criterionforum.org

colinr0380 wrote:Or Rashomon/The Outrage?

Keep em coming, folks
(He's going to have to answer, eventually!)

Yojimbo wrote:

colinr0380 wrote:Or Rashomon/The Outrage?

Keep em coming, folks
(He's going to have to answer, eventually!)

How did you miss this one: Yojimbo/Fistful of Dollars.

Mr Sausage wrote:

Yojimbo wrote:

colinr0380 wrote:Or Rashomon/The Outrage?

Keep em coming, folks
(He's going to have to answer, eventually!)

How did you miss this one: Yojimbo/Fistful of Dollars.

Modesty forbids me,......yadda, yadda, yadda!

speaking of 'Yojimbo',......and reminding people what I said about 'Buchanan Rides Alone', recently, but another Eastern film worthy of consideration is 'The Tale of Zatoichi', which likely owes more than a nod and a wink to Kurosawa-san's Meisterwerk!

Yojimbo wrote:

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.

how do you reconcile excluding 'Seven Samurai', then, without accepting 'The Magnificent Seven' as eligible?

The hats.

knives wrote:

Yojimbo wrote:

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.

how do you reconcile excluding 'Seven Samurai', then, without accepting 'The Magnificent Seven' as eligible?

The hats.

At least you didn't say 'the bat-ches'
(as in "we don't need no.......")

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.

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.

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.
Its a state of mind, really, rather than of place.

Yojimbo wrote:how do you reconcile excluding 'Seven Samurai', then, without accepting 'The Magnificent Seven' as eligible?

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.

Nothing wrote:There are some similarities between the western and the samurai/martial arts genre but they are not the same...

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.

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.

On the same level of quality, but in a different way is North to Alaska. I'm no fan of Wayne, but the way he plays his usual character as a preening pissy queen is something wonderful. So many of his dismissive remarks had me howling, especially towards the end. This is helped a lot by having Wayne bounce off of this fellow who looks and acts like Bruce Campbell, some stupid kid, and this manipulative French woman. Hathaway's pacing is far better here than I've ever seen making this some of the best work by him I've seen. As a sex farce set in frontier country the movie is almost great, but one too many of the gags don't work and they shoe-horn in Ernie Kovaks playing Ernie Kovaks in the most obnoxious and awkward way. I really hated this vile character who isn't in the movie enough to really count as a villain. He's just an ugly useless wart on the backside of an otherwise gentile western. I can't remember the last time a single character ruined a film to this extremity.

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.

.

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.

As for Jeremiah Johnson , I don't think I've seen it, perhaps because my expectation would be of a 'boring hippie snoozefest', also.

In both your examples I'd say those quacked like ducks so of course they're ducks. I think, naturally you can differ, the samurai setting speaks more as an environment to something like The Seventh Seal lacking the dust I guess for a western. I'll admit I'm not being overly scientific in explanation, but the situation that feudal Japan produces such as what people fight for and who is fighting is slightly for me than the west.

It's not as though you can't have an Asian Western- the Good, the Bad, and the Weird is extravagantly one- but the samurai movie is a genre unto itself, and they're not the same thing, though of course there are similarities and overlaps. The fact that the Magnificent Seven is a remake of the Seven Samurai no more proves the latter is a Western than Forbidden Planet proves the Tempest is a sci-fi movie.

Yes, that what I mean and I was actually thinking of your example when placing my caveats.

Have been warming more and more to Canyon Passage in retrospect - one of the best 40s westerns out there, Top 30 for sure, and somewhat annoyed now that I'm so far behind on Tourner's other contributions to the genre so close to the deadline... Great Day in the Morning sounds particularly good, but the Spanish DVD seems to be out of print and amazon/ebay sellers are demanding annoyingly high prices (and is it even OAR?! Storaro should love this one - it's in 'Superscope', which has a 2:1 aspect ratio, apparently...)

