I watched "Once Upon and Time in the West" again recently and goddamn that movie is good. Its frankly amazing how it manages to be so succinct in a 160 minute movie that has i think 8 plot points. And maybe 10-15 "scenes"
As an example. Every death* in the movie that is shown is a direct consequence or requirement of a plot point. None are shown for character purposes. Cheyenne (Jason Robards) kills only 4 people in the movie and its implied that he kills about 12. The first people Cheyenne kills are off screen, done entirely in audio as you hear the gunfight but follow the protagonist(Claudia Cardinale). Later in the film Cheyenne is needed to escape going to prison in order to give some exposition at McBain Station. But he has escaped before and this has nothing to do with any of the character conflicts in the film.. so the entire section, if one was ever filmed is cut. You see only the aftermath... which resolves the conflict between Frank(Henry Fonda) and the railroad baron.
*except one. But this is an OK exemption for a number of reasons.
have you watched Fist Full of Dynamite / Duck you Sucker recently? Re-watching Sergio Leone movies is incredibly illuminating, from the sheer quality of story telling to the way he establishes geography of his action scenes. The fact that he did it all without story boarding is mind blowing.
But yeah, if you haven't seen Duck you Sucker, you should make it your mission to watch it.
I always felt that "duck" was the worse of the Leone westerns. I haven't watched it in a few years. It might be better than Good/Bad/Ugly.
In the end Once Upon a Time in the West is the only one cast better than "Few Dollars More". And that makes most of the difference. None of the others have the heart or thematic power to make up for the lack of Gian Volontè and Lee Van Cleef. (And West would have been worse off with Eastwood or Coburn probably. Though I want to say that someone could have done better than Bronson I am not sure who that someone is)
Edit: also not sure it's right to call "duck" a western. It not only doesn't occur in the "west" (being 1910, past the point of pacification) but it's more rightly a war film.
oh I think that James Coburn and Rod Steiger more than make up for the lack of Van Cleef and Gian on their own and the themes of the movie are far more fleshed out and work far better than the Good Bad and Ugly. Hell Rod Steiger make for one hell of a good stunt Eli Wallach.
As for the classification, don't think that half of the Spaghetti Westerns can be called westerns. They're all either in Mexico or on the Mexican border and as for the time period, I never found that to be all that important, with movies like Outland still keeping the general themes of westerns in completely different era.
And to be completely pedantic, it's not a "war film" it's an anti-revolutionary film.
But yeah, check it out it's really got a lot going on under the surface.
Good/Bad/Ugly does not have Gian Volonte and it most definitely is not a particularly good film in theme or structure. So saying that the themes are better does not say much about "Duck". Moreover Wallach was not a good addition to "G/B/U". By removing a potential for him being "bad" the movie ruins a core point. It would have been much better with three "clear" villains. Such, having a substitute does not help "Duck" for precisely the same reasons that it does not help "Good/Bad/Ugly". If Volonte had been one of the hero's in Duck the movie would have been a lot better.
WRT "Mexico is still a western". Its not that its in Mexico, that has nothing to do with it. Many proper westerns are set in Mexico(which would have also been referred to as "The West" at the time so its not improper in that way either). Many proper westerns are set in Japan. "The West" is a Zeitgeist and not a location.
The reason that "Duck" isn't a western is mainly because it does not exist in a world without government. There is a reason that Kurosawa's samurai westerns primarily take place in post Shogunate Japan; small law can exist in a western but big law cannot. Big law absolves the protagonists of difficult moral choices because big law is either clearly good or clearly bad. Big law focuses the moral question as one of authority rather than one of right and wrong. In "Duck" the revolution is too central to the plot to consider the film a true western. Even though getting caught up in the revolution is a good theme its not necessarily a western theme. Getting caught up in war is a war movie theme.
edit: "Anti-revolutionary" films are still "war films". "Anti war" films are "war films". The reasons, the causes, the people in and around them. They're films about war. If you wanted to give a non "war film" answer you might go with the classic "adventure film" in the vein of the old Jason and the Argonauts. Because the protagonists primarily take a journey and are changed on the other side of it. With the events and dangers happening around them/to them rather than as a core part of their impetus. But then again, in that same vein so would "Saving Private Ryan" be an adventure film. And while i am sure i can convince myself of that, i am not sure it would stand much scrutiny.
Big law is literally over thrown in the movie. The entire point of the film is the overthrowing of the Big Law. How Big Law is effecting people and people rebelling against Big Law. That is what makes it a war film!
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Good/Bad/Ugly does not have Gian Volonte and it most definitely is not a particularly good film in theme or structure. So saying that the themes are better does not say much about "Duck". Moreover Wallach was not a good addition to "G/B/U". By removing a potential for him being "bad" the movie ruins a core point. It would have been much better with three "clear" villains.
