The Western List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

[Nothing]

That's not what Sausage said though. He said that they were the least interesting elements. removing that word interesting unfairly and drastically changes the meaning of what he said.

No it doesn't. He said 'the least interesting AND original'. 'Interesting' is subjective, and not something I'm particularly interested in debating. 'Original', on the other hand, is a quantative criticism - and quantifiably incorrect, ergo my criticism stands.

compared to the rest of Europe and particularly Italy there is nothing unique of note or interest in the politics of his films.

Whilst I might prefer, say, A Bullet for the General to A Fistful of Dollars, the fact is that Leone created the entire sub-genre, and it is therefore ridiculous to accuse him of being unoriginal.

[knives]

I agree in his usage of the genre he was original, but the politics he applied to it were not. You could get the same politics out of most Italian productions from the time. What pray tell makes his showing, examining, or what ever other application of his politics original.

[Mr Sausage]

It is a common misconception that communism ignores the value of individual achivement. The contribution made by every individual to the wider good is paramount, and individual acts of heroism, productivity, leadership, etc, are widely celebrated in communist states.

The heroism or otherwise in Leone's films is almost never about contribution, and when it is, that contribution is treated cynically or with melancholy. Leone's heroes rarely align themselves with causes, and when they do it is usually by accident and with a sense that they have made a pit stop on the way to their true destination. This is part of their melancholy and their grandeur. When Harmonica and Frank begin the ritual of the duel--the most important moment in both their lives, their defining moment, the moment to which the entire thrust of their beings has led them (it's not for nothing that Harmonica's presence in the movie is close to supernatural)--they do so in isolation. They do it not for the crowd, not for the people, not for the railway, not for the worker, not for any cause. It is entirely, utterly personal, a clash of individualism which Leone deliberately highlights by cutting from the busy railway workers to the emptiness of the landscape where the duel takes place--an emptiness only broken when each man in turn steps into frame. The ritual, one of the primary elements of meaning in Leone's work, is in contrast to the crowd. Leone's concern with myth, archetype, and their relation to genre, outweighs his basic political points.

Because the western was such a tediously Marxist genre before Leone came along?

"Tediously marxist" is a tautology. And you aren't being a good reader. I said least original. This is different than not original. So if you want to claim there is some originality to applying marxism to the western, go ahead. It remains that these elements are not worked through in a coherent manner (with the possible exception of Duck, You Sucker), and that the other and indeed more purely generic elements of his movies are more strikingly original in their treatment. Leone was a genius of style: the more directly an aspect of his movies is connected to his style, the more original it tends to be. The marxism tends to be remain aloof from his style and thus I understand it to be the contribution of his screenwriters and not something that much animated his sensibilities.

[Nothing]

Leone's heroes rarely align themselves with causes, and when they do it is usually by accident and with a sense that they have made a pit stop on the way to their true destination.

Except there are no heroes in Leone. The intended irony behind the title of 'The Good, the Bad & the Ugly' is that the three protagonists are barely distinguishble - they are all greedy immoral capitalists willing to murder for profit. His debunking of the western 'hero' - and his increasingly comprehensive critique of the American dream, reaching its full capacity in Once Upon a Time in America - is precisely where Leone's political innovation (and political punch) lies. If you can't see that then it's no wonder you don't make much of his work.

You could get the same politics out of most Italian productions from the time.

From (some) dramas, not westerns. Leone invented the Marxist western.

if you want to claim there is some originality to applying marxism to the western, go ahead.

I just did. And it's pretty tenouus assigning Leone's politics to his writers. He worked with many different writers over the course his career and yet his politics remained consistent.

"Tediously marxist" is a tautology.

And now we're really getting to it...

[Mr Sausage]

Except there are no heroes in Leone.

Anti-heroes, fine. Leone subverts the regular depiction of Western heroism, but he no more fails to construct his own version of heroism than Kurosawa failed to construct his own genuine, if eccentric, version of heroism in Yojimbo and Sanjuro.

The intended irony behind the title of 'The Good, the Bad & the Ugly' is that the three protagonists are barely distinguishble - they are all greedy immoral capitalists willing to murder for profit.

The greed and amorality of Leone's heroes comes directly from Kurosawa's Yojimbo, not Leone's politics, whatever they might actually be. It has nothing to do with capitalism. Leone's films build on and develop Kurosawa's later version of heroism, they don't build on or develop marxist concerns.

For me, the actual irony of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly's title is that while everyone starts out seeming like an indistinguishable blend of the three qualities, making the film bathetic, by the end they genuinely become gigantic and mythic enough to deserve such archetypal labels. What was bathetic turns into real, if unexpected, grandeur. Therein is the irony.

