The Shootist was one, if not the, first John Wayne movies I can remember watching as a kid. At the time I took the movie at face value wanting to be like Gillom

The Shootist was one, if not the, first John Wayne movies I can remember watching as a kid. At the time I took the movie at face value wanting to be like Gillom learning to shoot. As an adult watching it I can see the truth of the story: the pain of an old man wanting to leave life in a manner of his choosing, and being disappointed that in the end he could not control it. Sure, most of his characters were macho, misogynistic, and perhaps a touch racist, but was that his portrayal of the character drawn from his knowledge of what got him jobs, the writers, or perhaps both? Maybe he was simply the victim of type-casting. We see type-casting a lot these days: Keira Knightley seems stuck with period-piece roles, Jim Carrey is one of the go-to guys in the comedy realm, Jennifer Aniston is perpetually the ditsy girl, and it just goes on from there. Certain actors and actresses seem destined to play only a single type of role because of their looks. It's as true then as it is now. You could argue that these people accept the roles so they're as much to blame as the casting agents, but if the only roles they're offered are these type-casted ones who's really to blame? Sorry, I digress. To me the story of Gran Torino is very similiar to that of The Shootist. It's been updated for the times, but at its core it's still about an old man tutoring a young boy and choosing how he'll die. Is the Clint Eastwood story better? I think that depends on who you ask. Is the character of Walt Kowalski better than J.B. Books? That depends on your definition of better. I believe there are things to learn from both characters and both stories. And while these things may not always be good, they are still important to know.