Keep em coming, folkscolinr0380 wrote:Or Rashomon/The Outrage?
(He's going to have to answer, eventually!)
Keep em coming, folkscolinr0380 wrote:Or Rashomon/The Outrage?
How did you miss this one: Yojimbo/Fistful of Dollars.Yojimbo wrote:Keep em coming, folkscolinr0380 wrote:Or Rashomon/The Outrage?
(He's going to have to answer, eventually!)
Modesty forbids me,......yadda, yadda, yadda!Mr Sausage wrote:How did you miss this one: Yojimbo/Fistful of Dollars.Yojimbo wrote:Keep em coming, folkscolinr0380 wrote:Or Rashomon/The Outrage?
(He's going to have to answer, eventually!)
The hats.Yojimbo wrote:how do you reconcile excluding 'Seven Samurai', then, without accepting 'The Magnificent Seven' as eligible?knives wrote:I've been avoiding putting Asian movies on my list unless they're very specific and deliberate pastiche (not that any that fit that description are good enough for the list). I'm just going to slap all of them onto the action list since mine will probably just be a bunch of Asian movies plus Die Hard anyways.
At least you didn't say 'the bat-ches'knives wrote:The hats.Yojimbo wrote:how do you reconcile excluding 'Seven Samurai', then, without accepting 'The Magnificent Seven' as eligible?knives wrote:I've been avoiding putting Asian movies on my list unless they're very specific and deliberate pastiche (not that any that fit that description are good enough for the list). I'm just going to slap all of them onto the action list since mine will probably just be a bunch of Asian movies plus Die Hard anyways.
for me a Western isn't 'about' the choice of weapon; its about the 'taming of a wilderness', and that wilderness' adoption of civilised mores.knives wrote:If you want a more serious answer I think there are delicate differences that make the two very closely related, but not the same. For instance Yojimbo is an action movie to me, but A Fistful of Dollars is not. Part of that is the setting or more specifically the time of the setting (a martial arts film set around a train might count for me). There's also how things are done. A sword creates a type of intimacy that I just don't recognize in the gun battles of the west.
Er. Magnificent Seven is a western version of the Seven Samurai, that's the point... There are some similarities between the western and the samurai/martial arts genre but they are not the same... Imho, a western has to be set in the Americas during a period of westward expansion/exploitation.Yojimbo wrote:how do you reconcile excluding 'Seven Samurai', then, without accepting 'The Magnificent Seven' as eligible?
Similar enough that there has been some crossover between the martial arts genre and the Western, such as Once Upon a Time in China and America, those two Jackie Chan/Owen Wilson films, and of course that tv series Kung Fu.Nothing wrote:There are some similarities between the western and the samurai/martial arts genre but they are not the same...
The thing about the Western genre, though, is it is often considered universal in theme, to such an extent that, for instance the Australian film, 'The Proposition' is considered by many to be a Western, as is another Aussie film, 'Mad Max 2' (aka 'The Road Warrior'), which is set some time in the future.knives wrote:I think it has a little to do with the choice weapon in how it informs the violence. Considering how so many movies from both don't use violence via weapon it might be a moot point. I guess I see feudal era Japan as closer to medieval Europe than the American west, hence my saying a train would change my mind. As to this new pair of posts, I think that a lot of these stories simply have a great deal of universal aspects ton them. I mean can you name a genre that hasn't had it's own Rashomon? Even Yojimbo started off as a gangster book.
