Sergio Leone Web Board

General Information => General Discussion => Topic started by: Cusser on June 19, 2012, 10:01:44 PM



Title: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: Cusser on June 19, 2012, 10:01:44 PM
Frayling's Blu-Ray DVD Commentary was interesting, I listened to this on Sunday.

But I caught about a dozen factual mistakes that surprised me.  Most glaring, Frayling said that there was a handwas a hand double for Lee Van Cleef in the final showdown, so they could focus on the missing end of the right middle finger, but this is very obvious at Stevens' house (Van Cleef rubs his fingers together, "a tidy sum").  Just tonight I caught about 10 minutes of Death Rides a Horse, obvious that it's Van Cleef himself who has the missing finger end, no hand double.  I remember intentionally checking in FAFDM and again, no tip to his finger.  And I've read Lee cut that off the end of the finger making a playhouse for his daughter.

Frayling said Tuco boasted/joked that he was Lincoln't grandmother, but Tuco said Lincoln's grandFATHER.  

He said the film opens in 1861, but Arch Stanton's grave marker said April 3, 1862, so I would think later.  I'll give him the benefit there.  

Frayling said that Wallach re-did the train/handcuffs scene only after ahole was dug so there'd be an additional level of safety.  But Eli's recollection on the DVD is that he wouldn't do it a second time, too dangerous.  Frayling did remark that Tuco was able to catch the already moving train, not realistic.

Interesting was when Frayling listed the times that Blondie lied.  And we all know that Blondie wasn't "blond", but Tuco had used the name Blondie ("Blondie knows") so Angel Eyes had heard that term/nickname before.

I already knew about Tommie Conner also writing the lyrics for "I saw mommy kissing Santa Claus", which is great trivia.

This was still interesting overall, like how Leone had slated Jack Elam for the Al Mulloch part.  Or that the Spanish soldiers re-built the bridge in like 2.5 days, and like the same soldiers made the cemetery in 2 days.  And that filming was April through September 1966, so definitely in the hot weather.

Add on the mistakes you guys have caught.



Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's GBU Blu-Ray DVD Commentary
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 19, 2012, 11:37:16 PM
Thanks for posting, Cusser! Maybe we can expand this into a thread for corrections to all of Frayling's works. I was thinking about making one for a while but always put it off cuz I figured it was a lot of work. But I guess we can have at it now. I love Frayling but with the vast amounts of research for all this stuff that took place decades ago, mistakes are inevitable, so it's important to have a thread to correct it all, for the record.

I'll post whenever I come across a mistake, but here are a few that I recall off the top of my head:

1) GBU Commentary: Frayling says Tuco's second name is "Benefico." I believe it's actually "Benedicto"
 
2) I recall Frayling saying in one of the commentaries (I am not sure if it was GBU) that the budget for FOD was $150,000. This conflicts with his previous statements that the budget was $200,000

3) p. 62 of "Once Upon a Time in Italy,"
top line, Frayling quotes the line that Frank says to Wobbles about trustinga man who wears a belt and suspenders, and says "Kirk Douglas says exactly the same thing in Ace in the Hole." That is incorrect. There is indeed a line about belt and suspenders, bit it is certainly not the exact same line.

4) in STDWD,  Frayling says that Noodles took a train to Buffalo. Well Noodles very clearly says, "first bus."

5) FAFDM Commentary, (during the part where Indio is escaping prison and knocks on the door of the prison guard before shooting him), Frayling says that for FOD, someone else dubbed Volonte's voice into English, but for FAFDM, he was contractually obliged to do it himself. I don't know who did it, but I am just about certain it was the same person who did Volonte's English dub on both films. The voice sounds exactly the same. (I know some people here believe it was the same guy who dubbed Aldo Giuffre into English in GBU).


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's GBU Blu-Ray DVD Commentary
Post by: Cusser on June 20, 2012, 07:36:44 AM

GBU Commentary: Frayling says Tuco's second name is "Benefico." I believe it's actually "Benedicto"

I caught this error as well; I even played this part 3 times to make sure.

I'm also not sure that the photgrapher was supposed to be the actual Matthew Brady like Frayling stated, but I can live with that.  I know rifles were the first thing manufactured with interchangeable parts, and Frayling spoke of that with Tuco in the gun shop, but I would be skeptical (in real life) that parts from DIFFERENT manufacturers would be interchangeable.

Thanks for posting, Cusser! Maybe we can expand this into a thread for corrections to all of Frayling's works.

OK.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's GBU Blu-Ray DVD Commentary
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 20, 2012, 07:51:34 AM
if you want to, you can change the subject (something like "Corrections to Frayling's Works") and tell cigar joe to move the thread to the General Discussion Board.

whatever, it's up to you  O0

---

As for Matthew Brady: do you think that Frayling meant literally that the photographer was supposed to be Matthew Brady? or did he just mean it generally, with the word "Matthew Brady" simply referring to "Union photographer"? No matter what Frayling meant, I guess it's impossible to know whether the photographer was actually supposed to be Brady, since his name is never mentioned (unless it is mentioned in the Credits?) Or do you think that that if he was indeed supposed to be Brady, his name definitely would have been mentioned because he was a historical figure?


