How John Wayne's "The Shootist" (1976) Should Have Ended

[scoopgarry]

I have watched this movie many times and have enjoyed it every time. Those of you who sit and pick out bits and pieces symbolic or otherwise please stop. Its a movie to entertain you with John Wayne in his last film and one of his very best.

[Almoekd1971]

I took the pistol throwing scene as Gillom showing JB that he would not fallow in his foot steps not a anti gun message.

[chessmaster704]

When Wayne got the first time it really looked like bright red paint instead of dark red.

Anyway John Wayne beats the shit out of people when he pulls his gun out.

[19torento]

Does anybody else find it interesting that in the very last movie shot we ever see of John Wayne there's an eagle holding up a table right behind him? It's a little more subtle than an American flag, but still conveys the same message about John Wayne.

[johnw9171]

I don't see the gun throwing scene as an anti-gun statement. Even if it was, it's better than the novel's ending (the same as the original screenplay) where Books can't reform Gillom, Gillom steals the money Books gave his mother, shoots Books, and runs off to who knows where. Books shooting Jack Pulford in the back was horrible too. I'm glad it ended like it did in the movie.

[ErichH68]

I'm a Conservative but I don't see the "anti-gun" angle here.

[johnw9171]

@ErichH68 I agree.

[ErichH68]

What motivation did the bartender have for shooting Books? This is so easy! Books is a famous gunslinger. He did it for the fame and notoriety that would come from taking him out! Also for the money that would come from a book. It fits the story perfectly.

[ErichH68]

The story revolves around Books but it also revolves around Gillom's attitudes towards Books. At the begining we see some contempt for Books by Gillom. Later on as Gillom is learning more about Books an admiration and excitement about him. Some hero worship. Later on Gillom see's Books as just a man who made choices that forced this final showdown. In my opinion Books smiles at Gillom for throwing away the gun because he knew that if he didn't he wind up with the life he had.

[johnw9171]

@ErichH68 You're exactly right. Gillom chose to avenge Books and end it right there without the life of gunfighting and quite possibly eventually being in the same situation as Books bleeding on the floor.

[MonaJoe52]

The bartender needed killing. And Bronson would'nt have had it any other way.

[nickellicker]

An interesting alternate version, very well done, and this shows the power of editing in film. A few seconds added or deleted in a particular scene completely changes the entire aspect of the experience, and propaganda filmmakers have used this extensively throughout cinema history. It's rather unsettling how easily this can be accomplished, but this posting is a crisp Widescreen print, and very skillfully done. Thank you so much for sharing this...

[mschneider18xx]

@nickellicker -- I like to think that I *removed* the propaganda.

[pdxaviationfan]

Ya, I think I like it this way instead, but I can see why they put that shot of him throwing the gun after he shot the bartender. If anything, just to make a statement about the future of the character beyond the end of the movie.

[Texashayes]

I liked the movie before but now I really love it thank you. Once you make the decssion to pull the trigger its a lot easier the second and third time.

[MonaJoe52]

and why all the 'deep' thinking into why he threw the gun away. He simply choose not to lead the kind of life books did.

[mschneider18xx]

@MonaJoe52 ...since when does killing a backshooting bartender while he's reloading and his victim is still alive squirming on the floor inexorably lead one into an escalating no-way-out "life" of mano-a-mano gunslinging? -- It's the kind of smuggled-in tripe which was ubiquitous in post-Vietnam era left-slanted film, and Eastwood and Bronson made a killing (so to speak) giving audiences what they really wanted to see during the defeatist, crime-ridden 1970s: vicarious justice.

[MonaJoe52]

albert is mike sweenys brother. and the bartender shooting books is a showing of what he told gillom during the target shooting, about having that third eye. pay attention people.

[3DBurns]

who the hell is Albert?

[sitp2]

@3DBurns That man's brother that john wayne had shot before the movie even started.

[FalcorProductions]

@3DBurns Albert was the man's brother, whom J.B. Books had killed years before.

[BucksStudent]

I don't think it's an "anti-gun" statement, but rather Gillom's decision to not become the man Books was. He didn't want to be a gunfighter or badass anymore; he realized he could live a life free of constant danger and be alright, because he had his moment in the sun saving the last great shootist.

[mschneider18xx]

@BucksStudent ...and interesting theory, but it's self-contradictory, and doesn't match up with Wayne's nod before expiring. Gillom can't "put the genie back in the bottle" -- he'd already taken it upon himself to avenge Books by rushing in to gun down the bartender. It would have easy enough for the film to include a final "introspection" scene which did not involve hammily throwing the gun as if IT were the problem. Instead, the gun is blamed, and Books' life and code de facto rejected.

[island4diver]

@mschneider18xx Was less avenging as it was defending books and possibly himself.

[MStrikerPictures]

@mschneider18xx The film is about the fading West, of which Books was a relic. The throwing away of the gun by the youth is to symbolize that the future of the West is not in the gun, but in the electric streetcar and in law and order. By avenging Books' death, Gillom embraces the old West, only to ultimately reject it. It's a coming of age story for not only the child but also the society in which he lives. Without throwing the gun away, the coming of age story is incomplete.

[mschneider18xx]

@MStrikerPictures ....Sorry; no sale. Don't buy it. Nobody associated with the production ever described the picture as being allegorical. Wayne certainly didn't.

[MStrikerPictures]

@mschneider18xx Dude it's a New Hollywood film, of course the entire thing's a metaphor.

[mountainbliss4u]

I never liked westerns, but have always loved this movie dearly.

[bobszvetics1]

wow ron howard with hair

[prometheus77777]

Very nice, good job.

[MrChickenman1971]

Made a grown man cry... Several times.

[dackmont]

Classic film, thanks for the clip. But I don't get it: your ending is totally different from what IMDB trivia says (as of today, Jan. 16 '11).

[mschneider18xx]

Whatever the changing tune is, I've always hated that phony gun-throwing scene.

[wdk0915]

@mschneider18xx I've seen this movie several times. Big John Wayne fan. The theatrical ending always puzzled me. I do like your version better. The original was quite incongruous with the rest of the film (and perhaps with many of the roles Wayne played)