Talk:Revisionist Western

Ride With The Devil
In one of my first attempts at contributing to a page by editing here I appear to have started an edit war over in the discussion of "Ride With The Devil". As I understand it, historians have shown that there were instances of African Americans fighting alongside Confederates in various arenas of the Civil War, including in "bleeding Kansas". So having a black character fighting alongside his former owner in "Ride With The Devil" would not be an instance of "rewriting history", but "exposing a previously little known/possibly suppressed fact of history". How are the rest of the editors seeing this? Dmiller0122 (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Unjust Removal
Why were There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men removed from the list of Revisionist Western Films?

No Country for Old Men is a revisionist western, 100%. If the Three Burials of Melquadies Estrada qualify for this list so does No Country For Old Men.

There Will Be Blood also qualifies. Daniel Plainview may not be a cowboy, but the film as a whole show a nontraditional picture of times. It contains cynicism, black humor, criticisms of big business and religious institutions as well as scenes of graphic violence. That's practically all the elements of a revisionist western.

There is no rational reason for their removal. I am returning them to the list.

75.4.28.47 (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There appears to be an edit war going on over the inclusion/exclusion of the film No Country for Old Men. Can anyone made a solid case, or better yet, cite a reference, for either view? — Loadmaster (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wasn't "No Country for Old men" set in 1980? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.187.132 (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Defintion?
I don't see any coherent definition here or any rason at all behind the use of the term revisionist. What's to differentiate it from simple historical fiction. Also: the idea of the western didn't arise until after WWII. Who made this definition? I hope someone can answer these, as I see no grounds for an article here. --DanielCD 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused
What definition? The idea of the western didn't arise until after WWII? The Virginian? Karl May? The Great Train Robbery? More explanation, please.

dino 02:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Me too
Who made the definition? It's pretty simple. What's to differentiate it from simple historical fiction? Give where this is referred to outside of this article. Is this something someone just made up, this division? The reader wonders. Some citations are needed to strangthen the case here, that's all I'm saying. What is the big difference between before and after WWII other than that time point? The article leaves the reader thinking it's complately arbitrary. But there must be a reason.


 * Some historians define the Revisionist Western as any Western made after World War II.

In a nutshell, cite this line. That would greatly improve the quality and believability of this article. Why the term "revisionist"? --DanielCD 03:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Got rid of it
Who is responsible for that line I do not know. I agree, it's nonsense -- think of the TV Westerns of the 1960s. I rearranged things & gave better explanations.

dino 20:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. I was thinking there was nothing more to this than an arbitrary time division. I knew there had to be more. Thanks.


 * BTW, I took out Brokwback Mountain as it seems to me a little grand to call this a western. It's really more of a drama and only takes place in the west. I didn't know what other people thought of that. There weren't any Indians or gunfights or Clint Eastwood-types there. The formula is of a contemporary love story and doesn't seem at all akin to High Plains Drifter or the like. --DanielCD 20:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Brokeback Mountain...?
Is that a western at all? Medico80 10:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wide-screen, panning scenery shots, set in Wyoming of sheepherders (OK, not cowboys, but close), a few gunshots, men who almost never talk ... if that's not a Western ... it sure isn't a romantic comedy. dino 18:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's definitely a Western, but I think it would qualify more as a Neo Western. Due to the fact that it's a present day story (well, 1960s present day). Same with The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada.


 * I added Brokeback Mountain the other day, and someone has already trashed it. I agree that "revisionist Western" is not a precisely defined term. But one reasonable definition is a Western that contradicts the traditionally romantic view of Western life -- which includes males never engaging in sex with other males. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
From the article (2007-07-28): "Revisionist motives can be seen in spaghtti westerns such as The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966), in which the hero is no better then the bad guy and does good things only because he is driven by greed." I think that the motivation for Eastwood's "Good" character is a matter of opinion, or at least varying interpretation. The scene where he gives a dying Union soldier a last puff of a cigarette is an example illustrating that he really is good deep down, in contrast to van Cleef's "bad" and Wallach's "ugly" characters. True, he's after the money, but he's still fair to people along the way. — Loadmaster 03:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