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's GBU Blu-Ray DVD Commentary
Post by: dave jenkins on June 20, 2012, 07:56:19 AM

5) FAFDM Commentary, (during the part where Indio is escaping prison and knocks on the door of the prison guard before shooting him), Frayling says that for FOD, someone else dubbed Volonte's voice into English, but for FAFDM, he was contractually obliged to do it himself. I don't know who did it, but I am just about certain it was the same person who did Volonte's English dub on both films. The voice sounds exactly the same. (I know some people here believe it was the same guy who dubbed Aldo Giuffre into English in GBU).
We've talked about this one before. There is no doubt that the English dub of Indio's voice was done by someone other than Volonte. However, Frayling may not be wrong. Perhaps Volonte recorded a dub-track for his character but it wasn't used.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's GBU Blu-Ray DVD Commentary
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 20, 2012, 08:03:43 AM
GBU Commentary: Frayling says that there were 3 times that the war intervenes to save one of the characters. But i counted at least 4:

1) The cannon hits the hotel where Blondie is about to be hanged

2) The "Carriage of the Spirits" distracts Tuco as he is about to shoot Blondie

3) The train whistle distracts Wallace as he is about to thump Tuco

4) While Blondie and Tuco are shooting it out with Angel Eyes's gang in the bombed out town,  two gang members are about to shoot Blondie and Tuco in the back when a canon hits, providing cover for Blondie and Tuco

(I think that by each individual scene where the War intervenes to save them, Frayling points it out. It's just that he's having trouble with his adding  ;))


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's GBU Blu-Ray DVD Commentary
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 20, 2012, 08:07:25 AM
We've talked about this one before. There is no doubt that the English dub of Indio's voice was done by someone other than Volonte. However, Frayling may not be wrong. Perhaps Volonte recorded a dub-track for his character but it wasn't used.

well if Volonte was contractually obliged to do it but that wasn't the version used, then Frayling should have been more specific.

Yes, many of the items here have been discussed elsewhere, in various threads. But I think it's good to have one place where we can list them all.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's GBU Blu-Ray DVD Commentary
Post by: emmo26 on June 20, 2012, 04:33:48 PM
Re: Why not Frayling????
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2006, 03:58:02 PM »    
Quote from: Aguirre on October 07, 2006, 12:30:47 PM
He did the commentary for Once Upon in a America, so I imagine his input isn't so bad.


The guy said "yesterday" is a John Lennon song. his credibility went out the window after that.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 20, 2012, 11:46:02 PM
Re: Why not Frayling????
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2006, 03:58:02 PM »    
Quote from: Aguirre on October 07, 2006, 12:30:47 PM
He did the commentary for Once Upon in a America, so I imagine his input isn't so bad.


The guy said "yesterday" is a John Lennon song. his credibility went out the window after that.

Yes, Frayling did say that Yesterday is a John Lennon song. It is actually McCartney who sings it. (Is it possible that Lennon composed it?) Anyway, that does seem to be another mistake by Frayling.

However, the place where Frayling says this is in his book called Something to Do With Death. It is not on the commentary to OUATIA -- because  Frayling did NOT do the commentary to OUATIA!

--------------------

I just want to re-iterate that the purpose of this thread is to correct mistakes for the record. But it is NOT to bash Frayling or be disrespectful. Frayling has done an enormous amount of research into Leone's life, way back from the days of the Dollars films. Frayling made it his life's mission to spread the greatness of Leone, long before critics were taking Leone seriously. Carla Leone fondly recalls Frayling being the first one to reach out to Leone and be interested in him; Sergio himself was thrilled when reading Spaghetti Westerns to find out information that Frayling wrote about his father's life that Sergio himself wasn't aware of!  Frayling is probably responsible for the vast majority of knowledge we have about Leone -- both his personal life, and the behind the scenes stuff on the making of his movies, etc. Were it not for Frayling, I'd probably know 10% as much as I do know about Leone. With works of this magnitude -- including doing research on stuff that happened decades ago, which in many cases involves people no longer alive -- there are bound to be mistakes. And yes, there are some times when Frayling even makes some blatant mistakes about basic facts in movies (eg. when he says that Noodles took a train to Buffalo, when he clearly asks for the "first bus"). But please, let's not turn this into a personal-bashing thread. It's important to correct any mistakes, for the historical record. But let's not get personal. I think we owe Sir Christopher a lot of gratitude


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: stanton on June 21, 2012, 02:11:04 AM
Yesterday was written solely by McCartney.
It was also recorded without any other Beatles member playing on it.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: stanton on June 21, 2012, 02:22:16 AM
Frayling made it his life's mission to spread the greatness of Leone, long before critics were taking Leone seriously.

This is maybe true (maybe not) for the USA, but surely not for Europe. Leone's reputation was vastly growing throughout the 70s.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 21, 2012, 02:30:36 AM
In the introduction to the Cinema Retro Dollars Trilogy Special Edition, Frayling writes,

Sergio Leone's widow once came up to me, at the opening of the Calle Sergio Leone in Almeria, and said to me, "You were the first, and for that I'll always be grateful." She was right, and it was a wonderful moment.

