Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Duck, You Sucker => Topic started by: drinkanddestroy on July 04, 2011, 11:33:50 PM



Title: what were Sean's motivations/positions vis a vis the Mexican Revolution?
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 04, 2011, 11:33:50 PM
I have watched DYS many times, yet I have never understood Sean's motivations/interests involving the revolution.

When Juan first meets Sean, Sean tells him "one revolution was enough for me." So if Sean was telling the truth, then why was he in Mexico -- did he just randomly pick that country as a place to escape the English authorities; or was he really there to fight the revolution, and he lied to Juan when he said "one revolution was enough for me"?

Later, we see Sean involved in the planning of the raid on the bank -- so he clearly is interested in fighting the revolution. (True, this was after Juan had killed Sean's employer [in an attempt to get Sean to partner with him to rob banks], but did Sean really begin working for the revolutionaries only cuz his boss was dead and he needed a job?...)

Then, after Juan lectures Sean "Don't tell me about revolution," Sean thrown his book into the mud; presumably, he is indeed having doubts about the ideology of the revolution.... but then he leads the blowing up of the bridge, after talking about "ridding the world of a few uniforms..." So presumably, Sean still believes in revolution.

(Once Juan's family is massacred, I have no questions anymore; whether or not Sean wanted to join the revolution initially, I understand that he would join it after the opposition massacred his friend's family).

But throughout the movie, I never got a clear understanding of what Sean's true motivations were, ie. whether or not he truly supported the Mexican Revolution....


Title: Re: what were Sean's motivations/positions vis a vis the Mexican Revolution?
Post by: tintinteslacoil on July 05, 2011, 08:29:16 AM
Who Knows?

But, it is essential to the action in the film.  A disappointment if he didn't, even though it is a non-sequitor.

He was conned by Juan into it--Juan blew-up his boss, Auscenbach, and a few army personnel, including a Captain. Now wanted for the "murder", John realised he could no longer turn to the federal government  or its employees for work--may as well join the Revolutionaries,  get some gold; and get even with Juan, in the take.


I personally thought it Nuts for a fugitive Irishman to try to hide in Northern Mexico during one of its most turbulent times. A big city, say Chicago or New York, where he could possibly hide with some emigrant family members, made more sense. Plus the Weather is brutal in Northern Mexico--a place like Seattle would seem more familiar to a Dubliner. (The book mentions his sunburning and passing-out during a forced march.)

No lily-white man with a price on his head from a non-hostile European nation--he'd stick out like a sore thumb, unless he stayed in a large city with a lot of European emigres, like Mexico City.

The Mexican government would extradite him at the drop of a hat  if the British government insisted--anything to aide the flow of arms into the country by the conservative federal government. And, the Revolutionaries.

 He did work for Auscenbach, a German working with Huerta's government--possibly Auscenbach was blackmailling him.

 


Title: Re: what were Sean's motivations/positions vis a vis the Mexican Revolution?
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 05, 2011, 08:48:13 PM
so Juan kills Auscenbach in an attempt to get Sean to partner with him in robbing  banks -- but instead, Sean decides to work for the revolutionaries, whom he previously had no plans on working for? i find that hard to believe

And what book to do refer to?


Title: Re: what were Sean's motivations/positions vis a vis the Mexican Revolution?
Post by: cigar joe on July 06, 2011, 07:28:40 AM
so Juan kills Auscenbach in an attempt to get Sean to partner with him in robbing  banks -- but instead, Sean decides to work for the revolutionaries, whom he previously had no plans on working for? i find that hard to believe

And what book to do refer to?

I think you were either with them (one of the various revolutionary factions) or against them, Juan killing Auscenbach & the federales puts Mallory on the anti gov side.

I think the book referred to is one of Frayling's.


Title: Re: what were Sean's motivations/positions vis a vis the Mexican Revolution?
Post by: dave jenkins on July 06, 2011, 03:35:26 PM
so Juan kills Auscenbach in an attempt to get Sean to partner with him in robbing  banks -- but instead, Sean decides to work for the revolutionaries, whom he previously had no plans on working for? i find that hard to believe
Juan wants to deny Mallory the possibility of other employment so that he may have to turn to robbing banks. Because of Aschenbach's association with Huerta, and the fact that Mallory will be implicated in his death, Mallory will be unable to work with the government ever after. However, what makes him persona non grata to the federales puts him in good with the revolutionaries. Because of the "assassination" and his past connection to the IRA, he immediately is offered employment with the rebels. Mallory sees that as a better alternative to robbing banks, AND it provides him an opportunity to get even with Juan. He gets Juan to believe that he is taking part in bank robbery when in fact what he's doing is liberating political prisoners. Mallory smirks as Juan is denied gold and receives the approbation of the revolutionaries--whom he despises--instead. Thus ends the game of tit-for-tat that Mallory and Juan began playing with guns and firecrackers when they first met.