I just did. And it's pretty tenouus assigning Leone's politics to his writers. He worked with many different writers over the course his career and yet his politics remained consistent.

Luciano Vincenzoni worked on For a Few Dollars More, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, and Duck, You Sucker, and Sergio Donati worked on the latter and Once Upon a Time in the West. Leone would use some of the same writers. He also favoured a certain type of young, cinema-loving writer (such as Bertolucci) to write the stories for his films. Leone's political content is just vague enough, and his themes consistent enough, that one could get the impression that he's working through the same political questions throughout his career. He's really not. There is very little that is marxist about the dollars trilogy, most especially because Eastwood gets his (well deserved by then) monetary reward in all of them before riding off, solitary as when he began. OUATIW is more marxist, but that material is weakened by parallel concerns that compete for focus (and if you're me, win). There is a lot of marxism in Duck, You Sucker, but I find the Rod Steiger character ends up subverting enough of the revolutionary idealism of the Zapata Western that I can't be sure just what is sincere and what satirical in that movie's politics.

If you can't see that then it's no wonder you don't make much of his work.

Excuse me? The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly is probably my favourite Western, and both Once Upon a Time in the West and Duck, You Sucker are considerable achievements and personal favourites of mine.

[Nothing]

Leone's films build on and develop Kurosawa's later version of heroism, they don't build on or develop marxist concerns.

Whilst A Fistful of Dollars is a remake of Yojimbo, relocating it to the United States and the western genre gives it a different political twist (a twist that Leone would expand upon with each successive film). Think how even, say, Van Sant's Psycho explores a completely different set of issues to Hitchcock's Psycho, despite being a virtual frame-for-frame remake.

There is very little that is marxist about the dollars trilogy, most especially because Eastwood gets his (well deserved by then) monetary reward in all of them before riding off

At what point does Leone tell us that the reward is 'well deserved'? Again, it seems that you're reading your own ideology into it - you might say the same in riposte, of course, and, yet, the Marxist interpretation is borne out by Leone's body of work. Think beyond the detail - what do these films tell us about America? Is the American dream a bag of stolen blood money lying in grave?

Don't forget that, after Once Upon a Time in America, Leone was intending to actually move to the Soviet Union to make Stalingrad.

[Mr Sausage]

Whilst A Fistful of Dollars is a remake of Yojimbo, relocating it to the United States and the western genre gives it a different political twist (a twist that Leone would expand upon with each successive film).

Relocating any narrative from one country and genre to another gives it a different political twist. So what? You're still a long way from proving that twist is meaningful.

At what point does Leone tell us that the reward is 'well deserved'?

I don't know, how about after Eastwood helps save Jesus, Joseph, and Mary(sol)? He may not get the kingdom of heaven, but a couple thousand bucks ain't bad. Or how about after he helps Mortimer get revenge on Indio (which we all want to see) and is given all the money as his just reward for showing actual concern and loyalty when he didn't have to? He could've shot Indio and the unarmed Mortimer himself and got away with the loot that way. That would've been a pretty cynical attack on greed/capitalism/[insert vague ideology]. But, no, he does a good thing and gets the money. And, come on, after going through all that trouble in GB&U, of course he deserves it. Note that Leone could've written a Treasure of the Sierra Madre type ending where there was, say, no money and thus the three were chasing an illusion. But, nope.

Again, it seems that you're reading your own ideology into it - you might say the same in riposte, of course, and, yet, the Marxist interpretation is borne out by Leone's body of work.

I'll settle for asking what, exactly, is my ideology? Because I could have sworn that up until now I had none.

Think beyond the detail - what do these films tell us about America? Is the American dream a bag of stolen blood money lying in grave?

The only people who ever tell me to ignore details and facts are the people most afraid that those things won't turn out to be in their favour. They are almost universally guilty of Confirmation Bias as well.

[knives]

Note that Leone could've written a Treasure of the Sierra Madre type ending where there was, say, no money and thus the three were chasing an illusion. But, nope.

When I first saw this film that is exactly what I was expecting to happen but was disappointed that Leone did go the other way. The film loses all political bite with that and even some moral bite. All that's left is the myth building and destroying which is good enough to call a film great, but not great in any practical way that Nothing suggests.

[Mr Sausage]

The film loses all political bite with that and even some moral bite.

Exactly. No one trying to make a coherent political statement would possibly ruin and confound such an obvious political point, especially when there was such a great and well known example of exactly that kind of ending in cinema history (and one that's practically a Western at that). The marxism in Leone's movies is incidental. His imagination is somewhere else.