Sure, I'm not saying nobody gave a damn about Leone before Frayling did. But he is certainly the leading authority on Leone, at least in the English language. I can't speak about other languages/countries. And I've been unable to find other good books about Leone written in English. (Robert Cunbow's book is a piece of trash). It's been more than 20 years after Leone's death and nobody else has attempted a biography. I think it's pretty much agreed amongst (English speaking) fans and critics that STDWD is the definitive work on Leone's life.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: stanton on June 21, 2012, 02:48:44 AM
When I started reading about films (1979 oopps) Leone was already a highly regarded director, not by everyone of course, but by the majority.

When OUATIA started in 1984 he was treated as a an grand old man of cinema.

It is true that the Dollar trilogy was mostly bashed, but with OuTW his reputation began steadily to grow. There were already books about him in the 70s. Oreste de Fornari's book was first published in 1977.

But Frayling surely belonged to the earliest who recognized the quality of Leone's work (he wrote about him already back in 1970), especially for the English speaking world where European westerns were mostly despised.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 21, 2012, 06:02:38 AM
He's definitely the one who's done the most research


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: Groggy on June 21, 2012, 06:51:15 AM
This is maybe true (maybe not) for the USA, but surely not for Europe. Leone's reputation was vastly growing throughout the 70s.


Most of the old guard critics (Crowther, Kael, Sarris) treated Leone with contempt, if not active hatred. Certainly their reviews reek of condescension and critical arrogance. Strangely Roger Ebert seems to have been one of the few who liked (most of) Leone's stuff back then.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: Cusser on June 21, 2012, 07:49:54 AM
Most of the old guard critics (Crowther, Kael, Sarris) treated Leone with contempt, if not active hatred. Certainly their reviews reek of condescension and critical arrogance. Strangely Roger Ebert seems to have been one of the few who liked (most of) Leone's stuff back then.

And didn't Ebert's FIRST review actually pan GBU ???  And only decades later he wrote areview with a "fresh look", and then recognized its quality?  I know in film class (1974) that the professor dissed them all (I asked him about them); but - of course - he had never seen any of them.  He was from the Engish department, and hosted Saturday evening films on local channel. 

I think too many critics draw from other critics' writings, and don't view films/write comments of their own.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 21, 2012, 08:15:19 AM
Ebert gave FAFDM 3 stars (his highest possible rating is 4 stars; plus he has a separate "Great Movies" list)
Here is that review http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19670515/REVIEWS/705150301/1023 (he writes that he didn't see FOD "but I wish I had." You'll notice that in the early years of his reviews -- he began in 1967 -- they were much shorter than they would be later on).

He gave GBU 3 stars in his original 1968 review http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19680102/REVIEWS/801020301/1023
but he later added it to his Great Movies list -- admitting that he saw it in his first year as a critic, when he "did not always value instinct over prudence" and was probably influenced by the general bias against Spags http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030803/REVIEWS08/308030301/1023 (This review is printed in the materials of The Sergio Leone Anthology dvd set).

He gave OUATITW 2 1/2 stars http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19690606/REVIEWS/906060301 (I am not sure which version he saw; I guess I could forgive the low rating if he saw the chopped version)

and he gave the 229 minute version of OUATIA 4 stars http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19840101/REVIEWS/401010365


So yeah, I'd say he was pretty decent to Leone. (Though  back in the late 60's his word probably didn't carry much weight). But he needs to add both OUATITW and OUATIA to his Great Movies list. (Personally, I consider all 6 of Leone's movie to be all-time greats). He is constantly adding to that list -- I noticed that both Stagecoach and TMWSLiberty Valance were added in the past year -- so maybe they'll make it on there. (He also recently put Johnny Guitar there.... but that's another story...)


Ebert has always been quite progressive (to say the least). He gave The Wild Bunch 4 stars in its initial release http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19690803/REVIEWS/908030301/1023 and when a critic (I think from Readers Digest criticized). it loudly at the screening at a Warner Bros. retreat, Ebert jumped up to defend the movie.

 He also gave 4 stars upon initial release to Bonnie and Clyde http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19670925/REVIEWS/709250301 and Easy Rider http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19690928/REVIEWS/909280301/1023 (and later added 'em all to his Great Movies section). Those 3 movies are probably the litmus test of where you were as a critic in the late 60's  ;)


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: Groggy on June 21, 2012, 09:36:58 AM
Thanks Drink, you've saved me the effort of tracking those reviews down.

It seems likely to me that Ebert saw the edited version of OUATITW. Did American critics even get to see the long version at the time?


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 21, 2012, 09:43:06 AM
Thanks Drink, you've saved me the effort of tracking those reviews down.

It seems likely to me that Ebert saw the edited version of OUATITW. Did American critics even get to see the long version at the time?

just type the name of any movie into the search box at http://rogerebert.com/ and it'll pull up anything. It's a good site (for movies, but not politics!)