Title: Re: what were Sean's motivations/positions vis a vis the Mexican Revolution?
Post by: tintinteslacoil on July 07, 2011, 03:21:52 PM
Quote
Auscenbach

I meant: "Auschenbach".  That would be the  German spelling.

Quote
I think the book referred to is one of Frayling's.

No, I meant the one by James Lewis.  A lot of the  versions first  shown in the US in 1971 had Juan's forced march of Mallory, and his mistaken attempt to blow up Juan, missing.

Quote
so Juan kills Auscenbach in an attempt to get Sean to partner with him in robbing  banks -- but instead, Sean decides to work for the revolutionaries, whom he previously had no plans on working for? i find that hard to believe

In a revolution, or civil war, it is hard to be neutral--"Pacifico".  Those who try by selling to both sides end up being hung by one or the other.



Thanks for clearing it up for him :)


Title: Re: what were Sean's motivations/positions vis a vis the Mexican Revolution?
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 07, 2011, 03:34:31 PM
Juan wants to deny Mallory the possibility of other employment so that he may have to turn to robbing banks. Because of Aschenbach's association with Huerta, and the fact that Mallory will be implicated in his death, Mallory will be unable to work with the government ever after. However, what makes him persona non grata to the federales puts him in good with the revolutionaries. Because of the "assassination" and his past connection to the IRA, he immediately is offered employment with the rebels. Mallory sees that as a better alternative to robbing banks, AND it provides him an opportunity to get even with Juan. He gets Juan to believe that he is taking part in bank robbery when in fact what he's doing is liberating political prisoners. Mallory smirks as Juan is denied gold and receives the approbation of the revolutionaries--whom he despises--instead. Thus ends the game of tit-for-tat that Mallory and Juan began playing with guns and firecrackers when they first met.


1. where do we see that Auschenbach works for the federales?

2. So -- after saying "one revolution was enough for me" -- Sean returns to fighting revolutions cuz that is his only option after his employer's death?.... But then, Sean suddenly finds Revolution Religion again (eg. lecturing Juan on "ridding the world of a few uniforms")?







Title: Re: what were Sean's motivations/positions vis a vis the Mexican Revolution?
Post by: tintinteslacoil on July 07, 2011, 06:17:39 PM

1. where do we see that Auschenbach works for the federales?

2. So -- after saying "one revolution was enough for me" -- Sean returns to fighting revolutions cuz that is his only option after his employer's death?.... But then, Sean suddenly finds Revolution Religion again (eg. lecturing Juan on "ridding the world of a few uniforms")?

1) It's in the book--plus, when Mallory wires the old mission tower, we hear the soldiers yell out: "John! It's us! Where are you? We're looking for you...". So, he was working, at least indirectly, for the Federal government.

Again, it's not in the clipped US 1971 version.  Only in the full-length movie.

Oddly, Ted Turner put this scene In, and removed where Juan later gives John the finger, after John cons him into "Recuing 150 patriots in the face of danger".( I remember the finger distinctly.)

2)  Read the previous posts--he was "conned" into it by Juan.  I Guess he could have emigrated to the US, or, taken up knitting... But, John, being who he was ("You can't break the mold"--Alan Ladd, "Shane"); had realised he was a sucker to lost causes.



Title: Re: what were Sean's motivations/positions vis a vis the Mexican Revolution?
Post by: stanton on July 08, 2011, 02:12:04 AM
The name is in fact Aschenbach, without the "u". Auschenbach is not German.


Title: Re: what were Sean's motivations/positions vis a vis the Mexican Revolution?
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 08, 2011, 04:28:26 AM
The SE dvd is the full-length movie, correct?


Title: Re: what were Sean's motivations/positions vis a vis the Mexican Revolution?
Post by: tintinteslacoil on July 08, 2011, 03:09:58 PM
The name is in fact Aschenbach, without the "u". Auschenbach is not German.

It Could be.   "Ausgezeichnet" is German. So is: "Ausgang". I'm sure I could find Mom's German dictionary and find a lot more "au"-words. But, Why? It's made up for the movie, not a real, historical character. Besides, people spell their names any way they want to. "Reed" can be "Reid" or "Read". "Jode" can be "Joad". Or even, "Jodd".


Perhaps I misspelled it.   On That you are Right. It could be Jewish, also. "Feinman" is German Jew, but Proper German would be: "Feinmann".

Quote
The SE dvd is the full-length movie, correct?