More Unjust Removals
I'd like to know the reasoning behind removing Blazing Saddles, Don't Touch The White Woman! and Heaven's Gate.69.45.100.129 (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Blazing Saddles at least deserves a mention - it is arguable whether it is a revisionist western, but it certainly is related to them, and shows a healthy cynicism about various things, not to mention addressing the treatment of black and native people in the USA. --MacRusgail (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Spaghetti Westerns(?)
So are Spaghetti Westerns considered Revisionist Westerns (a sub-sub-genre?), or not. There's a fairly large section on them in the article which seems to suggest they should be included, yet there's a large list at List of Spaghetti Western films, notably including the Dollars Trilogy, which are omitted from the list here; and now there's a mini-edit-war brewing over inclusion of spaghetti western-based games in the Games section of the list. In or out, anybody? Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to take out this sentence
Eastwood's film The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) made use of strong supporting roles for women and Native Americans. I'm not saying it isn't revisionist, I'm saying it isn't the best example. I have no problem with it being included in the list further down in the article or with the preceding sentence. But I think this film is problematic in that all the themes of this film are seen in films of the 20s, 30's and 40's; and even more so in the 50's. It is more graphically violent and the people are more realistically dressed and armed than prewar films, but that seems pretty minor. The comedy sidekick isn't usually an Indian - but sympathetic Indians were not that uncommon. And tough old ladies and young girls needing rescue were already cliches in silent films. If you want examples of strong roles for Indians go with Little Big Man, and for a strong role for women go with 1954's Johnny Guitar or Cat Ballou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitpyck (talk • contribs) 05:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible Explanation of the Confusion over this term
When I first came across this article, I thought "revisionism? that's when you re-write the unhappy parts out of history", that's certainly not an apt term for a genre that claims to favor realism over romanticism. But apparently, revisionism can go either way. You could do it in a non-objective, special-interest-serving way, as in Historical revisionism (negationism) or in an honest, probing and investigative way that overturns what was previously known. Nevertheless, the term is certainly ambiguous, and perhaps not even correct since I'm not sure western-themed fiction ever claimed to tell a true story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.187.132 (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Revisionism is also used in cases of challenges to the established interpretations or norms, so I don't find it so misleading in this case. For the Western genre it denotes a challenge or revision of the prior set of norms/ideals summed up in 'the good guys with the white hats' cliche (good guys wear white hats, bad guy black hats). In other words 'revisionism' simply implies a revision/challenge of the previously accepted version of something.
 * Mojowiha (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The Searchers missing
How was John Ford's 1956 "The Searchers" omitted?? As the following references note this was a critical "revisionist western" in the evolution of the genre: A.O. Scott, "The Searchers, How the Western was Begun," "The New York Times," June 11, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/movies/11scot.html; Craig J. Koban, Craiger's Cinema Corner, "The Searchers," http://www.craigerscinemacorner.com/Reviews/searchers.htm.Dogru144 (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the "revisionist" western goes way back to John Ford's post-war films, especially the cavalry trilogy, as well as Anthony Mann's Winchester '73. Hell, My Darling Clementine could also qualify. And where's JOHNNY GUITAR??? Also, what's with this crediting Sergio Leone for creating more "realistic" characters, costumes, etc. His films are as baroque as anything and very UN-realistic (they at least are only AS realistic as a Ford western - to say that they are more reveals a very superficial understanding of "realism" and these films.) And spaghetti westerns have ambivalent heroes that American westerns lack??? do you people actually watch westerns? Here's a clue, having a "happy ending" does not preclude moral "ambivalence" or complex characterization, which the American films have in spades over Italian westerns. JonasEB (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Should 'The Great Silence' (1968) be included?
I believe that The Great Silence (Sergio Corbucci, 1968) fits the criteria, although it may be even bleaker in outlook, with no surviving sympathetic characters.