I can't know which version of OUATITW Ebert saw, but I believe -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- that the author of the Video Watchdog article says that he saw the full version in an early screening in Chicago before it cut for wide theatrical release. If some kid in Chicago could see the full version, wouldn't a critic in Chicago have seen it too? But who knows.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: Groggy on June 21, 2012, 09:43:24 AM
Quote
when a critic (I think from Readers Digest criticized). it loudly at the screening at a Warner Bros. retreat, Ebert jumped up to defend the movie.

David Weddle recounts the premiere at some length in his biography of Peckinpah. Apparently Peckinpah and the cast were getting bombarded with insults and queries by critics and Ebert was the sole person to defend them. I remember one female critic asking why there was so much blood, and Ernest Borgnine saying something like "Lady, did you ever see anyone who was shot and didn't bleed?"

In fairness Peckinpah had far more defenders than Leone, especially Pauline Kael. I guess they all saw The Wild Bunch after the premiere.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 21, 2012, 09:56:43 AM
here is the specific page in the Video watchdog article http://imageshack.us/f/13/vwwest003.jpg/

where the author says it was a "public sneak preview" in Chicago. So I guess Ebert would have seen it. besides, Ebert says in his review that including intermission, the film is nearly 3 hours long. I guess that means he probably saw the 3-hour version, but who knows.

Somebody should definitely email him and tell him to re-watch and re-evaluate OUATITW. He has occasionally re-reviewed a movie upon a new dvd release or something, and changed his earlier opinion . eg. he gave THE GRADUATE 4 stars upon initial release http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19671226/REVIEWS/712260301/1023
but then recanted on the 30th anniversary and knocked it down to 3 stars http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19970328/REVIEWS/703280304

And he has occasionally given a film less than 4 stars on initial review, but later added it to his Great Movies list, as he did with GBU. Well he should reconsider OUATITW as well. (Strangely, he gave The Godfather part II only 3 stars, http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19740101/REVIEWS/401010314/1023 ......but he later added it to his Great Movies list http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081002/REVIEWS08/810020300/1023  while insisting that he has not recanted and and would not change a word from his original review. I am still trying to figure that one out.

Ebert writes about the incident with the Reader's Digest critic in his 1995 review of the Director's Cut version of The Wild Bunch http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19950317/REVIEWS/503170305/1023

Oh, and just in case you are wondering, here is his Great Movies review of THE WILD BUNCH http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020929/REVIEWS08/209290304/1023

Okay, I think that's enough Ebert links for a while....  ;)


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: uncknown on June 21, 2012, 08:41:33 PM
Most of the old guard critics (Crowther, Kael, Sarris) treated Leone with contempt, if not active hatred. Certainly their reviews reek of condescension and critical arrogance. Strangely Roger Ebert seems to have been one of the few who liked (most of) Leone's stuff back then.

Andrew Sarris was probably the lone voice in praising Leone and Eastwood . Eastwood especially was loathed by New York critics. I once  wrote a letter to  the Village Voice  praising Sarris for his insight into Eastwood's films-    the   letter was published!
 Kael actually liked the films. She wrote a positive review of GBU based mainly on its anti-Hollywood western attributes.
bruce


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: Groggy on June 21, 2012, 08:47:21 PM
Damn, sorry Mr. Sarris!

Kael's capsule review of GBU is reproduced in this thread:

http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=8001.0 (http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=8001.0)

It doesn't strike me as very positive. Even if taken as praise it embodies the condescending tone mentioned.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: uncknown on June 21, 2012, 08:48:26 PM
I like Ebert but his has one big flaw as a critic - he NEVER mentions the music score.
How can one write a full length review of GBU and not mention Morricone's contibution ???!


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: uncknown on June 21, 2012, 08:49:53 PM
Damn, sorry Mr. Sarris!

you should also say "Rest in peace"  as he just passed away :'(


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: Groggy on June 21, 2012, 08:51:33 PM
you should also say "Rest in peace"  as he just passed away :'(

Not only that, I started a thread.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 21, 2012, 11:41:00 PM
I like Ebert but his has one big flaw as a critic - he NEVER mentions the music score.
How can one write a full length review of GBU and not mention Morricone's contibution ???!

-- In Ebert's "Great Movies" review of GBU, he says that Morricone's "lonely, mournful scores are inseparable from the film." (6th paragraph at this link http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030803/REVIEWS08/308030301/1023 ) But that's definitely not enough; he should have emphasized it more. If you check up the two reviews of The Godfather Part II
(I provided the links in a previous post here), Ebert goes on and on about the music, and how it creates the whole mood of the movie, and how we feel is based on the music. He is correct about GFII, but he should have given similar mention to Morricone's scores, which IMO are at least as important for Leone's movies as Nino Rota's are for Coppolla's

-- In the 7th paragraph of that review, Ebert discusses how the Dollars films, like other Spags, are really foreign films. This is the point that Frayling says he was trying to make from the beginning: don't view these as ersatz Hollywood westerns. These should be viewed entirely as Mediterranean movies. (I think Frayling would say that Ebert's line that these films have a "subtly foreign flavor" doesn't go far enough; but that these are foreign films, plain and simple.)