Pretty much. Still, the torture of Villega  and  Juan's he forced-march scene are missing.  These are mentioned in the second disc.  THe British cut out 7 seconds of a Horse falling! Guess thay are  against animal "cruelty". :D


Title: Re: what were Sean's motivations/positions vis a vis the Mexican Revolution?
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 08, 2011, 05:53:32 PM

Pretty much. Still, the torture of Villega  and  Juan's he forced-march scene are missing.  These are mentioned in the second disc.  THe British cut out 7 seconds of a Horse falling! Guess thay are  against animal "cruelty". :D


I don't know if that means they are "missing." Could be the scene was shot and then Leone decided not to include it in the movie; doesn't mean it's "missing." When I use the term "missing scenes," I refer to what Leone intended to be in the movie but the asshole studio executives cut


Title: Re: what were Sean's motivations/positions vis a vis the Mexican Revolution?
Post by: stanton on July 09, 2011, 05:41:03 AM
It Could be.   "Ausgezeichnet" is German. So is: "Ausgang". I'm sure I could find Mom's German dictionary and find a lot more "au"-words. But, Why? It's made up for the movie, not a real, historical character. Besides, people spell their names any way they want to. "Reed" can be "Reid" or "Read". "Jode" can be "Joad". Or even, "Jodd".



1. Auschenbach is possible, but unlikely as it sounds a bit strange. The "au" in your examples are to be viewed different. The combination of the letters "sch" belongs in German always together, so it is A-sch-enbach but it is Aus-gezeichnet and Aus-gang. So it would be Au-schenbach and not Aus-chenbach, which is definitely wrong. Rauschenbach is a typical name.

2. Aschenbach is a German name which is not uncommon.

3. And the name in the film is actually Aschenbach.


Title: Re: what were Sean's motivations/positions vis a vis the Mexican Revolution?
Post by: tintinteslacoil on July 09, 2011, 07:56:53 AM


You said:"not  German"; not " an improper German name".


As I pointed out , there are several words in German with"aus" prefix. We weren't discussing Names, necessarily.

I said; Could Be. And, anyone can spell their proper name any way they want, and pronounce it any way they want.  Feinman=Feinmann.  Feinman is a proper German name, and common, although "correct German " would be "Feinmann". The rules of most German words, you're right, say: two "n's"; "ie" pronounced "e"; and ach...but Not in proper Names. An English or French name is not changed, for example; it does not , then, follow German rules. 

Note: In Goldfinger, Auric Goldfinger's gold refiner was in St. Moritz, Switzerland. But, the road signs were in German. They would be in French in that part of Switzerland (C.H.) "St. Moritz" is Still pronounced :"San Mohrits", even by German-speaking Swiss. It's still spelled the Same way.

"Stephen" is technically "Steefenn". Yet, it is colloquially "Steeven". "Dylan" is technically "Dielann". But, he says:"Dillon". It is a Stage Name, anyway. McMahon is technically "Mckmahonn" to distinguish it from: "McMann". But,  Ed always slurred it into" :"MckMann".  It's Their names, they can spell it or pronounce it any way they want.

I've taken some Deutsches; "Au" is ok in some proper names in German.

Sorry, I misspelled "Aschenbach". I Know it's "Aschenbach", I have the book, too.  I accidentally put the "u" in, my spell check didn't catch it.  No need to crucify a productive member over a simple misspelling.  Go to ShadowRX.com, Prexis.Com or Bombshock.org if you want to be petty.

It's just a Movie; it isn't Real. Leone was Italian; who knows what  name he meant when he wrote the screenplay?  Probably pulled it out of a phone book. The fact that "Mesa Verde" reads the same in Spanish and Italian, yet was translated to":"Green Table" on the album of the score is incorrect, as it is a proper name and shouldn't be translated.

Why  not get on the three Other posters who also spelled it: "Auschenbach"? Tab down a few days. Don't single me out.

Besides, this is off-topic. It doesn't relate to John's  change of heart. We can both be sanctioned for it.

I'd rather this petty argument end now and get back on topic, if it hasn't been settled.

