Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also for honorable mentions: "God Forgives, I don't" who launched the career of italian actors Terrence Hill and Bud Spencer who later starred in the Trinity movies and various comedies. Hill also starred with Henry Fonda in "My name is nobody".
The business model of spaghetti westerns (westerns made by Italian studios in the 1960s) was to crank out large numbers of such films as cheaply as possible in order to put butts in the seats.
I'm not really into these kinds of shows but I never knew that's where the "spaghetti" western came from. Until now, I thought it was from one of those really bad 1960's styles TV frozen dinners with a spaghetti entree, and people would eat this while they were watching one of the westerns.
Also for honorable mentions: "God Forgives, I don't" who launched the career of italian actors Terrence Hill and Bud Spencer who later starred in the Trinity movies and various comedies. Hill also starred with Henry Fonda in "My name is nobody".
Stinkweed and Bambino, my favorite movie outlaws.
I tried to post the opening of Trinity is still my name a while back but I have trouble with YouTube videos.
Thanks for the slap scene.
Stinkweed and Bambino, my favorite movie outlaws.
I tried to post the opening of Trinity is still my name a while back but I have trouble with YouTube videos.
Thanks for the slap scene.
I think Once Upon a Time in the West is even better. Both a work of art and a great western.
Agreed.
The Good, The Bad and the Ugly is a great film in its own right, but Once Upon a Time in the West is a notch above in almost every aspect*, not the least of which is the acting.
They really are very different films. TGTBATU is a swashbuckling adventure, a string of fantastic set pieces (that climactic three-way duel may be one of the single-most thrilling moments in cinematic history) linked by a story mostly meant to do just that. An example is the blowing-the-bridge scene. It's long but entertaining. Its backstory (the bridge being accidentally blown too soon when the cameras weren't rolling, and the Spanish army having to rebuild it so it could be blown again) is interesting. But it's an unnecessary diversion that doesn't really advance the plot in any way worthy of its length. Though OUATITW is longer (even comparing the original cuts of both films) it doesn't have wayward scenes.
OUATITW is a contemplative human drama. There's no cartoonishness like Eli Wallach's character in the other film. This is not to say that I don't like Tuco; there's just not all that much there beyond the mania. But Henry Fonda, cast against type? The killings in TGTBATU entertain, but they're all fairly rote. There's nothing like the jarring murder by Frank of the young boy, and the death of Angel Eyes can't compare to Frank's demise. The main characters are all far more complex and nuanced in OUATITW. The latter film is also dubbed better, because all the actors spoke English during shooting (both films were shot without sound, with all dialogue and background/effects sounds layed over later) whereas with TGTBATU many supporting actors spoke Spanish or Italian (depending on where a certain scene was shot) during shooting and in post-production English phrases that more (or less) matched their lip movements had to be contrived. Since Claudia Cardinale spoke English with a heavy Italian accent, the voice you hear in the film is not hers. And everything else? Every footstep, every door opening or breeze blowing? All done later.
I liken TGTBATU to Raiders of the Lost Ark. It's a wild, exhilirating ride which pushes all sorts of movie-goer buttons. OUATITW is Blade Runner. Not as many thrills, but more substantive and enduringly satisfying.
*I said 'almost'. The most obvious exception is Morricone's score. Yes, he did OUATITW and scored it appropriately, but in TGTBATU his work is absolutely thrilling and masterfully integrated with the film itself.
I'm not really into these kinds of shows but I never knew that's where the "spaghetti" western came from. Until now, I thought it was from one of those really bad 1960's styles TV frozen dinners with a spaghetti entree, and people would eat this while they were watching one of the westerns.
Yes. Italian movies with Italian producers, directors, actors (except for an American or three) made in SPAIN. LOL!
Watch "Sad Hill Unearthed," a documentary about the site built with the help of the Spanish Army for the famous final scene in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Available on Netflix streaming: https://www.netflix.com/title/80988832
Westerns are action movies like Sci-fiction, and the unwritten rule is that competent acting is secondary, as it is in monster movies and the like.
