Talk:List of Contemporary Westerns

I am not happy

with this list. I don't want to get to the point where a reference is needed for each film, but we might get there. For example, Gran Torino, takes place in Highland Park, Michigan. What, besides having Clint Eastwood in it makes it a western? Dirty Harry too. But, as the song says, I'll do nothing 'till I hear from you. For a while. Carptrash (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carptrash: There are far to many film that, to me, do not belong there - I would disagree. I'm hard-pressed to see much on the list that isn't representative of the genre. Addressing specifically the two you've noted (Dirty Harry and Gran Torino), I'd say start by making sure you understand what the Contemporary Western (or Urban, or Neo-Western) subgenre consists of. For example, location is not necessarily important (i.e. your reference to a setting of Michigan). The Neo-Western as a genre does not necessarily take place in the American West, like a classic Western. Rather, it's a subgenre that contains elements of the Western genre, and also anti-elements (such as the presence of the "anti-hero"). Dirty Harry definitely has key elements of the textbook neo-Western - the gunslinging, rebellious antihero lawman who follows his own moral compass on a quest for justice. Rebecca Umland goes into this fairly in depth in her book, Outlaw Heroes as Liminal Figures of Film, [1] briefly noting the following quote:

The urban western, exemplified by the popularity and iconic status of the Dirty Harry and Death Wish films... In each case, the hero negotiates between conflicting values, reconciling competing ideological stances.(p. 5)

Stephen McVeigh also covers it in his book, The American Western.[2]:

Even when the film is not explicitly a Western, cowboy/frontier elements can be discerned (Coogan's Bluff and Dirty Harry can be read as modern Westerns).(p. 181)

As for Gran Torino, I recommend reading Built Ford Tough: The Sincerity of John Ford and the Persistence of the American Western, an essay in the anthology The New Western.[3] To quote (empasis my own):

[An] example of sincerity trumping violence can be witnessed at the very close of Clint Eastwood's 2008 Urban Western, Gran Torino, a meditation on aging, ethnic strife, class discontent, and urban violence in contemporary American life, as well as a meta-cinematic reflection on Eastwood's own long career as an actor and director. According to the conventions of the genre, which Eastwood's youthful performances largely helped to cement, virility and thus patriarchal rights are secured through public performances of competence; and competence, in turn, is measured and proven in (successful) acts of violence. (p. 17)

So if they were included solely on the basis of Clint Eastwood, then I would agree with you - that has nothing to do with genre. But as you can see, these examples you've noted are actually notable examples of the genre. Ideally, the article should identify it as such, and from reliable sources (such as those listed), but if something's questionable now, it can always be added back later if properly sourced later. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say if this list is retained it's going to need serious sourcing. GTA V is not a modern western in any sense, and Sicario is also questionable here. Given how loose this category seems to be, it would be appropriate to include the John Wick movies as well, since they follow a classic (if overdrawn) Western revenge motif not unlike The Outlaw Jose Wales. I think the key lies in the quote from McVeigh: "elements can be discerned," meaning to me it's open to a very broad and not necessarily accurate interpretation. I also feel in many cases the association is intended to be pejorative or dismissive in some way unless the film's considered artistic. Intothat darkness 03:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I wanted to do with my posting elsewhere was to start a conversation here. That the two examples I cited turn out to be referenced examples of the genre do indeed point to my not completely understanding the genre. And this is okay with me. I will check out the references presented here and carry on. By the way, slash and burn is not something I do on wikipedia but it did get someone's attention. Carptrash (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say if this list is retained it's going to need serious sourcing - I don't disagree with that; it's never a bad thing. And I'll certainly agree that GTAV should probably be gone - I kind of glanced right past that one before. That was probably on there originally as everything was copied over from the Western (genre) article subsection on the Neo-Western subgenre ([4]). That's where this list article started. It was an over-exhaustive prose list that is better suited to a list article; but when it was in the Westerns (genre) article, none of it was sourced (as was the case for much of that article). I've been working on cleaning that article up, as well as the list of subgenres that was split from it. It just takes time to work on clean up. So as for fixing this list, some are certainly obvious examples of the genre, and the easy and obvious are less likely to be questioned. For the reason that Intothatdarkness mentioned, anything that is questionable should be sourced: it's open to a very broad and not necessarily accurate interpretation. It's not whether you or I think it's a Contemporary or Neo or Urban Western, but rather whether reliable (citable) critics do. But I think the more one delves into the genre (or rather, subgenre), it does become more clear what is and what isn't. Anyway, I started adding some references ButlerBlog (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"It's not whether you or I think it's a Contemporary or Neo or Urban Western".. This gets right to the point that kept me awake much of last night, which is, are we to say that a Contemporary or Neo or Urban Western film, sourced as such, can all be labeled "Neo-Western?" I say "no." So that when a source labels Gran Torino as being an Urban Western, that does not mean that it is a Neo-western. Or does it? Carptrash (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see where wikipedia, in the Western movies article has "Contemporary or Neo or Urban Western" as being the same thing. We say the genre uses "Old West themes, archetypes, and motifs, such as a rebellious antihero, open plains and desert landscapes, or gunfights." Fine. So we then remove the "open plains and desert landscapes" (which to me is very critical and should not be removed) by adding "urban" to the mix and we are left with "antiheros and gunfights," which includes about 50% (to make up a statistic) of the films made today, rendering the term "neo-western" pretty much useless. But I know how this discussinon ends up so I think I'll just move on. Carptrash (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They often get used interchangeably - and for the most part, all Urban Westerns are Neo-Westerns, but not all Neo-Westerns are Urban Westerns. While there are certainly opinions among film critics and academics as to what constitutes a neo-Western, the way I would distill all that down to is this - they all have elements of the classic Western motifs, and usually those of Revisionist Westerns as well, in a contemporary setting. The Urban Western (a type of Neo-Western) sets this in an urban setting such as NYC. A more traditional Neo-Western might be set in the American West (like Longmire). A lot of people seem to get hung up on setting rather than story elements when trying to define it. I've seen a number of discussions on very clearly defined Neo-Westerns focus on setting, such as one not set in the American West, and thus suggest that it's not a Neo-Western based on setting. But that's not the right way to view it. One consistent thing through critics and academics is that they look at story elements, not setting, to define the Neo-Western. One of those key elements is that you'll usually see an antihero (more of a Revisionist Western trope, as opposed to the classic Western hero) following their own personal moral compass on a quest for justice rather than "play by the rules". But there are other (needed) elements as well - that's just one defining element. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

