criterionforum.org

I'm head-over-heels for The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. The grasp of the potentials of film grammar are still extraordinary and it is a masterclass in color-widescreen deep-focus cinematography and it alone proves the worth of the Techniscope format. With that said, though, we shouldn't overlook or undervalue For a Few Dollars More, which I find almost as impressive. I also prefer Van Cleef's Mortimer in that film to Angel Eyes in GBU. Both films are exilerating and clever stories told in a masterfully unique way. And then there's the music, which defines how scoring for films should be done, frankly. Once Upon a Time in the West is also an extraordinary film with brilliant male performances, but I have found that I watch it less than the Eastwood films. I might actually watch again next week after I have spun the recent Colossus of Rhodes DVD.

This is one of my favorite Westerns. I should really see more of Leone's work.

I was watching the There Will Be Blood teaser, and I saw a definite nod to Once Upon A Time In The West in the beginning with that train coming in. Did anyone else see that?

Can someone tell me about this new transfer of the film that was found a couple of years ago, that is apparently better than the print that's currently on DVD?

malcolm1980 wrote:This is one of my favorite Westerns. I should really see more of Leone's work.

As for his westerns, I really don't think there's any comparison between this film and his other works. You should definitely watch them, but I wouldn't go into Fistful of Dollars expecting a Once Upon A Time in the West quality movie.

Same can be said for A Fistful of Dynamite too. Coburn and Steiger were wonderful in it, but I just didn't feel it was up to par with Leone's other work.

Then you need to watch it ten more times.

Jack Phillips wrote:Then you need to watch it ten more times.

I've barely been able to watch it twice, and I'm not ashamed. It's Leone at his most mediocre.

No, Colossus of Rhodes is Leone at his most mediocre. DYS is easily the equal of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Once Upon a Time in the West, and Once Upon a Time in America. It is a pivotal film in SL's development, the link between FFDM/GBU/OUTW and OUTA. Consider how SL's use of flashbacks progresses from FFDM/OUTW to DYS: in the earlier films, they are there just to fill in backstory in an interesting way; in DYS, however, they lead to a final, extended flashback that is not concerned with plot at all (much can be written on the significance of the final flashback in DYS). By the time SL came to make OUTA, flashbacks had given way to a more complete non-chronological ordering of events, appropriate for a film whose themes include time and memory. But time and memory are themes in DYS as well.

I grant that DYS may be less accessible than other SLs, at least on first go. But repeat viewings, which are essential, allow the film to reveal its many riches. I recommend persistence.

Jack Phillips wrote:No, Colossus of Rhodes is Leone at his most mediocre. DYS is easily the equal of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Once Upon a Time in the West, and Once Upon a Time in America.

Good, because I just got the boxset from Costco for $40 and I wasn't too sure about it...

Colossus is available seperately. It's a fun movie, with some amazing in-camera special effects. Mario Bava made movies like this and on their own terms, they are small marvels.

Jack Phillips wrote:I grant that DYS may be less accessible than other SLs, at least on first go. But repeat viewings, which are essential, allow the film to reveal its many riches. I recommend persistence.

I think that's exactly right. I've always thought the last two films (DYS and Once Upon a Time in America) make a great pair. If they're misunderstood, its because I think people approach them expecting self-consciously mythic scope of Once Upon a Time in the West; the last two are very much "old man" films. They're melancholic stories about friendship and regret. If I want to knock back a few drinks and have fun, I'd reach for The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly or Once Upon a Time in the West, but the last two films, for me, have much more depth and are ultimately more satisfying.

On a side note, Morricone is really in top form on Leone's last three. That's reason enough to seek them all out.

Jack Phillips wrote:No, Colossus of Rhodes is Leone at his most mediocre. DYS is easily the equal of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Once Upon a Time in the West, and Once Upon a Time in America. It is a pivotal film in SL's development, the link between FFDM/GBU/OUTW and OUTA. Consider how SL's use of flashbacks progresses from FFDM/OUTW to DYS: in the earlier films, they are there just to fill in backstory in an interesting way; in DYS, however, they lead to a final, extended flashback that is not concerned with plot at all (much can be written on the significance of the final flashback in DYS). By the time SL came to make OUTA, flashbacks had given way to a more complete non-chronological ordering of events, appropriate for a film whose themes include time and memory. But time and memory are themes in DYS as well.

I grant that DYS may be less accessible than other SLs, at least on first go. But repeat viewings, which are essential, allow the film to reveal its many riches. I recommend persistence.

Your defense of the film is nothing more than an explanation of its importance in Leone's canon, which means that you really consider Leone himself to be the work of art, and the films to be windows through which we can look. I'm afraid I do not share that sentiment, and have no interest whatsoever in the man personally.

Robotron wrote:

Jack Phillips wrote:No, Colossus of Rhodes is Leone at his most mediocre. DYS is easily the equal of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Once Upon a Time in the West, and Once Upon a Time in America. It is a pivotal film in SL's development, the link between FFDM/GBU/OUTW and OUTA. Consider how SL's use of flashbacks progresses from FFDM/OUTW to DYS: in the earlier films, they are there just to fill in backstory in an interesting way; in DYS, however, they lead to a final, extended flashback that is not concerned with plot at all (much can be written on the significance of the final flashback in DYS). By the time SL came to make OUTA, flashbacks had given way to a more complete non-chronological ordering of events, appropriate for a film whose themes include time and memory. But time and memory are themes in DYS as well.

I grant that DYS may be less accessible than other SLs, at least on first go. But repeat viewings, which are essential, allow the film to reveal its many riches. I recommend persistence.