Besides that though I managed two more that I don't have much to say on but like well enough to want to promote. Jeremiah Johnson was definitely aided by the lowest of expectations. A '70s western directed by Pollack and staring Robert Redford should be a boring hippie snoozefest. This wasn't helped by the stupid and unnecessary overture which is just there to pad out the film, but instead it's a quiet yet angry film that stinks more of it's writer than the other two forces thankfully. Redford's pompous blandness finally benefits a character considering how self concerned and silent he becomes. It's not really a stretch with acting, but had somebody with presence played the part the character would have been insufferable rather than the wisp that he's written as. Pollack's also at his most laid allowing for the movie to speak for itself and applying as much silent minimalism as he thinks he can get away with. That said some moments do have that New Hollywood smell on them and are all the worse for wear. The introduction of the Grizzly hunter for example has it's already misjudged comedic elements played up to the point of a mini-three stooges routine. Luckily every time it does look to go in the wrong direction it moves elsewhere. That's an unfortunate too as some potentially interesting or even great films are given ten minutes of screentime at most and the film really hurts because of that. Even with all of those negatives the film is better than most of it's peers from the time.
.
I'm glad someone else likes this one as it's my favorite Leone and nearly all of my respect for him rests on it's shoulders just for the reasons you mention. I also greatly prefer the Sean Sean theme over Ecstasy of Gold though both are great.domino harvey wrote: Duck, You Sucker! (Sergio Leone 1971) Well, this is a Leone I can feel good about placing on my list. Here Leone's leisurely pacing is put to good use, and the opening 45 minute sequence is wonderful (perhaps too wonderful-- the film never quite lives it down) and makes the cogent Marxist points. There's something to be said for the freewheeling mercenariness of the leads, where the current revolution is important for any reason but the "right" one.
You mentioning this is enough for me to get off my worry on whether this is actually a western or not. It's my third favorite Kazan and will surely make my top ten as a result. This is one of two Brando performances that don't get on my nerves, but even with such a great lead I have to admit that Quinn really does steal the entire film with the best possible performance.domino harvey wrote: Viva Zapata! (Elia Kazan 1952) Kazan and Brando at the height of their talents come together on this excellent Mexican revolution tale. John Steinbeck's screenplay makes the expected social commentary (loved the general bitching about the execution of the president causing his tardiness at a society ball), but often with a wry sense of humor. Take the great sequence where Brando converses with Jean Peters' family using only aphorisms which get inaner and less-coherent the longer the exchange continues. The futility and fatalism of revolution is vividly portrayed, and this will have a warm spot on my list.
Ditto, if it weren't for Rathbone as an extra with a couple of lines I would hate Robin Hood and he's just poison for me.domino harvey wrote:Dodge City (Michael Curtiz 1939) I am working very hard to understand the appeal of Errol Flynn. I have six more of his westerns in my pile. Doubt I'll bother with too many more unless the next couple are a step-up from this.
Would that be the first season or the second or the third? Or the first episode or the second or-... Look, either TV is eligible or it isn't, but it's ludicrous to put this in your Top 10 and then refuse to tally votes for Deadwood.domino wrote:Lonesome Dove (Simon Wincer 1989)... This is not just making my list, it's making my Top 10.
I like Duck you Sucker, and it'll be on the upper side of my list, but it's by far the weakest of the final three. Very little of Leone's stylistic brilliance is in evidence, due to a lack of solid pre-production and planning, since he wasn't intending to direct the film and only stepped in during principal photography at the insistence of Steiger and Coburn. Comparing the opening 45m to the opening 45m of OUATITW, for example, it is extemely rough and lacking in poetry, from the bland locations and unconvincing sets to the messy camera movements and free-wheeling, buddy-movie script, which harks back to the earlier dollars movies (and their imitators)... whereas, in OUATITW, the first 45m are immaculately constructed, each of the four major characters introduced through their own lengthy setpiece on four meticulously constructed sets and accompanied by Morricone's unaparelled Wagnerian leitmotif, not to mention the innovation of using diagnetic sound as music for the opening 11m, the innovation of the dusters (drawn from historical research) + Monument Valley + of course the sequence of Henry Fonda and cronies emerging from the dust, which is probably the greatest thing ever commited to celluloid...domino wrote:Duck, You Sucker! (Sergio Leone 1971) Well, this is a Leone I can feel good about placing on my list. Here Leone's leisurely pacing is put to good use, and the opening 45 minute sequence is wonderful
A Bullet for the General was written by Franco Solinas, an active member of the communist party, who also wrote The Battle of Algiers and Salvatore Giuliano. In his Leone biography, Christopher Frayling quotes director Damiani thus:domino wrote:A Bullet For the General (Damiano Damiani 1967) Re: the debate a few pages back-- I definitely see where M. Sausage was coming from in his interpretation, and the film supports such an active reading, but it seemed pretty clear the final act was indeed one of marxist epiphany, what the alcoholics call a moment of clarity, spurned by seeing his friend cut in line. This is an entertaining, well-made SW, no doubt. Not sure if I liked it enough to place, but I'm glad I saw it.
