at all.

My interpretation is that he was Duncan's brother.


reply

I think that to interpret it as the Stranger being anything other than Duncan's ghost is to ignore what I found to be a highly unambiguous ending with the "yes you do" line and the camera panning down to the tombstone. It seemed to me that the film was telling you he's a ghost in the loudest possible way without coming right out and telling you.

As for the concerns regarding that he ate and bathed and slept and so forth, this certainly wouldn't be the first--or last--ghost story in which the ghost was able to quite convincingly appear human in all respects.

reply

As for the concerns regarding that he ate and bathed and slept and so forth, this certainly wouldn't be the first--or last--ghost story in which the ghost was able to quite convincingly appear human in all respects.


It wasn't just "appearing" human, it was much more. When the Stranger went out to soften up the gang with some friendly dynamite and shooting off an ear, he mounted a horse and rode out there. He also made sure the town tough didn't stick his knife in his back.

Since ghosts don't exist in real life or are at the very most theoretical as far as we know, I won't use another movie's portrayal as canon (what movie would you say best portrays a ghost as completely corporeal? The best I can think of is The Wraith).

The Stranger's "yes you do" could very well mean his surname, something he never gave to anyone. And really, the Stranger could have just said that not being a ghost or even the Marshal's brother - he was disgusted when Belden's wife told him how the Marshal was bull whipped to death on the town committee's orders with no one helping. Telling Mordecai that he did know his name could have just been spinning a yarn.

In any case, a ghost aspect kind of dilutes the story - we like to see bullies get their due but if it comes at the hand of a supernatural creature, the outcome was a forgone conclusion - the Stranger was going to win even if shot or stabbed. If the Stranger is Marshal Duncan's brother, he exacts revenge as a consequence of his cunning, courage, and skills - makes a more satisfying story.

reply

Everyone has their interpretations. Here is mine. He is the ghost of the dead man who comes back to teach the corrupt town a lesson and to kill the men who killed him.

reply

I agree he's the ghost of the Marshal. The "yes you do" scene with the tombstone and the final shot where he fades into the landscape accompanied by eerie music support this.

reply

No such thing as a ghost.

There is no deeper meaning to this idiotic movie. It is an odd coincidence that I saw this one one of the streaming channels last night and because it was one of the "man with no name" movies of CUnt Eastwood I started watching it.

What a fricking idiotic movie. Guy comes into town of mental rejects, and they pick on him while he's all lathered up and having a shave in the barbershop. He shoots them through the hair protector thingee, gets up and walks out of the barbershop with no lather on this face.

Then a woman walks into him in the street and slaps him, and he drags her into the livery stable and rapes her.

This is what got people, and I use the term loosely, hot for this movie. Not other movies at the time got so hot as this one because of the motion picture code. This was about the time when we started getting floods of crappy teasy sex movies, and bloody violent movies, even though the sex and violence were pretty stupid. We still get scores and scores of garbage movies. I only settled on this one last night because my thumb got tired of scrolling through and rejecting tons of movies before it. 500 channels and nothing on TV, a million movies and very few worth watching.

The blood looked more like runny ketchup, and the punches were obviously fake. I could not watch past a few minutes past the fake rape.

Then we get sexually frustrated viewers falling all over themselves to justify the movie as some kind of meaningful symbolic bull-puckey with ghosts or some stupid kind of twisted morality.

Thank goodness Clint finally made some decent, well, half-way decent movies, and one or two classics. But these goofy action movies sucked - at least in my opinion.

Firstfull of Dollars was one of the first movies I ever saw as a kid. I guess my parents considered it family fair. And now decades later we have mentally ill people shooting up towns like these stupid movies.

OK ... let the trolling begin, or not.

reply