 I was confused when I first saw the movie in '71, too.  John so adamant about "one was enough for me", then Mesa Verde. It Doesn't make sense with the scenes removed. The movie is more exciting and amusing without the forced march, blown-up mission tower, torture, and drawn-out  love scenes, anyway. It didn't bother me until I was older, and saw more into movies than I had at 13.  The forced-march scene would be too reminiscent of TGTBATU at that point, anyway.  It seems darker with the scenes, but, it is a dark movie. The glib wit and con jobs the major characters pull lightens things immensely, but now I am more thrilled by the character development. For this movie to run less than 2 hours doesn't allow the development to flow correctly. It is the most character study of any Leone film, even the Master said that. My email address is still "duckyousucker@'... :)


Title: Re: what were Sean's motivations/positions vis a vis the Mexican Revolution?
Post by: tintinteslacoil on July 09, 2011, 08:03:09 AM
I don't know if that mans they are "missing." Could be the scene was shot and then Leone decided not to include it in the movie; doesn't mean it's "missing." When I use the term "missing scenes," I refer to what Leone intended to be in the movie but the asshole studio executives cut

Who Knows?  The second DVD calls them "missing" or "deleted".  Too bad Director's don't get first dibs.  It is the producer, the Money, , that gets to make the run-time decisions.

The Author really gets reamed. He signs it over,  possibly gets a hand  writing the screenplay, but that's it. He can protest, but the decisions are now out of his hands.

Imagine Lawrence of Arabia , Dr. Zhivago , or The Ten Commandments,   cut?  :o They seem to go Fast, as they flow so well.


Title: Re: what were Sean's motivations/positions vis a vis the Mexican Revolution?
Post by: stanton on July 09, 2011, 12:25:07 PM

You said:"not  German"; not " an improper German name".


As I pointed out , there are several words in German with"aus" prefix. We weren't discussing Names, necessarily.


Words with "aus", yes, there are many, but not with "ausch". I don't know any words nor names which begin with "ausch". "Aus" is itself a word which means "out".

And it wasn't my intent to get on you, it was just for explanation.


Title: Re: what were Sean's motivations/positions vis a vis the Mexican Revolution?
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 07, 2012, 08:32:21 AM
 1) So I understand that Sean went to work for the revolutionaries because Juan forced his hand by killing Auschenbach. But what is still unclear to me, is (as I asked above but have not received a satisfactory answer), that once Sean does join the Revolution, he does not act merely like a mercenary, but he seems to have fully embraced the ideals of the revolution, as when we see him reading the book and lecturing Juan. Then, at the bridge, when everyone else is too scared, Juan insists on staying and "gettin rid of a few uniforms."

So if the reason Sean joined the Revolution was indeed because Juan's killing Auschenbach forced him to do so as a means of employment, then it would make sense if Sean acted like a mercenary, but instead, we see him as a full-fledged idealist. (I don't believe that joining the revolutionaries now made him a reborn idealist; he is a cynical dude who is done with that sort of stuff). So I understand that Juan's killing Auschenbach caused Sean to join the revolutionaries as a means of employment, but I don't see any justification for his reborn revolutionary zeal.


2) Furthermore, we have the major scene where Juan lectures Sean "don't tell me about revolution" and Sean throws the book onto the ground. But immediately afterward, we see Sean's revolutionary zeal continuing unabated (eg. doing the bridge job, "talking about ridding the world of a few uniforms," etc.) So how are his later actions consistent with his having thrown the book to the ground?

Perhaps you can answer #2 by saying that Sean's throwing the book to the ground indicates that he is beginning to doubt himself, but he can't be expected to completely change overnight. So while he is indeed starting to rethink his motivations, when they are by the bridge, he still does believe in revolution, though he has started to re-think it somewhat.

But I still cannot understand why -- as stated in #1 -- after joining the revolutionaries out of financial necessity, Sean inexplicably seems to believe in their cause, despite having earlier said that "one revolution was enough for me."



Title: Re: what were Sean's motivations/positions vis a vis the Mexican Revolution?
Post by: dave jenkins on February 07, 2012, 11:14:27 AM
Two possibilities:

1) The script isn't very good, full of contradictions that were not properly story-conferenced;

OR

2) Sean is a complex being, full of contradictions, motivated by several things at once and/or in succession. If Sean's initial motivation for joining the revolutionaries was pecuniary only, other motivations might later come to the fore. For example, Sean wants revenge on Juan, and one way he can get it is by tricking Juan into supporting a cause he abhors. So he has to play the role of the revolutionary if for no other reason than that's what it takes to sucker Juan and get his goat. But Sean has a history with that cause as well, and that history can, at times, really put the zap on his head. It's like being involved with a woman for decades, a period that might have included marriage, but, the marriage having ended, the relationship continues. And a guy in that situation might actually feel, from time to time, that he really loves this woman he's had a history with, but on other days he might nlot be able to stand the sight and smell of her. The Revolution is Sean's mistress; he is smitten only intermittently; she's betrayed him so often. But he still remembers the love of his youth, and the feelings that went with it, and those feelings, which go against his better judgement, continue to pull on him.

Also, you don't have to be a devout revolutionary to kill a few uniforms. Especially when those uniforms are intending to kill your friends and their children. You've never experienced an us-vs.-them dynamic?