Spaghetti western is derogatory itself. We don't say spaghetti or ravioli romances, comedies, or action films. Westerns are usually very formulaic and cliched. For a long time, westerns were made cheaply with low budgets and less talented actors, less rehearsal and few takes while they are shooting. Maybe only 1 take, no chance for second tries.
Randolph Scott is wooden. I like Lee Van Cleef's films. Love the guy.
Westerns are action movies like Sci-fiction, and the unwritten rule is that competent acting is secondary, as it is in monster movies and the like.
Spaghetti western is derogatory itself. We don't say spaghetti or ravioli romances, comedies, or action films. Westerns are usually very formulaic and cliched. For a long time, westerns were made cheaply with low budgets and less talented actors, less rehearsal and few takes while they are shooting. Maybe only 1 take, no chance for second tries.
Randolph Scott is wooden. I like Lee Van Cleef's films. Love the guy.
I can't say I agree that competent acting is secondary in US westerns. If you watch the classics, with top directors such as Hawks, Ford, Stevens, Zinneman, Hathaway, etc, directing the top Hollywood actors of the period, you'll see performances as deep and meaningful as in any other movie genre, even though the action may come first. It's just that for the longest time the Academy didn't recognize westerns as possible vehicles for Oscar-quality acting. Gary Cooper in High Noon. Randolph Scott and Joel McCrea in Ride the High Country. John Wayne in The Searchers and The Shootist. Spencer Tracy in Broken Lance, and of course Bad Day at Black Rock. Edward G. Robinson in The Violent Men, for that matter. (My only gripe here is that there was such a shortage of roles for great female actors, but that has been changing over the years, such as Annette Bening in Open Range.) Of course the B-western of the 1930s and 40s were a different story altogether.
I've been a western fan since I was 10 years old. Sometime in my 20s I decided to watch as many westerns as I possibly could, in order to understand them as a genre with variations. After 3+ decades I'm still at it, and on the Encore Western Channel I'm still finding new stuff to watch, such as Pillars of the Sky, and Shootout. I must have watched the Leone westerns more than a dozen times each over the years. I should mention that my first exposure to Leone was in Europe, and his westerns were celebrated by the film critics as the high point of some kind of naiivistic intellectualism, a contrived simplicity presented as a tribute to the classic westerns. Like a "woke" level of appreciation of the genre. I actually bought into that. But now--I think they're simply not that great. The music is terrific, yes, but the acting is overblown (except for Eastwood, of course, who is underplaying everything, thank goodness), and the imagery is so cliche-laden that it becomes a joke. I don't think it was a way for Leone to make some intellectual point, like the critics said--I think he just threw in the cliches because that's what he thought US westerns did! The dubbing is unbearable, too. But the whole Leone experience is an example of stylized Italian movie making at the time, and I think that was what got European audiences to assume they were art films.
Once Upon a Time in the West is the one exception (IMO), because at that time Leone had actually learned the "language" of the western movie; it uses some classic western locations, and the direction of the American "real" western actors is at least somewhat less stylized. And the boldness of the intro sequence still gets me! "Three horses too many!" To me, Leone finally succeeded in making a quality western, and not a spoof like the other three. I guess my criticism comes out of having been lectured by critics, back in the day, that Leone made some kind of higher-level symbolic art westerns, and I just don't think so anymore.
As it is, I have lots of westerns in the library and what I generally find is that they offer a great escape for 90 minutes or so. They are like the Saturday matinee at the theater.
Give into it and let it take you where it might.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I must have watched the Leone westerns more than a dozen times each over the years. I should mention that my first exposure to Leone was in Europe, and his westerns were celebrated by the film critics as the high point of some kind of naiivistic intellectualism, a contrived simplicity presented as a tribute to the classic westerns. Like a "woke" level of appreciation of the genre. I actually bought into that. But now--I think they're simply not that great. The music is terrific, yes, but the acting is overblown (except for Eastwood, of course, who is underplaying everything, thank goodness), and the imagery is so cliche-laden that it becomes a joke. I don't think it was a way for Leone to make some intellectual point, like the critics said--I think he just threw in the cliches because that's what he thought US westerns did! The dubbing is unbearable, too. But the whole Leone experience is an example of stylized Italian movie making at the time, and I think that was what got European audiences to assume they were art films. 
