Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MGibster" data-source="post: 9701553" data-attributes="member: 4534">Usually a revisionist western is one that subverts the traditional conventions found in westerns such as the inclusion of morally ambiguous "heroes," a little less myth and a little more realism, and by not providing a clear line between the black hats and the white hats.  I honestly find it rather difficult at times to figure out whether a movie is considered a revisionist western.  Wikipedia lists The Searchers (1956) on it's list of revisionist westerns but not Fort Apache (1948).  Fort Apache was one of the earliest Hollywood westerns that treated Native Americans with sympathy and depicted the commanding officer of the fort as a piss poor commander who only got himself and others killed.  The Great Train Robbery (1903) is on Wikipedia's list of revisionist westerns even though it's article notes "Though it did not significantly influence or advance the Western film genre upon release, it was widely distributed and copied, including in a parody by Porter himself."  How the heck is it a revisionist western then?  I don't typically get into arguments over whether a work of fiction belongs in one genre or another.  If someone wants to call something a revisionist western (sigh), fine.  We can still talk about what makes that movie good.</blockquote>