[matrixschmatrix]

As much as I hate to agree with Nothing, I do think the end to The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is something other than the gallant hero getting the reward he has earned- just as the traditional hero of the Western would have refused reward in For a Few Dollars More, I think the empty chest ending would have been the traditional ending for GBU- even before Sierra Madre, that was the ending to any number of adventure narratives with bloody loot, like The Sign of the Four. Taking the money is a dirty thing for Eastwood to do in both movies in which he ends up rich, and I think it's intentionally to dirty his character that he is depicted doing so.

I don't think that makes either a coherent Marxist critique of a mercenary system- I think Eastwood is shown with too many flashes of humanity in both movies, and there's obviously his funding the escape of the Holy Family in Fistful- but I do think continually reaffirming the profit motive of his iconic hero is intentionally a cynical thing to do.

[Mr Sausage]

I do think continually reaffirming the profit motive of his iconic hero is intentionally a cynical thing to do.

Oh, yeah, of course. I never meant to give the impression that Leone was making Eastwood into a traditional gallant hero. Leone intentionally undercuts traditional heroism in his movies, but only so as to surprise you with a non-traditional depiction of it. Rather like Kurosawa in Yojimbo and Sanjuro.

Afterall, while Blondie leaves Tuco with the rope again at the end of GB&U, he leaves him his share as well. Blondie's still kind of a jerk, but he's just a tad less greedy.

[Yojimbo]

Who gives a 4X what the politics of Leone or the Dollar trilogy are

[knives]

Lawman surprised me with just how good it is. It feels nothing like a '70s western with it's themes, story, and most importantly use of violence being more at home with those westerns of the '50s. All of the actors give great performances, but the most memorable is easily Robert Ryan who takes the sadness that he perfected in The Wild Bunch and cranks it to the top. He plays a man lost in a world of villains so perfectly that I never once thought of the man who represented the Dirty Harry mold first.
This isn't to downplay the real lead Burt Lancaster. While he's no where near as memorable as Ryan he's still pretty damn interesting and engaging. Maybe he's not a bad guy, but he comes close with a more vengeance based style of justice than his counterpart. There's a few other things going on in the movie, but I don't care about them. I'm not entirely sure if the film is intending for the audience to be on it's side or if the climax is intended as bittersweet, but it at least has some smarts going on in it's head.
Might make the low numbers for me.

[domino harvey]

Nice, I've almost picked that one up several times, will have to finally bite the bullet

Taza, Son of Chochise (Douglas Sirk 1954) Leave it to Sirk to finally make a decent Indian-centric western! The key is of course playing up the melodrama and juvenile "fair/unfair" elements-- this thing could be a Delmer Daves teen pic with surprisingly few steps!

the Tall Texan (Elmo Williams 1953) With a name like the Tall Texan, it's probably not possible to be bad, but somewhat greedily this turned out to be one of the better low-budget westerns I've seen. Probably because like the best noirs, it uses its budgets constraints as pluses. It only occurred to me after the fact that the film contains almost no sets (I can in fact only recall one, a briefly-glimpsed cantina) and instead uses the natural topography to play with the idea of cinematic space, as often the illusion of location and structure suggested by the budgetary confines successfully elevates this above all those cheapies that just use old sets and hand-me-down wardrobes. Apart from this mildly fascinating experimentation with setless sets, the pic is an enjoyable mishmash of half a dozen western tropes with a fun titular performance by Lloyd Bridges and the unforgettable image of Lee J Cobb picking up a snake and beating a man senseless with it.

A Bullet is Waiting (John Farrow 1954) I'm not a hardliner on modern-day westerns like some, but I will take a stand against overwrought shit.

Stranger on Horseback (Jacques Tourneur 1955) A mildly diverting small scale western saved from the indignity of Joel McCrea by a bevy of great supporting performances, chiefly John Carradine's smooth-talking "attorney." Poor VCI got saddled with what appears to have been a VHS master, but this isn't a western of sweeping vistas but intimate collusions and conversations, so it could've been worse.

[knives]

Nice, I've almost picked that one up several times, will have to finally bite the bullet

Taza, Son of Chochise (Douglas Sirk 1954) Leave it to Sirk to finally make a decent Indian-centric western! The key is of course playing up the melodrama and juvenile "fair/unfair" elements-- this thing could be a Delmer Daves teen pic with surprisingly few steps!

Got Lawman in one of those MGM set with The Kentuckian(zzzzzz) and The Unforgiven, if you don't have those two yet. Though I want to throw in a second hurrah for Taza which is excellent Sirk. I think what helps is that he severely sidelines the white people(nearly turning them into funny foreigners)to the degree where the Indians take on those roles.

[Yojimbo]

Got Lawman in one of those MGM set with The Kentuckian(zzzzzz) and The Unforgiven, if you don't have those two yet. Though I want to throw in a second hurrah for Taza which is excellent Sirk. I think what helps is that he severely sidelines the white people(nearly turning them into funny foreigners)to the degree where the Indians take on those roles.

