 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.58.2.83
...with Clint Eastwood. That's to give the actors proper due.
Liked it immensely! I think it would pass muster on the Big Screen today.
The parallels to No Country for Old Men were astonishing. A stash of cash. A really scary bad guy (Lee van Cleef). Two other guys competing for the money. Bounty hunters. Desert scenery. A Mexican stand-off.
Quentin Tarantino once called it "the best-directed film of all time".
I had had no idea that the War Between the States would come into play, and when it did, omigosh! It was as spectacular and realistic a battle scene as ever I've seen, and was an unexpected surprise comparable to the Battle of Lawrence as captured in Ride with the Devil, which apart from that scene was a rather intimate movie.
But again, the star was Eli Wallach in an incomparably comical and fast-talking role, perfectly pitched and excellently looped.
Now if only the sound track were more tolerable sonically...
clark
Follow Ups:
And Lee Van Cleef did a pretty good job also. Who's the guy you're talking about? :)
"I had had no idea that the War Between the States would come into play, and when it did, omigosh! It was as spectacular and realistic a battle scene as ever I've seen"
Except that I kept trying to figure out where a civil war battle would have taken place in a sparce desert. Maybe Texas?
Rebels from Texas invaded the upper Rio Grande valley of New Mexico and were defeated after several fights, the most famous being the fight at Glorietta Pass.But compared to the fighting east of the Mississippi it was small potatos and nothing took place on the scale of that in the movie, certainly no Vicksburg like trench warfare.
The biggest and most important battle west of the Mississippi was the battle of Pea Ridge in Arkansas, also known as Elkhorn Tavern. Certainly no desert.
There was also the moronic Red River Campaign of 1864 in which a good solid army corps of rugged Midwestern veterans of Vicksburg was paired with a sad-sack eastern corps and sent on a giant cotton stealing expedition up the Red under the ultimate idiot general of American history, Nathaniel Banks of Massachusetts. To add to Banks' woes he ran into Richard Taylor, son of Zachary and the only Rebel besides R. E. Lee capable of competent army command.
The whole sorry mess was one of the great fiascos of our history.
"Rebels from Texas invaded the upper Rio Grande valley of New Mexico and were defeated after several fights, the most famous being the fight at Glorietta Pass."
I thought of that, too. But I discounted that because it seems that both sides were too well armed to involve rebels.
"I thought of that, too. But I discounted that because it seems that both sides were too well armed to involve rebels."
Through most of the war the Rebels were armed every bit as well as the Federal troops. Late in the war most Federal cavalry were armed with repeating rifles but most Federal infantry were armed with muzzle loading rifles right until the end. And even as late as mid 1863 some Federal units were armed with smoothbore muskets, indeed after the fall of Vicksburg some Federal units exchanged their old muskets for new English Enfield rifles captured with the city.
The Rebels also had plenty of modern cannon including rifled guns and even some breechloading Whitworth rifled cannon from England. A Rebel Whitworth can be seen on the Gettysburg battlefield at Oak Hill.
In any event the Rebels never lost a fight for lack of weapons or ammunition.
I was also writing of the number of troops. I was also using the term "rebels" not to describe the southern soldiers, but the small packs of southern soldiers, such as Bedford Forest's band of rebels. His group of men was kept intentionally low to make it easier for them to sneak attack, and was also responsible for his reputation of no quarter, because he did not have enough men to guard captured troops, so he killed Northern troops rather than capture them. Although his native Missippians dispute that allegation.
s
The thing Leone understood, and had the budget to make, was that these sprawling tales of good and evil needed length. To develop the argument, as the music critic wd say.
So they move along slowly but inexorably - like Olmi in the Tree of Wooden Clogs.
Funny that it took an Italian to fully realise the epic possibilities in the old west.
"Funny that it took an Italian to fully realise the epic possibilities in the old west."
And these these possibilities eluded Ford, Hawks and Vidor? Huston, Curtiz and Walsh?
C'mon man.
As I imply below, one of the things I most enjoy about Leone is that his plots don't drive along fast - lots of individual elements in his films appear a bit purposeless, or could have been done more economically.
I doubt that any US film maker could have persuaded anyone to finance such things, even had they wanted to make it.
Good bad & ugly, especially, wanders all over the place, and to good, no - mighty, effect, I reckon.
Which ain't to say in the least that Hollywood can't make westerns. But I do think that Leone brought them something extra.
If I am not mistaken, Leone has not been taken very seriously as a film maker in the States. It's different here in Oz.