Whereas Wagonmaster - now the appeal of this one, as with so much Ford, really does elude me... I suppose the success of the film may rest on whether one finds it humourous as opposed to unbearably kitch (?). There are some reasonably pleasant compositions and things do warm up a little when the outlaws descend in the second half, although this never approaches the menace of, say, Burl Ives in Day of the Outlaw or the gang in Man of the West, whilst Ben Johnson and his brother make for slight and forgettable heroes. Meanwhile, the upbeat, nationalistic tone, jaunty music and unending cry of 'Wagons West!' often makes this feels like an extended episode of Rawhide... Pass.

Mad Max 2 isn't a western, btw.

It is a movie though.

Okay, I've got a solution which will allow all of these films under discussion to be considered westerns. A western is a film in which part or all of the action takes place outdoors. Or not. I'm sure there are some exceptions you'll root out!

I'm still waiting for a last few orders to arrive, but in the meantime I've watched my last unwatched disc (Little Big Man, which I agree with domino about - much better than it has any right to be, consider how much it bites off) and have been catching up with a few old favourites I couldn't figure out where to place. I'm pleased to report that The Tin Star bears up very well and will be placing rather higher than I first supposed. It's a stunningly mounted character western whose plot may seem a little slack compared to other Mann westerns of the era, as the real action is in the dialogue scenes rather than the big set pieces. Nevertheless, Mann in this era and this setting can't help energising everything with his expressive framing and subtle camera movement, and it all pays off with a superb climactic showdown. The film's also notable for making very different use of the same austerity and severity in Fonda's screen persona that Leone tackled so memorably in Once upon a Time in the West.

Also re-viewed: Johnny Guitar, which clicks with me much more satisfyingly now than it did fifteen years ago or whenever; Go West, which, if it had been made in the 1950s, might not have qualified for the genre (being contemporary and partly urban), but which seems to have been firmly within it back in the 20s (see also Bucking Broadway). The film lacks the unifying genius of Keaton's best features, but there are plenty of brilliant gags and even the least of them is exquisitely finessed, plus it features one of the greatest love stories of the genre, with maybe the only leading lady who could match Keaton's deadpan.

I will echo the praise for Jeremiah Johnson-- right now it's barely hanging on for my list (and, honestly, outlook is not so good for it surviving the onslaught of upcoming viewings), but I often quote the trapper's line, "You ever shot GRIZZ?" raspy voice and all. Glad you dig Little Big Horn, tarpilot, and Little Big Man, zedz-- it's looking better and better for some of my potential orphans!

Wild Bill (Walter Hill 1995) One good thing about this board is that every film, no matter how inane, has at least one cheerleader. I see via search function that this one has a couple. I'm glad for them, and I bear the film and its fans no ill will, but this was an inexplicable film for me, because, as with Altman's Buffalo Bill flick, I could not suss out why it existed. Because audiences had a craving for Will Bill Hickok to talk about making Calamity Jane come and wanted to see him fuck her hard on a card table? There's not much of a narrative beyond one lifted from any biopic that could have been made of the material, and Hill's stylistic indulgences (the sporadic white flashes, the shitty Beck "Loser"-level B&W videocam) barely leave a mark. Ellen Barkin playing Calam' as a shrewish wife-figure is a monumentally bad character choice.

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.

the Indian Fighter (Andre de Toth 1956) Four talented people were involved in this disaster, four who should have known better: Stars Kirk Douglas and Walter Matthau, Director de Toth, and writer Ben Hecht. What any of them could have possibly seen in this story of, uh, well, wait, what is this the story of, exactly? Douglas is the titular character, who runs afoul of red men and whiskey-trading whites alike. But to what end? Hell, to what beginning? This is Whispering Smith-level entertainment, and the worst western I've seen since that cinematic blight.

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.

Lonesome Dove (Simon Wincer 1989) In a world of the Good the Bad and the Ugly and Canyon Passage, it's comforting to be able to agree on some western "classics." Yes, I was very hesitant going in, but this really is as good as people say it is. One aspect that really struck me was how mean-spirited and cruel the film could often be-- I guess I expected some MOTW schlock bolstered by sentiment and strong performances, but Christ if this film doesn't have something to say about the West, and it's rarely as pretty as the scenery. I'm thinking of one shocking sequence about a third of the way through, where a whole passel of colorful characters are swiftly dispatched of with brutal violence, but there are several such instances in the film (the sodbusters sequence comes to mind!). Poor Diane Lane goes through pretty much everything bad that can happen to a woman on the frontier (and, tangentially, after 6 1/2 hours of this movie, I think I've met my quota on hearing the word "whore" for a while). And Robert Duvall-- God, he's often good, but has he ever been this good? This is not just making my list, it's making my Top 10.