-- In the final paragraph, Ebert says "Leone made two other unquestioned masterpieces, Once Upon a Time in the West and Once Upon a Time in America. Well Roger, if they are unquestioned masterpieces, how about a new Great Movies review for each of 'em?


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: emmo26 on June 23, 2012, 05:42:44 AM
He said the film opens in 1861, but Arch Stanton's grave marker said April 3, 1862, so I would think later.  I'll give him the benefit there.  


Arch Stanton´s grave was dated 3rd Febuary 1862


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: uncknown on June 23, 2012, 12:41:31 PM
-- In Ebert's "Great Movies" review of GBU, he says that Morricone's "lonely, mournful scores are inseparable from the film." (6th paragraph at this link http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030803/REVIEWS08/308030301/1023 ) But that's definitely not enough; he should have emphasized it more. If you check up the two reviews of The Godfather Part II
(I provided the links in a previous post here), Ebert goes on and on about the music, and how it creates the whole mood of the movie, and how we feel is based on the music. He is correct about GFII, but he should have given similar mention to Morricone's scores, which IMO are at least as important for Leone's movies as Nino Rota's are for Coppolla's




sometime i think D&D's sole mission in life is to corrct the 'mistakes' of others.
I bet you didn't have many friends in high school >:D
bruce


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: Groggy on June 23, 2012, 02:45:11 PM
 ;D


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: dave jenkins on June 23, 2012, 03:15:37 PM
High School? Hell, he doesn't have any friends NOW.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 23, 2012, 09:26:50 PM
A) I didn't say I have no friends. I said my friends are losers -- and that's not the same thing  ;)


B) This thread is not mine. But it serves an important purpose -- when someone publishes a factual mistake about a movie in a public forum, it should be corrected for the record -- something that a feller by the name of dave jenkins advised me of when we were discussing Cinema Retro's Dollars Trilogy "Special" Edition. I'll give uncknown the benefit of the doubt and presume that he did not contribute to that mistake-riddled issue  ::)



Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: Cusser on June 24, 2012, 02:18:02 PM
He said the film opens in 1861, but Arch Stanton's grave marker said April 3, 1862, so I would think later.  I'll give him the benefit there.  


Arch Stanton´s grave was dated 3rd Febuary 1862

D'oh !!!


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: dave jenkins on June 24, 2012, 03:51:55 PM
A) I didn't say I have no friends. I said my friends are losers -- and that's not the same thing  ;)
I didn't realize your words were holy writ. Ya see, here at the Leone board many of us practice a radical approach called "reading between the lines." I'm sure even Angel Eyes claimed to have friends.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 26, 2012, 09:16:06 AM
RE: the English dub of Gian Maria Volonte: I decided to look around YouTube a bit for samples of Volonte's voice. Here are two        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtx2d4wXQWs  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5E8nVGcMoY

I don't think he sounds anything like the English voice of Ramon or Indio. Volonte's voice sounds much softer


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 07, 2012, 09:13:27 PM
I just watched Frayling's commentary to DYS, and there is something which I wanted to address, it's not a factual mistake but it's something I disagree with Frayling on.

He says that the final flashback is somehow shared by John and Juan. I don't know how or why he believes so. Immediately after that flashback ends, we see Juan's face and he screams "NO!" as he realize Juan is igniting a shitload of synamite and about to blow up. But I don't see any evidence of the flashback being "shared."


On that note, RE: shared flashbacks:


OUATITW: the final flashback is indeed shared between Harmonica and Frank: once Harmonica sticks the harmonica in Frank's mouth, Frank remembers him, and the final flashback is shared between the two (as Frayling mentions in the commentary). No doubt.

FAFDM: Frayling says (on pp. 180 - 181 of his book Spaghetti Westerns; direct quotes in yellow) that the final flashback is also shared between Mortimer and Indio. "In terms of plot, this sharing simply tells us that the girl is Mortimer's sister, and that Mortimer has a score to settle with Indio." (Interestingly, Indio is awoken from his daydreaming about that final flashback by Mortimer's screaming at him "this is Colonel Mortimer.... does the name mean anything to you?!" -- further emphasizing the connection between this flashback and Mortimer). However, Frayling goes a step further and says there is a possibility that the exact same flashback was shared, which would mean that Mortimer "was also there at the time (as a voyeur watching his sister's rape), and if he recalls the events in the same way as Indio (red filter, distorting sounds, sado-eroticism), then he is enjoying the fantasy as well. Those critics who look for subtle points being made in teh frame, within a Realist aesthetic, would presumably opt for the latter interpretation. In fact, in the terms of reference of the film, this is the least likely interpretation: what is more likely is that Leone was concerned about the most 'stylish' way of presenting his flashback, and he was simply making a point about the plot (retrospectively explaining Mortimer's motivation throughout the film, and showing him to have been a Hollywood-type 'goody' all along -- rather than a callous bounty-hunter or a psychopathic nut)." IMO, this idea that Mortimer was there at the time, as a voyeur watching his sister's rape, is ludicrous, but at least Frayling acknowledges that it is the "least likely interpretation."