I could imagine some of Leone's scenes coming from episodes from WW2 in Italy or from the folklore of small villages, etc. -- stories of worldly relevance that tend to romanticize and embrace life, and that communicate a universal truth even if framed in a demi-past.
His works do honor the scenery and lure of a legendary West, as I don't think it was his desire to do documentary.
Eli Wallach's "Tuco" (G.B&U.) is amazing.
-Greetings from the States
The problem with Leone was his ironic vision. The West didn't have a drop of it. Leone, being a product of his time, couldn't just tell the story "straight."
Boetticher, Ford, and others realized it and crafted films that believed in themselves. No one man shot down six at a time.
Again, there is a difference between fine entertainment and art.
(And no, to those who wish for my definitions, they won't be provided. Like pornography, they're self-explanatory.)
"The problem with Leone was his ironic vision."What does that mean?
"Leone, being a product of his time, couldn't just tell the story "straight."
Boetticher, Ford, and others realized it and crafted films that believed in themselves. No one man shot down six at a time.
Again, there is a difference between fine entertainment and art."Huh? Every western, including Ford's, deviates from the truth. Look at old photographs taken in towns from the West, and you almost never see anyone carrying around a gun, much less one strapped to their hips in a holster, tied to their legs. In Ford's films, you'd think that every male child popped from the womb with a six shooter, so prolific are they. Or all the that had nice rich mahogany paneling, and Ethan-Allen furniture. Or women who wore beautiful dresses, hair that looked like they came from the best New York salons, with makeup perfectly applied. Life in the west was hard, and photographs almost always show women with no makeup, long, stringy hair under some type of bonnet, but almost never long and flowing, with just the right amount of curls. It is all make believe. Ford made stuff up, so why criticize Leone for making stuff up? It is called fiction.
On the other hand, Ford's characters were almost always well groomed, with nice haircuts, nice clothes, little facial hair, and generally presentable for the screen. How many days did John Wayne spend in the desert looking for little Natalie Wood, looking as fresh the day he found her as when he departed. Leone's unique vision gave characters a more realistic gritty look. Facial hair. Sweat. Hair not well groomed. You may recall that Eastwood dedicated Unforgiven to Leone. You may also recall that Eastwood cut his own hair for the role, because he wanted to avoid that Hollywood look. Leone brought that to the table, not Ford.
a
Once again, a serious question is met with sarcasm, leading me to conclude that, once again, you bandy about terms to sound intelligent. Sort of like Barney Fife telling the golfer with a higher score that he should be instructing the golfer with the lower score on the intricacies of the game.
I'll try this again. Give me an example of Leone's "ironic vision", as you used those words in conjunction with each other, as they have no meaning used individually. On the other hand, if you have no interest in serious discourse, why waste your time?
Irony: Eastwood is the hero yet he is as evil, as murderous, as criminal as many of the "villains."
Eastwood, and by extention, Leone knows that good vs. evil is not absolute, as had been the common, much-lauded principle of the heavily praised, typical Western.
So we have both story and protagonist aware that the "truth" actually is not so.
All of this, of course, hardly is a shock to anyone with some film knowledge. Leone merely was creating a noir-ish lead in his Westerns.
If one wishes to see realism, Huston is the one to which to turn.
"The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" was groundbreaking long before Eastwood was beginning his "Rawhide" years.
Leone's films are almost cartoonish. One man shooting down half a dozen experienced gunmen? Many times?
Leone was having fun and it would probably exasperate him to be so misunderstood.
None of what you wrote has anything to do with "irony", at least using the definition that educated people in the english speaking world use. I assume you know the definition of hypocrisy? Assuming, for a moment, the truth of your arguments relative to Eastwood in GB&U, you criticize Leone for making this evil man the hero. Yet, here many times, you have praised Tarantino for making a hero of Jackson in Pulp Fiction, a man who spends a film killing people in cold blood, all the while quoting Biblical verses prior to his mindless killing, all performed for a underworld criminal. Think those scared shitless lily white suburban youths deserved to be gunned down, defenseless? At least Leone had the courtesy to put guns in the dead characters hands. This is the problem with not fully forming an opinion, and sticking to it.I know you like Unforgiven. Would a guy that has spent his life as a ruthless, drunken killer, who abandons his children in the middle of nowehere to collect a payday in order to kill some overeager cowboys, one of whom did nothing more than be in the wrong place with the wrong compadre, qualify as evil? And then, in a climax or realism, Clint cleans out an entire bar of armed men, rides off into the dark, rainy night, never to be heard from again. Perhaps the law should have organized the same posse that tracked down Billie the Kid. Then again, I would not imagine a man traveling with two small children on the open prairie would be too hard to find. Is that what you mean by "ironic vision."
