The Role Where Gene Hackman Was State Violence Personified
Hackman's performance as "Little Bill" Daggett in Unforgiven is an unflinching portrayal of how far the state will go to protect its corrupt monopoly on violence.

When Clint Eastwood tried to recruit Gene Hackman to co-star in what would be his last Western film, Hackman initially turned him down. The actor was tired of doing violent films, and the script Eastwood had shown him was indeed violent.
Eventually, Eastwood managed to change Hackman's mind by insisting that his new project would ultimately have a pacifistic message.
"I think we can make a great statement against violence and killing if we do this right," Eastwood recalls telling him in an interview posted to YouTube in 2009 by the American Film Institute.
Hackman, who was found dead along with his wife in their Santa Fe, New Mexico, home on Wednesday, was won over. The result was the 1992 film Unforgiven.
To say the film, which Eastwood directs and stars in, was "done right" is an understatement. Unforgiven has gone down as a revisionist Western masterpiece that unflinchingly depicts the toll that violence takes on both victim and perpetrator.
Key to delivering the film's message is Hackman's performance as lawman Bill "Little Bill" Daggett, for which he'd win an Academy Award for best supporting actor.
Hackman's Daggett is the sheriff of Big Whiskey, Nebraska, who is obsessed with trying to stop two contract killers (played by Eastwood and co-star Morgan Freeman) from fulfilling a murder-for-hire contract taken out on two local cowboys by a group of vengeful prostitutes.
From that brief sketch, one might assume that Daggett would be the good guy—a frontier lawman trying to prevent a fresh cycle of bloody retribution from upending the town's fragile order.
Instead, Hackman is the film's violent and unstable antagonist, whose version of justice is just as warped and brutal as that of the gunslingers he's squaring off against.
The reason that the prostitutes take out a hit on the two cowboys is because they viciously assaulted one of their own at the very beginning of the film.
Instead of hanging the two cowboys, Daggett agrees to let them off on the condition that they pay restitution in the form of a few horses to the brothel owner, not the girl they attacked.
This outrages the other prostitutes, who are justly offended that Daggett is treating the assault of one of their own as mere vandalism.
The sheriff's version of justice is clear. He's there to protect the property of the powerful instead of shielding the truly vulnerable from harm.
This sets up a clear feminist and anti-capitalist critique of state power at the beginning of the film: The police "keep the peace" by preserving an unjust status quo at the expense of providing justice to its victims.
And yet, Unforgiven upsets this framing pretty quickly. A more standard plot might have involved the prostitutes allying with the strangers who come to town to overthrow the corrupt Daggett and create a more equitable Big Whiskey.
Instead, the aggrieved whores opt for an almost anarcho-capitalist solution. Ill-served by state-provided rights enforcement, they crowdfund a bounty on their aggressors.
It's when these profit-seeking rights-enforcers start arriving in town that the film's anarcho-capitalist themes truly start to emerge.
Daggett engages in any number of civil liberties abuses to stop them from fulfilling their contract: enforcing a total prohibition of private gun ownership, assaulting suspects, and torturing witnesses to death.
Throughout it all, the sheriff's abiding concern is protecting his monopoly on violence against private competition.
Unforgiven is rich enough to give the sheriff a plausibly altruistic rationale for his violence.
Daggett, we're told, worked "tough towns" overcome by gun-toting bounty hunters and criminals. Brutal as his monopolistic tactics might be, the sheriff has managed to keep the violence that's overcome the rest of the West from flooding into Big Whiskey, too.
While Eastwood and Freeman's characters are hired out of retirement by sympathetic victims, the film makes clear that these men were anything but righteous in their past lives.
Daggett's deputies, meanwhile, are portrayed not as thuggish henchmen but as seemingly well-meaning lawmen.
Nevertheless, whether he's publicly spirited or simply psychotic, Daggett's internal motivations ultimately prove irrelevant.
His imperative as the monopoly provider of justice is to crush the competition by whatever means necessary.
And Daggett's escalating brutality to enforce his monopoly on violence eventually undermines any justification for it. At best, he's just as bad as the hired guns he's waging war on. At worst, he's willing to engage in insane acts of violence to protect the real criminals from people hired to deliver some rough justice.
As it turns out, it's all for naught. Daggett's monopoly on violence ends in a bloody massacre that claims his life and the lives of most of his deputies.
Unforgiven's subversion of classic Western tropes is primarily focused on the psychological. Unlike the other spurs-and-saddle romps Eastwood starred in, hardened gunslingers and lawmen in this film aren't immune to the fear, guilt, and trauma inflicted by the violence around them.