Mention of John Huston's The Unforgiven reminded me of probably the most disappointing ending of a film, given what I could reasonably have expected, that I can recall seeing.
But apparently star(/producer?) Burt Lancaster was to blame as he insisted on it, for 'box-office' reasons.
It really 'coulda bin a contender' otherwise, but, now, I wouldn't even let it near my Top 50!

Edited to include disappointing , which those pesky gremlins had cut

[knives]

Mention of John Huston's The Unforgiven reminded me of probably the most ending of a film, given what I could reasonably have expected, that I can recall seeing.
But apparently star(/producer?) Burt Lancaster was to blame as he insisted on it, for 'box-office' reasons.
It really 'coulda bin a contender' otherwise, but, now, I wouldn't even let it near my Top 50!

Do you mean The Unforgiven or Lawman?

[Yojimbo]

Mention of John Huston's The Unforgiven reminded me of probably the most ending of a film, given what I could reasonably have expected, that I can recall seeing.
But apparently star(/producer?) Burt Lancaster was to blame as he insisted on it, for 'box-office' reasons.
It really 'coulda bin a contender' otherwise, but, now, I wouldn't even let it near my Top 50!

Do you mean The Unforgiven or Lawman?

The Unforgiven ; I can't remember if I've seen Lawman

[domino harvey]

Paint Your Wagon (Joshua Logan 1969) As a western, it's mediocre; as a musical, it's atrocious. Yessir, Paint Your Wagon, while not being as bad as I'd heard/feared, is still not worth the three hours I had to put into it. There's nothing wrong per se with having singers who can't sing in a musical, but a good musical would work around their limitations, not highlight them-- there was probably no good way to have Clint Eastwood and Lee Marvin sing, but the material they're given is written for a bland Broadway vocal range, not craggy talk-singing. But to be fair, no one would sound good singing these songs, as they are among the lamest and uninspired I've ever heard. Some good sight-gags to be had in the destruction of the finale. Jean Seberg really puts her push-up bustiere to work.

War Arrow (George Sherman 1953) Uneventful cookie western with a nice comic supporting performance from Noah Beery Jr. While it's good to see Jeff Chandler in a western without him playing an indian, it's too bad he's doing so in a film with what has to be one of the lowest opinions of indians in all of westerns: I've seen some dumb indians in these films before, but never before has a "fearsome" tribe reduced itself exclusively to simply running single-file into the guns of our heroes. Not just once, but every time they attack. Hard to believe they lost the war.

[Yojimbo]

Paint Your Wagon (Joshua Logan 1969) As a western, it's mediocre; as a musical, it's atrocious. Yessir, Paint Your Wagon, while not being as bad as I'd heard/feared, is still not worth the three hours I had to put into it. There's nothing wrong per se with having singers who can't sing in a musical, but a good musical would work around their limitations, not highlight them-- there was probably no good way to have Clint Eastwood and Lee Marvin sing, but the material they're given is written for a bland Broadway vocal range, not craggy talk-singing. But to be fair, no one would sound good singing these songs, as they are among the lamest and uninspired I've ever heard. Some good sight-gags to be had in the destruction of the finale. Jean Seberg really puts her push-up bustiere to work.

War Arrow (George Sherman 1953) Uneventful cookie western with a nice comic supporting performance from Noah Beery Jr. While it's good to see Jeff Chandler in a western without him playing an indian, it's too bad he's doing so in a film with what has to be one of the lowest opinions of indians in all of westerns: I've seen some dumb indians in these films before, but never before has a "fearsome" tribe reduced itself exclusively to simply running single-file into the guns of our heroes. Not just once, but every time they attack. Hard to believe they lost the war.

You're really plumbing the depths, aren't you, Dom? =;

[domino harvey]

You gotta kiss a couple frogs before you find that prince

[Yojimbo]

You gotta kiss a couple frogs before you find that prince

Trust your instincts
......and if it croaks like a frog!,......

[colinr0380]

This sounds like a good excuse to link to the Simpsons segment on Paint Your Wagon.

"Wait, here comes Lee Marvin! He's always drunk and violent!"

[domino harvey]

It's funny you mention it, because I almost added that as (intentionally) terrible as that fake song is, it's better than any real song in the movie

[Yojimbo]

It's funny you mention it, because I almost added that as (intentionally) terrible as that fake song is, it's better than any real song in the movie

"I Talk To The Trees" (sung in my best Clint Eastwood voice) is my party piece
(not to mention that I was addressed as 'Hey, Blondie' when TGTB&TU played in my hometown during my schooldays)