What the fuck is this shit? GBU is great in theme, structure, performances by people named Wallach, and everyfuckingthing else. Please feel free to explain your delusional opinions in greater detail.
On the rest of your post, I haven't seen Duck, but Westerns most certainly can exist in a setting that includes a government--consider contemporary Westerns like No Country for Old Men, or Hell or High Water.
Also, you acknowledge GBU as a Western but that film contains significant Civil War subplots. Why is GBU not a war film by your definition?
+3
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Because the interaction with the war or the state is not a significant component of the movie. It's just there.
Also no, no country does not have "big law" in it. The lawmans inability to do anything in the situation is a key thematic point. Haven't seen hell or high water. But I wouldn't call Heat a western so it might not be right to call "redneck heat" one simply because the protagonists wear cowboy hats
As for GBU. Unless you're talking about musical themes no. It's a meandering greed tale with no overarching symbolism or importance. It is a sequence of well shot scenes with little import but to support a big showdown without purpose. The trio show up at the end with the gold because the plot demands it but not much else.
Which I suppose could a meta commentary on westerns... But the key point to make that meta commentary would be that it's impossible to tell which is the good, bad, or ugly. (Or that they are one and the same) Yet the film never provides the argument for why any but the obvious are the good/bad/ugly.
Rather the film tries to be all westerns at the same time and while it may achieve this it fails to be a strong singular film as a result.
As for structure... The film is slow and feels slow... The slowness provides no value for the plot, it does not extend any meaning for the characters... It's just slow. The slowness doesn't punctuate the violence... It's just slow.
As for Wallach. The problem with Wallach is not that he does not act well. The problem is tied up in the above failure to ambiguate the characters properly. He was either the wrong actor or the wrong role.
It's unquestionably the worst of the "fistful" trilogy.
Because the interaction with the war or the state is not a significant component of the movie. It's just there.
Also no, no country does not have "big law" in it. The lawmans inability to do anything in the situation is a key thematic point. Haven't seen hell or high water. But I wouldn't call Heat a western so it might not be right to call "redneck heat" one simply because the protagonists wear cowboy hats
Is High Noon a Western?
As for GBU. Unless you're talking about musical themes no. It's a meandering greed tale with no overarching symbolism or importance. It is a sequence of well shot scenes with little import but to support a big showdown without purpose. The trio show up at the end with the gold because the plot demands it but not much else.
Which I suppose could a meta commentary on westerns... But the key point to make that meta commentary would be that it's impossible to tell which is the good, bad, or ugly. (Or that they are one and the same) Yet the film never provides the argument for why any but the obvious are the good/bad/ugly.
The film doesn't have anything to say because it doesn't say the one thing you think it should say?
GBU is commenting on the Western, but not by deconstructing it into a morass of moral relativism. Instead it exaggerates the style and iconography of the Western in order to distill the essence of the genre. It's entirely the point that the good/bad/ugly characters are quintessential expressions of those values; likewise, each section or set piece endeavors to be the shootout, to be the apotheosis of "character treks through the harsh desert," or whatever. By and large this is the mode of spaghetti Westerns--they heighten, rather than revise, the traditional Western nearly to the point of self-parody. The kind of meta-commentary you're looking for belongs more to films like The Searchers, or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, which questioned the moral assumptions of traditional entries in the genre.
As for structure... The film is slow and feels slow... The slowness provides no value for the plot, it does not extend any meaning for the characters... It's just slow. The slowness doesn't punctuate the violence... It's just slow.
Different strokes, I guess, but the pacing never feels slow to me. Each vignette is so skillfully told that I never feel like the movie is too long.
+2
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
McLintock best western.
(only 25% joking on that)
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Sergio Leone had roughly the same grasp of American geography as Americans have of geography in general which is to say it's not great.
And GBU's entire damn framing device was the Civil War. Never mind that it's geographically impossible. The whole point is everyone's trying to get the gold which was stolen from one of the armies, the main characters spend a considerable chunk of the film posing as one side or the other, and the big action setpiece is a fucking battle.
It's like complaining that the Nazis never actually found the Ark of the Covenant
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
+4
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Posts
oh I think that James Coburn and Rod Steiger more than make up for the lack of Van Cleef and Gian on their own and the themes of the movie are far more fleshed out and work far better than the Good Bad and Ugly. Hell Rod Steiger make for one hell of a good stunt Eli Wallach.