Mojowiha (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Appaloosa?
I'm not sure Appaloosa should be included in this list. The makers of the film themselves said that the film appealed to them as a "traditional weastern" and that it wasn't revisionist. This is in the bonus features of the DVD in several places, which is what prompted me to look up what "Revisionist Westerns" would specifically refer to. While there is an effort to make the film historically accurate and gritty, the good guys are lawmen who live by a specific code of rules, which is more traditional. The bad guys are bad due to greed, again traditional. There is little to no representation of ethnic groups except the latina prostitute and the brief encounter with Apache that are certainly not represented as good guys (although they are depicted fairly accurately for the type of characters they portray). I think the definition of the genre as placing more emphasis on historical accuracy may be a little too vague or general, since it is demonstrably possible to make a film that strives for accuracy while focusing on traditional good guys versus bad guys subject matter. Shadomega (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Unjust Removal, part X
I tried to edit and expand the article two times. Later in August and today. Both occasions, my writings were completely removed, however I worked a lot on it. I can't understand what was wrong in those sentences because I am a film theoretic and my works were recognized. So I would like to know why I can't add my knowledge to this articles.

Because Ox-Bow Incident is a revisionist western. If you consider Shane revisionist, then the Ox-Bow is far more. Above all, I think neither Shane nor for example The Shootist are revisionist westerns. They are as traditional as Stagecoach or Rio Bravo because of the traditional ideological attitude. In classical films, not just westerns heroic actions are celebrated and there are useful benefits and effects from them. In revisionist western the action has negative effect or there aren't any useful action. The Ox-Bow Incident completely fits this notion of 'crisis of the action ideology'. (This problem was analyzed by Thomas Elsaesser in his article 'The Pathos of Failure' which is a basic text for scholars and examiners of the 1970s New Hollywood). So I can criticize the articles original editors on several grounds and as Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia I could remove Shane from the list as well as someone removed my additions (Lawman, A Gunfight, The Chase, Man of the West etc.).

And I added a lot of information about Hungarian osterns. Who saw those films could understand why they are revisionists. The poles of East and West are mixed in these movies and there aren't any real positive sides. The outlaws not romantic heroes as in the classical westerns and the bad guys aren't worse than the amoral good guys. But the skeleton of the classical western plot is in these movies: there are outlaw heroes, ritualized showdowns and etc. However they revise the genre completely.

So I completely don't understand the action of the remover who as I saw its history likes to delete long editings. I could question several part of the article as well. For example revisionist westerns are not equal to 'anti-western' and 'modern-western' notions. Yeah, there are modern or modernist westerns like as Rainer Werner Fassbinder's Whity (1971) and El Topo. But not all of the revisionist westerns are modernists. At least in my notions and in the theoretics as well the 'modernist' word means that they use modernist stylistic and narrative elements which were 'invented' during the era of European Modernism (1950-1980). And it is completely false that revisionist westerns are the products of post-war era. There are several films before the Production Code (1934) which for example show positive representations of Indians as The Squaw Man from the 1910s.

However Wikipedia is not an authentic or scientific source but I think if one write additional information or corrections to the original article there is no place for butt-hurt and deletion. I thought that this page is a free and democratic encyclopedia. So there can be competing visions in it. Although these pathetic actions ruin its original ideals. I could delete Shane and several titles from the example list, because there are several which don't fit the American (so not some native or outlander) theoretic frameworks and basic books (as Will Wright or Michael Corkin) about the western genre and the revisionism. If the remover don't know the works of famous film theoretics that's not my problem. I advise you to read more and THEN delete the additions. Shane, The Shootist or even The Professionals are considered as essential traditional westerns for example by Richard Slotkin in his Gunfighter Nation titled book. However I didn't delete them from the list because I respect the work of the editors who made the original article. But as I saw someone did not share my attitude.

Remember: the lack of knowledge doesn't mean that you know everything better than the other. However you can delete this post as well and this is my last 'report' on Wikipedia. But the truth is on my side. Or if you consider me as an uneducated dumb then you consider the western theoretics too because I read many books and several articles about the genre and I edited this page according to the knowledge of this texts (and also my experience because I watched plenty of westerns). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebra1922 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

vandalized again
This is the second time my addition of Brokeback Mountain has been removed -- along with my Talk comments. Given the controversy surrounding this topic, it's about time Wikipedia locked down this site.