On the other hand, how was Eastwood as villanous, or murderous, as the other characters in GB&U? Van Cleef, by my memory, kills the first man on the range, his wife, and his young son. Why? He was hired to kill the guy. I guess the wife and young son were freebies. He then kills the man who originally hired him, claiming the first guy he killed, and from whom he stole money after killing him, hired him to kill the second guy. At least he had the courtesy of putting a pillow in front of his face prior to blowing his head off. Then he has Tuco beaten within an inch of his life, a practice that he apparently employed on numerous occasions while wearing a military uniform. Maybe that is what you meant?
On the other hand, in GB&U, Eastwood kills, who exactly? He kills some of the men that Van Cleef send to hunt for him. And then, who? Van Cleef. I know when I ask you for examples you will not provide any, which is why I ask you for them. Your facts are completely wrong. On the other hand, if you want to take another stab at providing facts to support your argument, have at it.
What I have shown you, with facts, is that your "truth" is not truth, which, in turn, makes your statement of "ironic vision" wrong. But again, if you want to take another stab at demonstrating why Eastwood is as murderous as Van Cleef, go ahead. I never saw Rawhide, so maybe you are including Clint's body count from that series. Again, though, under your tortured definition of "ironic vision", which is really just gobblygook, Tarantino would more than apply.
Then again, as another poster pointed out, Tarantino lists GB&U as one of the three best directed films of all time. Tarantino, Tin. Tarantino, Tin. Hmm.
"If one wishes to see realism, Huston is the one to which to turn."
Now, this one is choice. See a western for "realism?" Easy to knock a film by criticising it for what it is not, nor intended to be. Helps you from the real job at hand. You mean, when Clint kills as many men in one fight as Billie the Kid and Wild Bill did their entire careers, that was not "real." I'll never watch another western.
"The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" was groundbreaking long before Eastwood was beginning his "Rawhide" years."
What the hell does "Treasure" have anything to do with this argument? By the way, I did love "Treasure." The Great Train Robbery was groundbreaking long before Bogie wore a toupee.
Either way, "brevity is the soul of wit."
I guess the definition of "irony" eludes you.
Neither. The fact that you are apparently incapable of substantively responding to facts with an intelligent response containing specific facts in reply to illustrate your support for your so-called arguments demonstrates that you neither know the definition of "irony", you do not know how to use the word in practice, and you cannot defend your opinions with anything more than mindless sarcasm.
Once again, I give you an opportunity to show the community here you have an ability for analytical thought beyond merely parroting words you gather from the word of the day calendar, and to provide a response to your obvious hypocrisy vis a vis Tarantino, Unforgiven, and your obvious mischaracterization and/or misunderstanding of Eastwood's character in GB&U. I provide facts. You provide only insults. Rather than intelligently discuss and answer these facts, you instead prefer childish banter. You further confirm for me that while you like to shine a bright pretty light for everyone to look at, you provide no heat, or anything remotely useful beyond the wrapping on the box.
I am beginning to suspect that the only life you lead is the one you lead here. Perhaps that is by choice. Perhaps not. I'll see you on Monday. I have a life and family to get back to, one that would actually prefer me to be there than here.
You're both.
There must be a term for "diarrhea of the fingertips."
You have it, bad.
a
In Ford pictures characters often look grubby on the trail or when working but well groomed when in town or entertaining. And lots of male characters don't carry guns.
Many photos of the old West show people looking pretty well groomed with men having short hair and being clean shaved or sporting only a mustache. Made it easier to control vermin. One notices in Civil War photos that later war photos show the troops with shorter hair and less beards than earlier photos, the result of experience no doubt.
"In Ford pictures characters often look grubby on the trail or when working but well groomed when in town or entertaining. And lots of male characters don't carry guns."
Case in point. Go to IMBD.com, look at Wayne in a picture from The Searchers, after having beein the desert trailing the Indians who took Wood. Not a spot on his shirt, which sure looks dapper for a guy who has spent days in the desert. Almost no facial hair. A scarf that looks just like the costuming department laid it on him just so. Look at the trailer. He has been out in the desert, finally finds Wood, who has her freakin' hair perfectly dolled, and made up like she was going to an Oscar ceremony. You mean, Indians not only traded for guns and booze, they also traded for make up and curling irons? Wayne? He is wearing the perfectly pressed button down plaid shirt.