which includes about 50% (to make up a statistic) of the films made today, rendering the term "neo-western" pretty much useless. - it may start off seeming that way, but it's a little deeper than that. I understand, though, as I went through a phase of "Isn't everything basically a neo-Western" which obviously isn't the case. Some are more recognizable than others, for sure. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think for some of these I'd prefer more academic sourcing. The listicle used to justify Sicario being here, for example, doesn't strike me as being especially definitive. This, for example, doesn't mention it in that genre at all, classing it as Action/Adventure instead. So do The Guardian and Rolling Stone. Neo-Western seem to me to fall into the "I'll know it when I see it" category, which isn't very helpful. If revenge is supposed to be a key trope in Neo-Westerns, then the entire John Wick saga needs to be added. Intothat darkness 23:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, academic sourcing is always preferred when available. Since it's a source of contention, I just took Sicario out. Most (not all) of Sheridan's work is Neo-Western genre, but much of it is still too recent to find much available academic sources (unless you're currently in film school). I've been thinking about this entire article and have become equally dissatisfied with it. There's no way it's going to include everything (or keep up with everything), and I'll agree there are always debatable elements. It really started (as noted above) to help clean up the list of subgenres at Western (genre), which actually has since now been split to its own article. Some of those subgenres are summarized in the list article, but have enough content to also have their own article (such as Revisionist Western or Northern (genre) or some of the other well covered subgenres). Contemporary Western/Neo-Western didn't have enough content at the time for that, but it has been expanded since then and with the inclusion of a list of examples (such as the bulk of this list), it could warrant its own article. Then this list could be ditched altogether and the content merged into the (sub)genre article as Revisionist Western is (noting that the list of media is representative and not exhaustive). I'm going to complete that article and WP:BOLD redirect this list to that (in lieu of a formal merge). If either of you object, feel free to undo the redirect, but I think this is a better solution. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is a better solution. As you say, it's a pretty fluid category and for things like that lists aren't especially useful. I'm also not sure Contemporary Western and Neo Western are the same thing. Contemporary Western seems more focused on setting (Yellowstone or Longmire being two examples), while Neo Western (to me, at least) seems to be a pretty broad "I know it when I see it" bucket for things. Intothat darkness 13:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right on that. Some people use them interchangeably, but (to me), the Neo-Western is more likely to be taken out of the traditional Western setting. I've read a lot of film textbooks and to be honest, it depends on who's doing the defining, and it's difficult to pin down a very distinct definition. My view (for what it's worth) is that the Neo-Western is to Contemporary Western what Revisionist Western is to (classic) Western. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]