As for the classification, don't think that half of the Spaghetti Westerns can be called westerns. They're all either in Mexico or on the Mexican border and as for the time period, I never found that to be all that important, with movies like Outland still keeping the general themes of westerns in completely different era.
And to be completely pedantic, it's not a "war film" it's an anti-revolutionary film.
But yeah, check it out it's really got a lot going on under the surface.
WRT "Mexico is still a western". Its not that its in Mexico, that has nothing to do with it. Many proper westerns are set in Mexico(which would have also been referred to as "The West" at the time so its not improper in that way either). Many proper westerns are set in Japan. "The West" is a Zeitgeist and not a location.
The reason that "Duck" isn't a western is mainly because it does not exist in a world without government. There is a reason that Kurosawa's samurai westerns primarily take place in post Shogunate Japan; small law can exist in a western but big law cannot. Big law absolves the protagonists of difficult moral choices because big law is either clearly good or clearly bad. Big law focuses the moral question as one of authority rather than one of right and wrong. In "Duck" the revolution is too central to the plot to consider the film a true western. Even though getting caught up in the revolution is a good theme its not necessarily a western theme. Getting caught up in war is a war movie theme.
edit: "Anti-revolutionary" films are still "war films". "Anti war" films are "war films". The reasons, the causes, the people in and around them. They're films about war. If you wanted to give a non "war film" answer you might go with the classic "adventure film" in the vein of the old Jason and the Argonauts. Because the protagonists primarily take a journey and are changed on the other side of it. With the events and dangers happening around them/to them rather than as a core part of their impetus. But then again, in that same vein so would "Saving Private Ryan" be an adventure film. And while i am sure i can convince myself of that, i am not sure it would stand much scrutiny.
What the fuck is this shit? GBU is great in theme, structure, performances by people named Wallach, and everyfuckingthing else. Please feel free to explain your delusional opinions in greater detail.
On the rest of your post, I haven't seen Duck, but Westerns most certainly can exist in a setting that includes a government--consider contemporary Westerns like No Country for Old Men, or Hell or High Water.
Also, you acknowledge GBU as a Western but that film contains significant Civil War subplots. Why is GBU not a war film by your definition?
Because the Confederacy never had outposts in the Arizona desert?
I keed, I keed
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_Campaign
"Battle" of Picacho Pass
Also no, no country does not have "big law" in it. The lawmans inability to do anything in the situation is a key thematic point. Haven't seen hell or high water. But I wouldn't call Heat a western so it might not be right to call "redneck heat" one simply because the protagonists wear cowboy hats
As for GBU. Unless you're talking about musical themes no. It's a meandering greed tale with no overarching symbolism or importance. It is a sequence of well shot scenes with little import but to support a big showdown without purpose. The trio show up at the end with the gold because the plot demands it but not much else.
Which I suppose could a meta commentary on westerns... But the key point to make that meta commentary would be that it's impossible to tell which is the good, bad, or ugly. (Or that they are one and the same) Yet the film never provides the argument for why any but the obvious are the good/bad/ugly.
Rather the film tries to be all westerns at the same time and while it may achieve this it fails to be a strong singular film as a result.
As for structure... The film is slow and feels slow... The slowness provides no value for the plot, it does not extend any meaning for the characters... It's just slow. The slowness doesn't punctuate the violence... It's just slow.
As for Wallach. The problem with Wallach is not that he does not act well. The problem is tied up in the above failure to ambiguate the characters properly. He was either the wrong actor or the wrong role.
It's unquestionably the worst of the "fistful" trilogy.
Is High Noon a Western?
The film doesn't have anything to say because it doesn't say the one thing you think it should say?
GBU is commenting on the Western, but not by deconstructing it into a morass of moral relativism. Instead it exaggerates the style and iconography of the Western in order to distill the essence of the genre. It's entirely the point that the good/bad/ugly characters are quintessential expressions of those values; likewise, each section or set piece endeavors to be the shootout, to be the apotheosis of "character treks through the harsh desert," or whatever. By and large this is the mode of spaghetti Westerns--they heighten, rather than revise, the traditional Western nearly to the point of self-parody. The kind of meta-commentary you're looking for belongs more to films like The Searchers, or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, which questioned the moral assumptions of traditional entries in the genre.
Different strokes, I guess, but the pacing never feels slow to me. Each vignette is so skillfully told that I never feel like the movie is too long.
(only 25% joking on that)
And GBU's entire damn framing device was the Civil War. Never mind that it's geographically impossible. The whole point is everyone's trying to get the gold which was stolen from one of the armies, the main characters spend a considerable chunk of the film posing as one side or the other, and the big action setpiece is a fucking battle.
It's like complaining that the Nazis never actually found the Ark of the Covenant
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Talk about them here!