Original Ending
I read that the original novel and the movie was to have Gillem (Ron Howard's character) shoot Brooks. WHY? Does the novel explain this? I can only figure it was to put him out of his misery.
shareI just watched it last night and that seemed to be the intention/direction of the narrative's trajectory. For some reason they couldn't pull it together and complete the action. It made sense to me that is what Brooks wanted at that moment. I was so impressed with Mr. Howard up to that point that I wondered why he completely walked away from acting(in big movies that is). I'm sure he was up for Luke Skywalker and that would have been interesting too. Of course I'm certain that he's more than happy now with his decision but its kind of a shame that he's stopped acting.
I think the producers were trying to say that Gillom was going to leave violence and gun fighting to other men and that moving into the 20th century good men need to be more willing to solve their problems without bloodshed.
Of course that didn't happen.
Sad but true, mozli! Sad but true. :-(
shareThe name Gillom appears to be a variation of William, which means "protector." By killing the bartender, Gillom protects Mr. Books for his imminent death. Indeed Books, acknowledges Gillom's choice to end the violence (toss the weapon). Gillom will stand for the principles of John Bernard Books, the gunfighter - but without a gun.
shareIn the book, The Shootist, Glendon Swarthout has Gillom killing J.B.Books. In the final gun fight, Books is hit, but he killed the three men who came for him. He knows he is dying. Gillom comes in, staggers around the bodies and finds Books behind the bar. Books makes the words without noise, "Kill" "Me". Gillom takes Books revolver and pulls the trigger. Click. No bullet. He pries the other revolver out of Books hand, turns his head away, and pulls the trigger. At the end of the book, Gillom is described as having the exact same feelings as J.B.Books after killing his first man. You get the impression that Gillom tries to become a J.B.Books, but fails.
shareIf that's the original book-ending, then I have to say: this is one of those times when the movie-ending is better!
shareThis makes more sense than the movie.
I could never figure out why the bartender would back-shoot a gun-fighter. He had no allegiance to any of the three that were killed in a "fair" fight. Shooting someone in the back has always been frowned upon (and reason enought for Guillam to shoot back in defense).
No good could come from a bartender using a shotgun to shoot someone in the back. He wouldn't be the new "top gun" -- just a murdering jerk.
But he would gain fame as the man who killed JB Brooks...
sharePrecisely, jfmitch! Precisely! :-)
shareThe bartender shooting Brooks is a nod to the conversation earlier where JB says that you're more likely to be killed by a nobody than some gunfighter.
In the end, he's done in by exactly that. A random nobody.
I think the film ending works better though.
---
"Now...where was I?"
Precisely. A very pessimistic ending, where a perfect nobody kills the great man after he has won his contest. It's very similar to the ending of "Once upon in a time in West", where Charles Bronson's friend is killed by an old acquaintance for futile reasons, or the end of Carlito's way.
As for the bartender, we are not told whether he is affiliated to Wawne's foes, but it could also be. A very beautiful ending in my opinion.
Gillem (Ron Howard's character) also stole the money 540 dollars
that books(john wayne) left for gilliem's mother bond
I think the ending is both sad and optimistic. Books is dead, as is his way of life; Gillom has had his brush with death and seems bound to reject it as his way of life. I agree the screenplay improves on the book, even if the book does have its own interior logic. Movies aren't required to reproduce their source material.
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
There is always controversey when a movie is based on a book. One must remember, that movies are differernt than novels. The book can not be the movie. What works on the page doesn't always works on the screen.
I never read the book, but I think the movie's ending is better.
1+1=2****2+2=4****That is the truth your honor*****the truth for help me God
Jay
You are so right, jaybabb. Prime example? A Western novel by Forrest Carter called "Gone To Texas," published pre-1976.
I guarantee you that, whatever its initial sales figures, they doubled once the general public had learned that it had served as the basis for Clint Eastwood's OUTLAW JOSEY WALES!
I had this question in my mind the last time the movie was shown on TCM, so I watched the bartender whenever he appears. He is present in every scene with Hugh O'Brian prior to the big shootout. I could see an attempt made by Siegel, however fleeting to the memory, to show that the barman had a friendly regard for the faro man.
shareI had this question in my mind the last time the movie was shown on TCM, so I watched the bartender whenever he appears. He is present in every scene with Hugh O'Brian prior to the scene of the big shootout. I could see an attempt made by Siegel, however fleeting to the memory, to show that the barman had a friendly regard for the faro man.
shareThe bartender was O'Brien's employee. He shot Books because he was backing up his boss. He was also the "amateur" Books had warned Gillom about. It would've been the same if the craven newspaper reporter or Serepta had shot Books. He wouldn't have seen it coming from them, either.
shareNot to split hairs, but the bartender wasn't Pulford's (Hugh O'Brian's) employee. The bartender was either the bar-owner, or worked for the bar-owner (i.e. someone other than Pulford). Pulford would have been an independent contractor, so to speak, paying the bar-owner for the privilege of being the bar's faro dealer, by flat-rate or a cut of his take, or even for free for being a draw for more bar traffic. Also, the Marshal, when speaking to Books, described Pulford as the faro dealer at the saloon, not the owner. Plus, when Pulford arrived at the door of the saloon for the final scene, he knocked, and the bartender had to let him in with a skeleton key, saying "You're kinda early today, aren't ya?"; Pulford replied that he was expecting somebody (Books). The owner would have let himself in with his own key, just as the bartender had done - and certainly wouldn't have had to explain himself.
shareAll interesting comments, but his name was BOOKS not BROOKS!
shareRight. Robert Ford was considered a coward by the public for his role in the death of Jesse James.
Objection, your Honor. You can't preface your second point with first of all.
I think reader's memory of the novel's ending is faulty.
Yes, Books mouths silently to Gillam "kill me" and Gillam does so. BUT, he then exits the saloon, gun in hand shouting "I just killed, J.B. Books" waving the gun aloft.
As also mentioned he had stolen the money Books left for Gillam's mother, so the indications are that Gillam has chosen to be an outlaw, to be "The Man who Killed J.B.Books" and make what he could from that empty reputation.
Come on lads, bags of swank!
That is also probably the more honest ending. The movie ending is an ideal, one we recognize as "better" but in life we all too often make the wrong decisions. Gillom was enamored with the lifestyle, or what he assumed it to be.
shareAs I recall from my own reading of the book (many years ago), Gillom had no qualms, hesitation or remorse about shooting Books. Once asked to finish Books off, Gillom replied quite callously, "Oh, okay", and calmly pulled the trigger. Completely different from the movie.
shareWayne wanted the more "upbeat" ending, but there's a big difference between the Gillom of the book, who's a thorough punk for whom completely going wrong is a logical ending, and the one Ron Howard plays in the film, who is redeemable, and is horrified by what's likely to be the one and only killing he'll ever commit, and rejects killing as a way of life with Books' dying approval. And I doubt that Ron Howard could have convincingly played the rotten Gillom of the novel, in any event.
share