In OUATIA, I believe that in the scene with Noodles and Bailey in his study, at the end when there is a montage of clips of the two of them as youngsters, both of them are sharing the flashback.

However, I think that the idea of Juan somehow sharing the final flashback with John in DYS is pretty ridiculous -- even in a vague, spiritual rather than literal sense. I think Juan just screams "NO!" cuz he realizes that John is abot to blow himself up, I don't think there is any reason to believe he is sharing the flashback, or how it would help the story if he does. It may be nice to think of this sort of symmetry between Leone's movies, that in all the movies that include flashbacks, the final flashback is shared between two characters; but IMO this doesn't work in DYS: there is no justification for arguing that Juan shares it, and anyway, I don't see how his sharing it it would affect the story.



Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: stanton on July 08, 2012, 03:24:17 AM


However, I think that the idea of Juan somehow sharing the final flashback with John in DYS is pretty ridiculous -- even in a vague, spiritual rather than literal sense. I think Juan just screams "NO!" cuz he realizes that John is abot to blow himself up, I don't think there is any reason to believe he is sharing the flashback, or how it would help the story if he does. It may be nice to think of this sort of symmetry between Leone's movies, that in all the movies that include flashbacks, the final flashback is shared between two characters; but IMO this doesn't work in DYS: there is no justification for arguing that Juan shares it, and anyway, I don't see how his sharing it it would affect the story.


I rarely agree with all the things you think off as ridiculous, but here I do.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: Groggy on July 10, 2012, 09:36:40 AM
Any time Frayling discusses DYS he insists that the Governor character is General Huerta, the dictator of Mexico during that time period. I don't know where he got that idea, inasmuch as the Governor is explicitly identified as "Don Jaime" within the film.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 10, 2012, 01:46:19 PM
Any time Frayling discusses DYS he insists that the Governor character is General Huerta, the dictator of Mexico during that time period. I don't know where he got that idea, inasmuch as the Governor is explicitly identified as "Don Jaime" within the film.

haha no he doesn't! I just watched the dvd commentary and he never says he is Huerta; he always calls him the Governor.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 16, 2012, 11:10:49 PM
JUst saw FAFDM again; Van Cleef's finger tip is definitely missing; you can clearly see it when he waves to Eastwood from his hotel window, when Eastwood arrives in El Pso just before Indio's gang robs the bank


I watched the movie with Frayling's commentary, and I have a couple of questions on stuff he said. Not that they are mistakes, I just have questions:

1) he says that the Tucumcari set was the redressed set that was used in FOD. Doesn't look like it to me. That set had two very prominent buildings -- the Baxter and Rojo compounds -- at either end of the main street of San Miguel, and it doesn't look to me like there are any such buildings at the end of the street in Tucumcari.

Furthermore, when you see Mortimer enter the Tucumcari saloon, we see the saloon is made of red brick (similar to the buildings in El Paso); I don't recall any of those buildings from the San Miguel set being made of red brick

2) In the scene where Monco tells the residents of White Rocks "You people need a new sheriff," Frayling says this is a reference to the sequence in High Noon where Gary Cooper throws the tin star into the dust, "a sequence that irritated John wayne so much." I've seen sources for John Wayne's and Howard Hawks's hatred of High Noon, for the sherrif running around beggig for help and the townspeople refusing it, but I never heard that Wayne was bothered by the scene with Cooper throwing the star into the dust. Has anyone ever heard that?


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: mike siegel on July 17, 2012, 02:42:00 AM
2.) No.
I have a huge archive on Wayne and Hawks, but that would be new to me as well.  Maybe Wayne thought it would be 'un-american' to throw away the star, but I can't find or remember a quote. Both thought though (especially Hawks), that a Sheriff should be a professional. And a professional would never asked amateurs for help. Not only would their action be uncontrollable, but also represent rather a danger than any kind of help to him. And this begging for help is the major content of the movie, no wonder they hated it :). HIGH NOON is a great film, but when it comes to that point, I'm with them. RIO BRAVO is the real thing :)


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: chris on July 17, 2012, 04:02:15 AM
In his interview with Michael Parkinson in 1974, John Wayne talks about Gary Cooper throwing his star to the ground:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFScHRfNrLo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFScHRfNrLo)

John Wayne:
"...then at the end of the picture, he took the United States Marshal badge, threw it down, stepped on it and walked off. I think those things are just a little bit un-american..."

 
 


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 17, 2012, 04:15:30 AM
2.) No.
I have a huge archive on Wayne and Hawks, but that would be new to me as well.  Maybe Wayne thought it would be 'un-american' to throw away the star, but I can't find or remember a quote. Both thought though (especially Hawks), that a Sheriff should be a professional. And a professional would never asked amateurs for help. Not only would their action be uncontrollable, but also represent rather a danger than any kind of help to him. And this begging for help is the major content of the movie, no wonder they hated it :). HIGH NOON is a great film, but when it comes to that point, I'm with them. RIO BRAVO is the real thing :)

We recently discussed Wayne's and Hawks's opposition to High Noon starting here http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=8098.msg157906#msg157906 (on the second half of p. 12, and on page 13, of that "overrated movies" thread).