Your defense of the film is nothing more than an explanation of its importance in Leone's canon, which means that you really consider Leone himself to be the work of art, and the films to be windows through which we can look. I'm afraid I do not share that sentiment, and have no interest whatsoever in the man personally.

You're kidding, right? He just gave a concise description of the deepening of the formal methods of Leone's films. Naturally this must be a comparative endeavour, and even more naturally such comparisons will be used to demonstrate trends in the development of an artist. This is the common discourse of film, literature, ect. Nevertheless, Jack Phillips makes an actual point about Leone's aesthetics and how they work in themselves (and what that means for viewing).

Here: "repeat viewings, which are essential, allow the film to reveal its many riches." How exactly is a sentence such as the above "nothing more than an explanation of [the film's] importance in Leone's canon"?

I'll ignore the arrogance inherent in informing other poster's of their own true views in life and simply point out that, given your last sentence, it figures that you'd shy away from Leone at his most personal. (All good art brings the spectator closer to the mind of the artist, anyway).

Mr_sausage wrote:You're kidding, right?

Yes, I am.

Mr_sausage wrote:He just gave a concise description of the deepening of the formal methods of Leone's films. Naturally this must be a comparative endeavour, and even more naturally such comparisons will be used to demonstrate trends in the development of an artist. This is the common discourse of film, literature, ect. Nevertheless, Jack Phillips makes an actual point about Leone's aesthetics and how they work in themselves (and what that means for viewing).

Here: "repeat viewings, which are essential, allow the film to reveal its many riches." How exactly is a sentence such as the above "nothing more than an explanation of [the film's] importance in Leone's canon"?

It's not. But neither is it "an actual point about Leone's aesthetics", or any point at all, unless you want to consider that great movies deserve multiple viewings a worthwhile point, considering it has been said by almost everyone who watches movies about almost every movie ever made.

Mr_sausage wrote:I'll ignore the arrogance inherent in informing other poster's of their own true views in life and simply point out that, given your last sentence, it figures that you'd shy away from Leone at his most personal. (All good art brings the spectator closer to the mind of the artist, anyway).

To try and bring a personal definition of art into your argument is pretty worthless. That's not to say I find no value in introspection, I just don't find Leone's worthwhile.

Robotron wrote:It's not. But neither is it "an actual point about Leone's aesthetics", or any point at all, unless you want to consider that great movies deserve multiple viewings a worthwhile point, considering it has been said by almost everyone who watches movies about almost every movie ever made.

It may not be an actual point, but the statements to which it is the conclusion certainly are.

Robotron wrote:To try and bring a personal definition of art into your argument is pretty worthless.

Really? I would have thought casual, unexplained dismissals such as this would be worthless. But, no, I suppose you're right: definitions of art have no place in the discussion of the merits of artists and art works and how we should view them. There is certainly no need to have a coherant framework for your discussions, at any rate.

Robotron wrote:That's not to say I find no value in introspection, I just don't find Leone's worthwhile.

At this I can only shrug my shoulders and say "I don't care" because you have said nothing at all, either about yourself or your subject.

With the arguments that have been posited in favor of A Fistful of Dynamite in this forum so far, I might give it another chance. I saw it when it was on it's run on the Encore networks and saw it full-frame. Somewhere I read once that someone said that seeing Leone's films in FF isn't really seeing them at all, so I'll give the film a 2nd chance on DVD.

It's also important to see the films in their most complete form. The new DVD, I believe, offers a cut longer than any previous version available in North America.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Music video (SPOILERS)

I like Arcade Fire, but they're sure no Ennio Morricone....

For anyone who lives in the Boston area, the Brattle Theater is showing the restored 35mm print this week through Thursday.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:With the arguments that have been posited in favor of A Fistful of Dynamite in this forum so far, I might give it another chance. I saw it when it was on it's run on the Encore networks and saw it full-frame. Somewhere I read once that someone said that seeing Leone's films in FF isn't really seeing them at all, so I'll give the film a 2nd chance on DVD.

Leone's 1960s films are utterly destroyed by panning and scanning, not least because parts of them are rendered borderline incomprehensible. Many of Leone's most effective sequences rely on the full width of the Techniscope frame for their visual and dramatic impact.

There are hundreds of examples, but one that's just popped into my head is towards the end of Once Upon a Time in the West, when we see Henry Fonda entering the frame on the right in the middle distance. The fact that the composition is otherwise empty suggests that Bronson is going to provide symmetry by entering the frame from the left - but instead he also enters from the right, in such extreme close-up that his face fills half the screen (and the equally sudden entry of a Morricone electric guitar motif adds to the impact).

If I remember rightly, this is a static shot in the Scope version - but in the pan-and-scan version, camera movement has been "added" to track Henry Fonda as he walks across the screen, and then it doubles back to catch Bronson's appearance. As a result, the intended shock effect is dissipated to the point where Leone might as well not have bothered.

Somewhere I read once that someone said that seeing Leone's films in FF isn't really seeing them at all, so I'll give the film a 2nd chance on DVD.

Somewhere I heard that seeing anything in a pan and scan form is not really seeing it. Yeah I think I remember that.....

Is it just me, or does the theme song to Dexter sound remarkably similar to "Farewell to Cheyenne"?

Nah, "Farewell" is more slow.

Watching Mark Cousins' Scene By Scene interview with Terence Stamp last night it was interesting to hear that Stamp had been offered the role of Harmonica in OUATITW (maybe something that influenced him taking the lead role in Blue?)

According to Stamp he regretted turning down the part in retrospect but after getting advice from Ustinov at the end of Billy Budd that he should not sell out and do anything with his new found fame he became a bit too choosy about roles for a few years after (he also talks about turning down Alfie).