But there's a subversive political message as well. A story about the anarchic Wild West ultimately becomes a cutting critique of state power and the supposed righteousness of the people who wield it.
To be sure, Unforgiven isn't primarily an anti-state movie. It's an anti-violence movie. Privatized rights enforcement and socialized security provision both depend on horrific violence to settle disputes. Neither is ideal or even desirable.
The film's anarchism is ultimately pacifistic. Eastwood's character starts the movie as a quiet pig farmer. A brief epilogue suggests that after the events of Unforgiven, he lives the rest of his life as a peaceful merchant.
The possibility of exit is real; one can give up on violence and live at peace with the world if one chooses.
Throughout his long and storied career, Hackman played in a number of movies with libertarian themes. Films like The Conversation and Enemy of the State are powerful critiques of surveillance. The French Connection is a remarkably unromantic portrayal of a morally ambiguous drug war.
But it's in Unforgiven that the actor delivers the most powerful libertarian message of all: Violence is bad, even when the state does it. RIP.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The Role Where Gene Hackman Was State Violence Personified.
A Bridge Too Far?
Fantastic fucking movie. Though it's very slightly off in terms of some details, shifting a bit too much of the blame on the British ground forces, it's like 95% historically accurate and does justice to the events. Those British 2nd Parachute Battalion boys were a glorious bunch.
I'm most surprised that the film is over 30 years old. The movie is a masterpiece as stated and the performances from Hackman to Freeman to Eastwood are spectacular. Unforgiven and Open Range are a pair of movies that are unsurpassed in the genre.
For fans of corrupt law enforcement and government surveillance, Unforgiven and The Conversation were truly Heartbreakers.
I never liked the movie. To unreal. And too violent. But most westerns are. Actually my least favorite Eastwood movie.
What a shallow fucking read of the movie.
For example, the prostitutes weren’t justified feminists or ancaps. They were spiteful and vengeful. One of the two men who assaulted the girl wasn’t really guilty-he was pulled in by his partner and felt serious remorse. He apologized to the girl and tried to give her his horse instead of the tavern owner, but the other prostitutes wouldn’t accept the offer because they wanted blood.
They wouldn’t accept any reconciliation other than violent retribution, even on the more innocent of the two parties. It’s part of the theme about how people who are insulated from violence tend to have skewed perceptions of it. The prostitutes who weren’t victimized were more militant about getting revenge than the girl who was harmed, like the pulp author who idealized gunslingers, or the young wannabe gunslinger who was very gung-ho until it came time for him to pull the trigger.
Bill Dagget is indeed an example of a corrupt government official, but there’s so much more to say about him. He values peacekeeping over justice. And there’s a type of cowardice, in that he bans guns from everyone else. You can read this into the way he calmly disarms English Bob, then violently kicking the shit out of him once he has all the power in situation. That said, he’s also not explicitly a villain because he’s trying to prevent people from murdering two men, and Bill Munney leaves a pile of bodies behind in the film’s climax.
There’s a lot more this than to say it’s pushing an ancap narrative.
I think you are conflating this movie with "The Quick and the Dead".
Nah, he’s spot on.
I can't really trust people who watch this movie and then say things about it like this:
This sets up a clear feminist and anti-capitalist critique of state power at the beginning of the film
Yes, the women are being treated like property, and yes, the punishment fails to provide justice. But the second cowboy, after realizing things were going too far, grabbed his friend and tried to stop him. He's the one who showed remorse, he's the one who apologized to Delilah's face and wanted her to have the horse he was ordered to pay. He's not innocent but he's not guilty of the worst offenses, and yet the rest of the prostitutes refuse to listen to him. Delilah is more ready to forgive him because she actually witnessed him trying to stop his own friend from harming her, and yet the prostitutes still place a bounty on his head.
Because they're not going to do the killing themselves, they have a romanticized idea of violence. They want an extremely harsh penalty in order to send a message, which puts them on the same moral footing as Little Bill. The girl who was the actual victim of violence, Delilah, is much less enthusiastic about continuing the cycle of violence.
What you should really take from this is that you NEED fair and impartial justice, otherwise people will be driven to take justice into their own hands. And when people take justice into their own hands, they tend to be disproportionate and indiscriminate in the use of violence. Harms and indignities they've personally suffered are weighed more heavily compared to the harms others suffer. You want a robust and healthy justice system, not something arbitrarily decided on the spot. Little Bill, by just trying to run the town himself without a system of due process, arbitrarily waffles between giving the two men a "whipping," and just having them repay the tavern own.
