The Outlaw Josey Wales: Historical Revisionism or Great Drama?

by eusebiusandflorestan

I recently had the chance to watch the classic Clint Eastwood western, The Outlaw Josey Wales. I had a very mixed opinion of the film, my admiration of some aspects is unabashed, while other attributes bother me. Before the bad and the ugly, the good: this is a very effective revisionist western with some fine acting and lovely cinematography. Eastwood is not the most subtle actor, my brother and I got great comedic mileage out of his tendency to act through squinting (“this is the ‘I love you’ squint” “the ‘I want to ask about a new insurance policy’ squint”). However, this particular role, playing a hard-bitten and emotionally traumatized Southern farmer is perhaps purpose built for his particular brand of acting. The supporting cast, with special praise for Chief Dan George as a slightly addled Native American, also acquit themselves well. Stylistically, the movie is a very different sort of western than one from the golden age of the 50s. While those movies tended to show off the west as a kind of lost land of spectacular plenty, Josey Wales shoots in some of the most arid and inhospitable parts of Utah. This is a vision of the west as dusty perdition, even the more lush locations featured earlier in the movie are shot in a kind of grimy and jaundiced slick. This decision is effective in suggesting the dirt and exhaustion of the U.S. following the Civil War.

My problem basically stems from how the plot is set in motion. Josey Wales is a smallholding farmer in the American south during the Civil War. One day, his ranch is destroyed and his family murdered by Federal troops. In response, Wales joins up with Bloody Bill Anderson and his raiders, committing acts of gruesome vengeance against the citizens of Kansas. When the war ends, the remaining Anderson raiders are offered a pardon in exchange for swearing loyalty to the Union. Wales refuses, which sets the plot in motion as he attempts to flee from the Federals across the west toward Mexico. The whole sequence is played up with a good deal of Confederate nostalgia however, the Federal troops simply shoot all the raiders who surrender, and any character identified with the Union is either corrupt, venial, stupid, or just generally evil. I think the story would have been a lot more compelling if the two sides came off in a more ambiguous and historically accurate way (warning: if you read enough of my movie reviews, expect this refrain a lot). By making the Confederate characters so noble and the Union so base, the movie loses a lot of the tension that could be gained from a more nuanced portrayal.  As it is, the film treads close to being one of those hagiographic “the south will rise again/damn Yankees” works of art whose motives and integrity are suspect.

However, for one final good word, I do like the conclusion, where Wales’s former commander, who sold out to the Union early in the movie and has been pursuing his former subordinate, allows him to escape the clutches of the law and settle down with a band of misfits in Texas (actually Utah, but who’s counting?). So a mixed verdict on this one: entertaining but historically problematic. Florestan, have you seen many western movies?