Silver Lode (Allan Dwan 1954) Rights every wrong High Noon inflicted on the masses. Here's a liberal western with the same basic idea (right down to the sort-of real time narrative), but it's all in the handling:

Spoiler

The climax is a real rebuttal to the namby-pamby liberal dogoodery that still afflicts us today-- here's a film where success if only achieved by sinking to the level of your opponent. Sure, the telegraph that Liz Scott and the prostitute make the telegraph operator forge turns out to be accurate, but that's not the point: The only way to combat dirty tricks was dirty tricks

Dan Duryea is great as always, and there's a moment half-way through the film that ranks among the best "wrong man" situations I've seen in film: Don Payne standing over two dead bodies holding two guns just as the entire town happens upon the scene! Even I'd hang him on that evidence! Definitely placing for me.

These Thousand Hills (Richard Fleischer 1959) One of those social upward mobility-obsessed films of the late 50s/early 60s (From the Terrace et al), as transposed to the western genre. It a novel enough idea to work, but alas, nope. Fleischer's direction is promising, as he often lingers on scenes and gives the proceedings their share of grace notes, but he is saddled with a rotten script and even worse actors-- I swear to God the lead actor in this piece of shit has the least charisma of anyone I've ever seen presented by a major studio as a headliner. This film is so confused that the lead doesn't even leave his stuck-up rich broad at the end, negating much of the movie's point. I do have a very slight fondness for the perversity of the film's esoteric specificity: it's a Woman's Picture told via the least-feminine genre available!

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.

the Plainsman (Cecil B DeMille 1936) It is hard to imagine any two stars you could cast who would make a worse Bill Hickok and Calamity Jane than Gary Cooper and Jean Arthur. For fun, I spent much of the film trying to think of who could be a worse pairing for the parts (I came up with S.Z. "Cuddles" Sakall and, well, Jean Arthur-- what a fucking mistake she was). I know few have the love for the musical take on Calamity Jane (also in my top ten here and for the musicals), but Doris Day did a much better job of the good girl actress slumming it-thing. A young Charles Bickford shows up as the heavy, and he proves every time he's on screen that he'd have made a better, well, anyone else on screen. Bickford is rather unsung, even now, but he's like Arthur Kennedy or Robert Mitchum: guaranteed good screen presence no matter what the material.

In all fairness to DeMille's film, it's actually decent entertainment if you forget that it's supposed to be a film about Bill Hikock, Bill Cody, Calamity Jane, Custer, Lincoln (hell, surprised John Nance Garner didn't somehow sneak in there via time machine) et al. The more you know about what the film is allegedly depicting, though, the funnier it is. I could not believe my eyes when the film actually shoehorned in the card game finale!

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.

Cold Mountain (Anthony Minghella 2003) A very strong recent western that shows the old tropes are alive and well: once again, to not fight or pick a side in the Civil War is worse than whatever side you're on (and here, one step further, desertion!). There is a very Victorian-feel to the plot built on the strength of a brief passion that fuels a lifetime of mournful love, and, well, tragedies like this still get made because they work. I had forgotten all the big names that were in this, so it was pretty delightful when someone like Natalie Portman would pop up for ten minutes in the middle. This film was recommended to me several years ago by a friend who shares my love of Sacred Harp choirs, and yes, there is a wonderful but all-to-brief glimpse at one early in the film (along with a very nicely manipulative use of another Sacred Harp song during the stunning opening battle sequence). Could make the lower depths of my list.

I am obviously very devoted to this project right now, but I cannot wait until I'm able to watch a movie where someone doesn't shoot someone else.

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.

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: 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.

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: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.

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.

Hate to double post, but I figure it's worth it. A Town Called Hell is one of the best spaghetti westerns I've seen, greatly aided in how it's not really a spageht. What I mean on this accord is that it's a Spanish film as directed by a Brit and an American. The American by the way is forum film noir favorite Irving Lerner and many aspects of those two movies are present here.