As we detailed on that thread,  Wayne and Hawks had two complaints with the movie (we're not sure if both of 'em had both complaints; but between the two of 'em, we've heard of at least two complaints): firstly, as you mentioned, that the sheriff is running around asking for help (I think Hawks used some phrase like "running around like a chicken with his head cut off"; and also, it bothered Wayne very much that the citizens refused to help when asked. (see the last two paragraphs here http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090715/REVIEWS08/907159989/1023 ) We discussed this stuff extensively at that "overrated movies thread". But I never recall hearing Wayne having a problem with Cooper throwing the star in the dust (although I guess that if I did see a source for it, it sure would not shock me!)

I agree that Rio Bravo is a great movie, but I did not like High Noon. This has nothing to do with the politics; I just didn't find it an interesting movie. There's nothing very compelling about spending an hour and a half watching a guy run around and around and around asking for help. Can you help me? No. Can you help me? No. Can you help me? No. Okay, I guess I'll just have to do it myself. Not a very interesting movie.




Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 17, 2012, 04:17:48 AM
In his interview with Michael Parkinson in 1974, John Wayne talks about Gary Cooper throwing his star to the ground:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFScHRfNrLo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFScHRfNrLo)

John Wayne:
"...then at the end of the picture, he took the United States Marshal badge, threw it down, stepped on it and walked off. I think those things are just a little bit un-american..."

 
 


Thanks for the link!


So from what I have seen, Wayne hated how the townspeople refused to help; whereas the complaint that mike siegel mentioned, about how unprofessional it was for the sheriff to run around begging for help, was made by Hawks. It's possible that each of them believed in the other complaint as well, but from what I've seen thus far, Hawks complained about the unprofessionalism of the sheriff's actions, whereas Wayne complained about the citizens' refusal to help.


Interesting also in that clip, to see Wayne discuss the blacklist; he says that the reason he fought against the Communist writers is cuz those people at first made it difficult for right-wingers to get jobs. So I guess that once the Commies made life difficult for the right-wing writers, then the right-wingers decided to fight back by getting the commies blacklisted... so assuming what Wayne is saying is true, if the Commies hadn't made an effort to prevent "unsympathetic" writers from getting jobs, Wayne wouldn't have made an effort to get rid of them. Interesting.

btw, RE: these Western ethos and "unamericanism," I have this to say: I appreciate how Wayne (and some others, like John Ford) believed very staunchly in the idea of Western ideals, frontier ideals, and sought to portray that in their movies, eg. Ford has this very staunch ideals of communities and hope for a better tomorrow; whether or not I personally believe in it, I can certainly understand those ideas and I enjoy their movies (and I enjoy movies with other ideals, like Leone's, no less  ;)) However, I REALLY, REALLY can't stand when people throw around the term "unAmerican." America is a vast nation of many people from different countries, religions, cultures, beliefs, etc. and the notion that any particular  idea is "unAmerican" bothers me; IMO it displays ignorance and arrogance (and a whole bunch of other words that you can choose from the following terms, depending on how charitable or how mean you wanna be  ;)) People often just call beliefs that oppose their own "unAmerican." And this is not the excludive domain of the Right or the Left; it's been done by both sides.

The way I see it, there is one basic ideal that is firmly American, and that is LIBERTY. The right of individuals to be free, to speak as they please, worship as they please, vote as they please, to be free of intrusion from government, such as to be guaranteed protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, or cruel and unusual punishment, etc. The liberties proclaimed in our Bill of Rights and in the basic natural law notions, that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. etc. So LIBERTY is an ideal that we can unambiguously say is AMERICAN, and limitations on individual liberties are certainly un-American. But of course there is much debate on exactly what sort of liberties should be limited, and on all sorts of other political opinions. And I am very uncomfortable with the idea of one person or group of people telling another that their ideas are un-American. Even if I disagree with your ideas, it is very rare that I;d go so far as to call something "un-American." I believe in freedom, and opposition to freedom is un-American. But beyond that basic and most important ideal, you have to be very careful about calling another person's ideals un-American..... And while I wasn't around in the 40's and 50's, haven't read up much about the blacklist or HUAAC, and understand that its hard to judge actions undertaken in an era you didn't live through; it seems to me that forcing people to testify before Congress about their political beliefs and affiliations, and causing them to lose their jobs based on these beliefs/affiliations or refusal to testify or name names is political persecution at its worst, and political persecution, no matter what side it comes from, is as detestable -- and yes, un-American -- as is any particular political belief, including Communism.



Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: Groggy on July 17, 2012, 04:40:10 AM
HIGH NOON is a great film, but when it comes to that point, I'm with them. RIO BRAVO is the real thing :)

I'm not crazy about either.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 17, 2012, 05:28:14 AM
you know about the six degrees of Kevin Bacon. Well I think that no discussion on these boards is more than six degrees away from a discussion on High Noon; that's what everything always comes back to. Every time  ;)


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: noodles_leone on July 17, 2012, 08:47:20 AM
I just watched Frayling's commentary to DYS, and there is something which I wanted to address, it's not a factual mistake but it's something I disagree with Frayling on.