Hmm... Whilst, of course, I do think the film is eligible for nomination given our broader definition, I think this does underline the silliness of the 'gay love story' interpretation. Not that Sausage is entirely offbase, however... Frayling also speculates that the oft gay baddies in political spaghettis are "invariably supposed to represent the last word in decadence"(!)Damiano Damiani wrote:A Bullet for the General is not a Western... [It is] a film about the Mexican Revolution set in the Mexican Revolution and is clearly a political film and could not be otherwise.
So, in summary, if you want to make a good western, don't forget your emotionally positive Robert McKee character arcs, make sure you cast enough of the Beautiful People, and if you're threatened by a new artistic approach then draw attention the 'excessive' violence, because that's a sure way to score easy points... I must admit, I do get some sort of evil pleasure contemplating how angry and threatened these reactionary old Hollywood hands must have felt watching an upstart, Marxist European wading in and completely changing the landscape of the genre they thought they owned.Anthony Mann wrote:In that film, the true spirit of the Western is lacking. We tell the story of simple men, not of professional assassins; simple men pushed to violence by circumstances. In a good Western, the characters have a starting and a finishing line; they follow a trajectory in the course of which they clash with life. The characters of For a Few Dollars More meet along their road onlt the 'black' of life. The bad ones. And the ugliness. My God, what faces! One or two is all right, but twenty-four - no, it's too much! The shoot-outs every five minutes reveal the director's fear that the audiences get bored because they do not have a character to follow. In a tale you may not put more than five or six minutes of 'suspense': the diagram of the emotions must be ascending, and not a kind of electrocardiogram for a clinic case.
Would be nice if someone could mount a defense of Wagonmaster, btw, since presumably quite a few of you are going to vote for the bloody thing.Budd Boetticher wrote:[Two Mules for Sister Sarah] had been turned by someone else into another Eastwood thing. The character had really become the man without a name... My men become tough for a reason.
I'm too lazy to mount a new defense so here's the old thread.Nothing wrote: Would be nice if someone could mount a defense of Wagonmaster, btw, since presumably quite a few of you are going to vote for the bloody thing.
It absolutely isn't, and such an argument shows how childish you are being about the Deadwood thing. Lonesome Dove is a six hour movie, period, obvious to anyone who has actually seen it. Deadwood is a TV series. There is a clear and inarguable difference between the two. Actually watching the film coupled with five minutes of actual investigation would lead you to discover that there were a couple TV miniseries sequels several years afterward, with a different cast and filmmakers. How this has any bearings on the first, wholly self-contained six hour film is a question that you cannot answer as long as you keep trying to stir up a controversy that does not exist via sour grapes. Rather than rallying supporters behind your Deadwood cause, I suspect all you're trying to do is scare people away from voting for Lonesome Dove by planting phony doubts as some sort of retribution for your perceived slight, which, while admirably fitting with the villainous tone of many of the films we've been watching, is still pretty lame.Nothing wrote:Would that be the first season or the second or the third? Or the first episode or the second or-... Look, either TV is eligible or it isn't, but it's ludicrous to put this in your Top 10 and then refuse to tally votes for Deadwood.domino wrote:Lonesome Dove (Simon Wincer 1989)... This is not just making my list, it's making my Top 10.