 
|
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 |
216.196.128.235
In Reply to: RE: Olmi and Leone? Gimme a friggin....' posted by tinear on January 01, 2008 at 16:30:54
"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.
Edits: 01/02/08 01/02/08Follow Ups:
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
| 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 ]