Now, if we're talking proportionality, whipping the two men as punishment, perhaps in combination with some type of recompense for the harm the girl suffered, is far more proper than calling for them to be murdered. That's the message of the whole damned film-killing a man is a hell of a thing. "You take away all he's got...and all he's ever gonna have." The prostitutes are not IN THE RIGHT just because they're being mistreated.
Yes, the women are being treated like property,
No, they are not. TL,DR- They, really just the one, get a raw deal. But they are *hardly* the only ones to get a raw deal or near the worst raw deal, law of nature, law of man, or other.
Not specifically to refute or impugn you, but the perpetuation of the out-of-hand political narrative, especially given the context. Even the assertion "They are being treated like property *by our modern conceptions*." is still highly metaphoric or hyperbolic. They are being treated like low-class and/or low-skilled laborers with their own agency. If your friend carves up a painting and the proprietor('s other paintings) won't accept a horse as remuneration, you don't turn and offer the horse directly to the painting. Any one of the prostitutes could've picked up a weapon gun, they didn't do that. Everybody knows the prostitutes tried to hire guns to solve their problem, if they were livestock or companion animals, you'd put down a rabid dog that was trying to bite you or others. They are certainly being treated better than the Chinamen that English Bob brags about shooting for sport.
They spend most of their lives in their own rooms. They get access to toiletries and perfumes and similar feminine products that other people don't. In modern conceptions; they occupy prime real estate next to an anchor business. They don't risk life on the trail, sleep out in the elements, work hogs to lose them to illness, and catch pneumonia themselves...
They aren't treated the same as men because they aren't the same as men. Quantizing it, they don't enjoy *as much* liberty because they don't incur *as much* risk, doesn't change the issue meaningfully. Even under "The Law" as it stands, they don't get a vote in their fate but, again to the overarching point, English Bob, Bill Munny, Ned Logan, etc. don't get votes when they get disarmed, beat up, and/or killed. Mr. Beauchamp isn't treated the same as the other men.
The assertion that they were treated as property is a modern notion intended to recontextualize completely normal, historical moral behavior to an unreal, false, even impossible standard of progressive "moral" behavior. If Bill and Skinny would've let the women go kill the attacker, it wouldn't have been any more moral or granted them agency as women any more than it took it from them and granted Bill Munny agency (which is rather directly opposite the "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." point on several levels). The notion that women were broadly treated as property historically starts from the modern oxymoronic notion that women are simultaneously oppressed and of the same or greater capability and/or are owed "rights" to free them from social, biological, or other consequences; and works backwards from there.
This is a considerably more insightful reading of the film than CB came up with. Probably because he was trying to shoehorn a dead celebrity-shaped peg into a nominally libertarian-shaped hole. And you were just taking in a great piece of American cinema as it was intended.
What you point out is exactly what the author was getting at. The roles are mixed up and ambiguous. Nothing follows the traditional mold of western films and that is what makes the movie so great. You expect the people to act one way and they constantly don't. Hackman is a brilliant sociopath. He is menacing when just talking to people and you expect him to erupt into violence at any moment.
I liked when he was coaching at Chelsea. It was a short stent, but successful.
I feel the core message of “Unforgiven” is what happens when you try to build a house without migrant labor.
Then The Ukraine is doomed to be a ruin forever.
Well, that is an odd take. Since Little Bill was building a house do you think all that labor made him angry and unhinged? lol.
"The Role Where Gene Hackman Was State Violence Personified."
Like Hackman's role in "Bonnie and Clyde?"
Britches, you've been doing so well recently but, god love ya, 'Unforgiven' is a movie. Its not even particularly historically accurate nor does it pretend to be.
INITIATING violence is bad especially if the state does it. We call that tyranny. Government is intended to hold a monopoly the RETALIATORY use of force. Deterrence is how government defends liberty its one function.
Except the monopoly is a fiction. Any interested party can serve up the retaliatory force whenever they want to. The state just wants a monopoly on getting away with it, and getting paid for it.
That's vigilantism. Government is the means by which we place the retaliatory use of force under objective law.
Libertarian message: "Violence is bad PARTICULARLY (not even when), when the state commits it. "
He didn't deserve this...
No one building a house does.
The movie is great because it reflects real life not an idealized version often portrayed in Western's. Sometimes there are no good people in a situation and everything goes off the rails. Someone you look for to be good and impartial like a Sheriff sometimes is not. The justice you want is not to be found, no justice is to be found with the law so you take it into your own hands but go too far. The entire moral ambiguity of the film is it's strength. There often are no hero's.