BBM was controversial in part because it stated what is for some people an unpleasant truth -- that cowboys, farmhands, prospectors, loggers, etc -- sometimes engaged in homosexual behavior, and in rare cases formed lifelong sexual unions. (I wouldn't be surprised if the vandal burns copies of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, which says the same thing.) This is fact, not opinion; one can even quote Mark Twain on the subject. If Wikipedia wants to be a respected reference, it has to protect its articles from arbitrary and biased editing -- ie, vandalization. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Not an encyclopedia article. Citing not a single source, this "article" is nothing more than a very opinionated essay. As written, it belongs on someone's personal blog - not in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.51.185.47 (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

All Movies Are, By This Definition, Revisionist
Ah, Hyper Realism in Westerns. This is OR, an article that feels like some first year film student's misbegotten post-modern ramblings. Historical accuracy has never been the point of Westerns or War movies or ... basically all of Literature. I wouldn't mind so much if there was any way of proving the idea presented here, but the outside links (two of them) are broken and no one seems to be able to actually find sources. I know Wiki's policy is to keep articles, even really bad ones, assuming that they can be fixed, but there is nothing here other than pointing out that, yes, almost all Westerns are "revisionist" (whatever that means). Linguafoeda 11:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenomorphs (talk • contribs)

Proposed deletion of Template:Proposed deletion


The article Template:Proposed deletion has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * It's been years and no one can find any sources to back this page up and as stated above, this is OR that is so broad it covers not just every Western ever made but ever film. Even Hyper-Realism, it can be argued, is Revisionist, which means this article is pointless ... unless someone can find outside sources other than the author of this article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Linguafoeda 12:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This template is supposed to be used on the article page, not the talk page. Or did you really mean to PROD Template:Proposed deletion?-- Auric    talk  12:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Notability not established. 100% Made up. Tagged for years.  Immediately deletable.
Right. Like the the headline says. This article is almost 100% WP:OR (i.e. it's MADE UP!). That problem has been noted for years and no one's been able to fix it. The subject is so unnotable that no body cares to fix it apparently. The whole article is duly and immediately deletable, especially the completely unsupported list. 24.235.64.145 (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. The term "Revisionist western" isn't even used in the listed sources and some of the statements are either sad or laughable, begining with "favoring realism over romanticism" and "a turn to greater historical authenticity". While classical westerns were largely unrealistic and historically inaccurate (like most films from any period and any genre), they were at least in the realm of possible (i.e. mostly no double digit body count by one person, almost no cases of one man defeating five or six men with the same number of bullets within few seconds, no late-20th/early-21st century political stances, etc.), while most of the listed "revisionist westerns" commit most of these errors. For example, "The Wild Bunch" has four characters with several dozens kills, "Django Unchained" has one characters with three dozens killed (at least less than the original, with almost 100 kills) and the best example, the original 3:10 to Yuma (listed here for unknown reasons and surely unsourced) had 5 (five) kills (with Heflin and Ford both with two), and the remake has several characters with around 10 kills. This is just one small group of modern mistakes, as it was very uncommon for any town to have more than two or three murders a year, and virtually unseen to have more than five a year. StjepanHR (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Another thing. If you take away (unrealistic) violence and (rare) non-white lead characters, most of the elements listed (good Indians, bigger roles for women, etc.) were frequently found in traditional westerns, even (very early) silent ones. StjepanHR (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The term "Revisionist Western" might make some sense if the article gave us a list of so-called "non-revisionist" westerns. So far as I can see, the films on the list of so-called "revisionist westerns" are just - "westerns".

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Western subgenres which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

AllMovie website as source? You must be joking
Are you kidding? Who would use AllMovie as a source, since it is a commercial brand for marketing/selling movies? For some reason, using IMDB.com -- which when it comes to credits and such is a a good resource, IMO -- is attacked, but you use AllMovie as a source?

This is ridiculous. Is this a marketing link up? I have been reading serious research into film since 1975, and "Shane" would be considered the first revisionist western. Revisionist westerns, a genre that was pointed out by American auterist film critics, was a post-World War 2 phenomenon.

This is ridiculous.Montju (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)