That's the impression I got also. What I don't understand are some of the ways the Indians attempted to ambush and kill him- for instance one scene where he steps outside of his tent/shelter and one leaps out of the snow to attack him. Why didn't he/they just wait for him to emerge and shoot him full of arrows, etc? I got the impression it was considered more honorable to battle him hand to hand, man on man rather than shoot him in the back? That seems to be one of THE basic myths in westerns that almost all fighting was done in a straight-up manly way like a duel for godsakes, when in reality, Eastwood in Unforgiven for instance finally acknowledged, that in most fighting there were no rules and it was kill or be killed. So a defenseless guy coming out from using an outhouse got plugged.
I just wonder if the Indians fighting Johnson were supposed to be seen as fighting by some kind of rules known to them? Or is it just dramatic effect the movie is after!
reply
share