Look at the trailer on the same site of She Wore a Yellow Ribbon. Soldiers, in the dusty desert, with nary a spot on their just washed spotless blue uniforms, not a hair out of place, hats with no wear or tear, and nicely trimmed mustaches. And this is in the desert. Not near a town.
Or the trailer for Stagecoach. Wayne, in shackles, still manages to have a perfectly new white hat, sitting perfectly on his head as though he was sitting for a promotional shot, no facial hair growth of any kind. Oh yea, that all important scarf is perfect.
"Many photos of the old West show people looking pretty well groomed with men having short hair and being clean shaved or sporting only a mustache."
We are not talking about those photographs taken after the subject has been dolled up. We are talking about those photographs of people out on the trail, having ridden for days. People tending to animals and crops. Point is that Ford, as great as a director as he was, was not above selling the western myth, complete with star actors looking good for the camera. Who wants to see John Wayne sweaty, with week old growth on his face, in tattered clothes, looking like he smells plenty bad.
"One notices in Civil War photos that later war photos show the troops with shorter hair and less beards than earlier photos, the result of experience no doubt."
Look at photos of General Grant in the field, who saw little actual combat, and compare his appearance, beard, and hair, to those of infantrymen depicted in films. Stark contrast.
...those problems don't affect just westerns.
One must imagine that in the movies all the characters, a la Candidate Edwards, travel with their costumers and hairdressers.
clark
Leone made art, IM-not-so-HO.
PLus it IS great entertainment, as you say.
a tad ridiculous comparing Homer and Tolstoy to Leone?
Rod McKuen and pulp novels seem a better match.
But the naturalism of Olmi bears comparison with Tolstoy and the larger than life all over the place Leone epics are a more Homeric way of storytelling.
The thing about good bad ugly, in particular, is that whole sections could be edited out without the film becoming incoherent. It wouldn't be as good, of course, if we'd missed out on the trip through the desert, the civil war sequence, or other parts.
a
Though I love both.
.
.
Complicit Constapo Talibangelical since MMIII
;)
.
Complicit Constapo Talibangelical since MMIII
"I had had no idea that the War Between the States would come into play, and when it did, omigosh!"
You mean the War of the Rebellion.
c
I assume that was tongue in cheek, as the first military attack came from the South.
...some Japs unprovokedly attacked Pearl Harbor?
clark
I am not sure I would say "some Japs." After all, they were there not because they needed something to do that day, but because the Emperor ordered the attack. I would say that the U.S. involvement in WWII began when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, regardless of the reason that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
Likewise, the South may have felt that the United States was moving towards abolishing slavery, against the wishes of the planter class in the South, by prohibiting future States entering into the Union from being slave holding states, but consider that the U.S. did not abolish slavery from the Southern states, nor did it, until after the war started, deem slaves that crossed into the North to be free. Prior to the start of the war, they were returned back to the South, and Southerners were allowed to physically retrieve their slaves from the North.
But the South fired the first shot, and, it seems to me, firing the first shot invites a response. Reminds me of Clint's quote in Unforgiven where he shoots the bar owner, and, in response to Hackman's line "You just shot an un-armed man", Clint replies "Well, he should have armed himself when he decided to decorate his bar with my friend."
Well, the South fired the first shot, in defense of the North's tyranny that slavery would not increase to newly admitted states. If the South simply accepts that this is democracy at work, accepts they are in the minority, and accepts the fact that slavery is a despicable institution, even though it turns a tidy little profit for a very small portion of the South's population, the civil war does not take place. It takes place because the South's response was to engage the North militarily.
If someone makes faces at me, do I physically strike them? No. If I do, is my defense that "they provoked me?" The North made some faces. The South needed to get over it. They gambled, and lost. And so did the Japanese.
Well said James.
Like "Judge Priest" and "The Sun Shines Bright" eh?
I may have to nflix that to catch up on his performance.
.
Complicit Constapo Talibangelical since MMIII
Says Frank, just before he shoots a fellow slimeball with both a belt
and suspenders holding up his trousers. Regards,
J.R.
...and Good,B.&U. in widescreen dvd very inexpensively in Walmart's grab bins -- Baltimore, Md. region. Decent quality transfers and fabulous films.
(staring at little boy)
"...What ya gonna do Frank?.....
Now that you called me by name....."
(F. smiles...shot is heard)
are standing before a little boy. The bodies of his dead family . . . father, mother and sister . . . litter the ground.One of Fonda's gang members makes the mistake of addressing Fonda by his name in front of the boy, thereby identifying Fonda. All you hear is one more gun shot . . . nothing is shown, nor needs to be.
nt
.
nt
.
Complicit Constapo Talibangelical since MMIII
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
