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

According to IMDB trivia, the original screenplay of "The Shootist" had Gillom (Ron Howard) killing Books (John Wayne) at the conclusion of the climactic saloon gunfight scene. He then throws the revolver away in disgust. Wayne had the script changed to have the bartender shoot Books, then Gillom shoot the bartender -- but, inexplicably, the scene with Gillom throwing away the gun is retained -- leaving Wayne's swan-song film with a seemingly ham-handed, kludged-in, "guns are evil" theme (because, in the revised script, Gillom acts honorably, yet still throws the gun away) -- one which is incongruous with the rest of film, in re: Books' motivations for 'staging' the saloon duel, his professed "code of honor" as described more than once during the film, and his training GIllom to shoot. Despite being hailed as a masterpiece by critics (many of whom undoubtedly loved the throwing scene as gun-control grist), the film did mediocre at the box-office, and was one of Wayne's lesser-sale pictures -- and I would argue that the "bait-and-switch" improbable ending largely contributed to the indifference of Wayne's long-time fans.

Editing out the ten problematic seconds of Gillom throwing the gun was simplicity itself, and no changes to the soundtrack were needed (it's as if the film had been actually been "in the can" as this video suggests, but then edited to insert a new throwing-away scene); the saloon's squealing ceiling fan stays in perfect sequence over the editing gap....nice.

The effect of the edit is to provide the film a more credible and satisfying ending (though the oddity of the bartender's unknown rationale for shooting Books is never explained in any film version). Since the gun hasn't been thrown, the viewer assumes the gun is still near Books body; and none of the townspeople actually know that Gillom rather Books shot the bartender. So, Gillom then leaves the bar, "walking tall", after covering Books with his coat in reverence, past his mother on the other side of the town square.

At the beginning of the film, Gillom is a smart-mouthed, no-good punk. At the end....who knows? Will he tell his mother? Maybe. Will he brag around town? Unlikely. Is he more of a man than the weak portrayal originally screened? Absolutely.

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• john
• wayne
• ron
• howard
• james
• stewart
• the
• shootist
• ending
• ended
• bar
• fight

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[johnw9171]

@ErichH68 I agree.

[ErichH68]

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