the ending- why....? (spoilers)

I think that John Wilson was scared of the desecration that he was about to commit by killing the elephant. His bravado turned out to be false, a macho veneer to disguise his essential egotism.

[deleted]

*Book Spoiler*

The film is true to the book except for the ending. Wilson kills a bull elephant. A cow elephant tramples Kivu, the native tracker, and is then killed by Wilson or Ogilvy, his guide. The book isn't clear.

The native boys, who accompanied the hunting part, return to the village, report Kivu's death, and his body is retrieved.

As for Wilson, it is obvious that he feels responsible, remorseful, and guilty of Kivu's death, but when the drums beat and Wilson asks what they are saying, "White Hunter, Black Heart", the final paragraph reads, "Wilson nodded slowly. It seemed that he had suddenly felt the need to make sure that it had all really happened, and now he appeared to be satisfied that none of it was a dream."

It's funny, I have never read the book but I was certain that they changed the ending for the film. The reason is much simpler: there has been a massive shift the last 2-3 decades or so in people's attitudes and beliefs regarding animals and man-nature interaction as a whole. Hunting is no longer condidered a gentlemanly sport but senseless butchery by the majority; animal rights activists, advocacy groups, ecology, a sense that nature should be protected, that species should no go extinct - all these are pretty common notions and generally embraced as good ideas,so much so, that it is easy to forget that they have not always been so. I remember reading a Herzog interview some time ago, where he pretty much stated, a hundred years ago the hunter would be the focus of attention in the party, envied by men and approached by women; today he would be an oddity at a social gathering or if he got attention, it would be mostly negative.

Clint is a pretty smart film maker and I am sure he knew that if he shot the elephant at the end, WHBH would always be that film where "Clint shoots the beautiful elephant in the end". That alone, would make the film the only one ever where Eastwood plays the bad guy doing a very bad thing. Even in his antihero roles, he never as a character hurt anyone undeserving, or without provocation. He maybe a quite uncompromising director, but not that uncompromising.

At the same time, and while it would give me no pleasure seeing an elephant being shot in a movie, doing period pieces infused with today's morals and attitudes is just plain wrong. Clint's transgression might be a minor one, but it adds up. I hope i will not see the day when Bogart's cigarette is digitally removed from his films..