The most interesting thing about the film and really what sets it apart from what it's imitating is the treatment of violence. The real McCoy is often made worse by how the cartoonish violence overtakes any of the intelligent points being made, but here as in his American films violence takes a backseat to the threat of violence. I don't mean this in the Leone way either where it's a fascinating buildup to a quick act. It's really just the threat that the movie could push forward the violence as we tensely wait for the next action. even than we get nothing. Nearly all the deaths are by hanging with the few real acts of violence taking place off screen. Somehow this makes all the worse when we do see somebody commit an act of violence. Of the genre let alone the era I've never seen a western hate violence so much. Even though the heroine is looking for murder she, and the true lead of the priest, never really act in violence spending nearly the whole movie holed up in a church as the villains decimate their own. The movie has it's social agenda with how lowly it views violence, like something only befitting a dog. There's a few ironies of plot also that further this agenda ensuring it's not only a cinematic technique. One character for example commits a murder because he only sees the benefits only to wind up needlessly killed later on because of it. There's a lone scene where violence appears in an almost typical fashion. It's disgusting, brutal, and works perfectly to bring home these points. It's still less violent than most of it's brothers, but it feels so much worse.

All of this social critiquing takes a backseat to an other bout of socialist politics weirdly informed by religion. Of course it takes a way to get there by setting up the typical revenge plot as the main storyline only to backseat it to a tale of militaristic oppression. I can't tell you how impressed I am with how the film pulls the rug under on this one.

This emphasis on the villain's tale means of course that we need some great performances on that side of things and boy do we ever. I hope to god I don't need to explain why Martin Landau as the lead bad guy is genius so I won't say anything beyond it's Martin Landau as the lead villain sporting an early peak at his Lugosi accent.

Spoiler

Before we get that absolute scene stealer though Telly Savalas takes a break from Kojak to play Colonel Kurtz as a Mexican bandit. While Landau's is a semi-complex character who I began to feel for in spite of myself this guy is just pure villain and gleefully so. His exit is almost disappointing considering how effective and nasty a fellow he was, but that builds to a better film all the same. Shouldn't forget the heroes even if they get a minimal of screentime. Anyone could have played Stella Stevens role, but Robert Shaw sheds Quint entirely to become a powerful new character. It's an amazing performance more for how it's different than anything else, but amazing all the same. This one's going to be high on my list and I hope some of you can squeeze it in.

domino wrote:Lonesome Dove (Simon Wincer 1989)... This is not just making my list, it's making my Top 10.

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: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

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: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.

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:

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.

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"(!)

A couple more gems from the Fralying biog: This is what Anthony Mann had to say about For A Few Dollars More (ironically, his comments highlight the nationalistic moralising and audience-pandering that flaw so many of his otherwise impressive films, and the classical western genre in general):

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.

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.

Boetticher chimes in too (although he later became friends with Leone):

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.

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.

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.

I'm too lazy to mount a new defense so here's the old thread.

Nothing wrote:

domino wrote:Lonesome Dove (Simon Wincer 1989)... This is not just making my list, it's making my Top 10.

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.

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.

The first season of Lonesome Dove is 6hrs long. There is then Return to Lonesome Dove, Lonesome Dove: The Outlaw Years, Streets of Laredo, Dead Man's Walk... All part of a series.

The first season of Deadwood is 8hrs long (and just as self-contained and coherent as the first season of Lonesome Dove). This was followed by two more seasons where they were lucky enough to retain the cast, but I don't see what bearing that has on anything.

Still not seeing the difference (other than the multiple directors, but this is how television works these days, Milch is the auteur of Deadwood).

I don't want to go ten rounds on this-- here's the compromise: if Deadwood gets enough votes to qualify, I will report its placement in the list in parenthesis. In the event that there are a hundred qualifying films, it will not count against a placing film as one of the hundred. Those who choose to acknowledge a TV series can do so when looking at the list, those who choose to not recognize a TV series as eligible are free to ignore it. There, let's move on with our lives.