He says that the final flashback is somehow shared by John and Juan. I don't know how or why he believes so.

If I recall correctly, he got the idea from Leone himself in his conversations with Noel Simsolo. If you're interested I can find and translate the exact quote in it. But I agree with you: it doesn't work.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: mike siegel on July 17, 2012, 08:55:16 AM
Thanks for the Parkinson link, I have the tape buried around here.
I found an interview where Wayne states 'Both Howard and I couldn't stand the scenes
presenting a Sheriff running around crying for help (...) He appeared to be weak
.'
(or words to that effect, it is in a different apartment)

Well as for Hawks, * it is easy to see why he could never like such a film. Hawks
was expert no.1 when it came to 'professionals-in-film'. At least his more personal
films like ONLY ANGELS HAVE WINGS. He himself was a pro and mastered everything he
tried in life.
*Same with Wayne. And he and Kramer or Zinnemann ? No way. Way to left for his taste :)

I try to get used to the fact that almost every classic film ever made gets his bashing
here in this forum. I'm working on it, it's not that easy :) I try :)
It is the big difference to a nice talk with fellow cineasts. If one can't agree on
a film or it becomes obvious that opinions lie miles apart, the discussion
shifts to another film or subject. There's no point in persuading someone
to appreciate something. Or the other way around, just because someone
says 'no good' you won't cross out films from your Top50 list.

HIGH NOON is not even on my Top 20-western list. Too much dialogue for my taste. Still it is
a classic and a masterpiece. As a film historian I watch and judge films (almost)
always with a partly contemporary view. There's a reason why the film was such
a success for decades. In 1952 the film was outstanding. Besides Ford, Winchester 73 and very
few others there wasn't much (significant) going on around that time.
The music is great, I love Kramer & Zinnemann, Grace Kelly :),
van Cleef, Floyd Crosby ... and Cooper is great. Difficult part.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: stanton on July 17, 2012, 02:02:27 PM


I try to get used to the fact that almost every classic film ever made gets his bashing
here in this forum. I'm working on it, it's not that easy :) I try :)
It is the big difference to a nice talk with fellow cineasts. If one can't agree on
a film or it becomes obvious that opinions lie miles apart, the discussion
shifts to another film or subject. There's no point in persuading someone
to appreciate something. Or the other way around, just because someone
says 'no good' you won't cross out films from your Top50 list.



You really should get used to this, Mike.

Bashing a classic is always more effective than bashing a film everybody hates anyway.

But I found it quite refreshing that in forums there are absolutely no holy cows.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: uncknown on July 17, 2012, 02:09:50 PM
Leone himself said in an interview that Juan and Sean shared the flashback.
it's still a bit overcooked as a concept
bruce


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: uncknown on July 17, 2012, 02:13:35 PM
High School? Hell, he doesn't have any friends NOW.
;D


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 17, 2012, 06:54:54 PM
Leone himself said in an interview that Juan and Sean shared the flashback.
it's still a bit overcooked as a concept
bruce

I'd like to see a source for that. Cuz I see no justification for it. Juan has no knowledge of Mallory's past (unlike the final flashbacks in other Leone movies, where the other person involved was either present at the time (Frank) or at least aware of what happened (Mortimer)


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: Groggy on July 18, 2012, 07:39:30 AM
I'd like to see a source for that. Cuz I see no justification for it. Juan has no knowledge of Mallory's past (unlike the final flashbacks in other Leone movies, where the other person involved was either present at the time (Frank) or at least aware of what happened (Mortimer)

Maybe they shared a psychic bond of some kind. :D


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 23, 2012, 07:18:02 PM
If you read Frayling's Spaghetti Westerns, the  paragraph  that begins on the bottom of p. 197 and continues on the top of p. 198 , says that the final flashback of OUATITW  was done with a painted backdrop of Monument Valley (as was the sequence where Sam rides his buggy through the rail gang). I don't know about the sequence with Sam, but based on all the people on this board who say they've vistited the arch in Monument Valley, that seems to be another mistake by Frayling.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: Cusser on July 23, 2012, 07:53:05 PM
That arch scene flashback WAS ABSOLUTELY filmed in Monument Valley.  The arch remnants are still there, at that same location.  I've been there, took quite a few photos.  There's even a block from the arch on my mantlepiece.

(http://memimage.cardomain.com/ride_images/2/4339/381/23345190009_medium.jpg)

What still riles me the most was him being so specific about a hand actor for the stubby middle finger of Van Cleef in GBU, which of course was totally wrong, and readily verifiable.  Sounds like my mom telling Mrs. Cusser how she took my knocked-out tooth, wrapped it in a paper towel soaked in milk, so that it could be re-implanted.  Mrs. Cusser was duly impressed.  However, I had to tell Mrs. Cusser that my tooth was NEVER knocked out at all, mom had it all wrong (my tooth was knocked, back, she bungled it by not taking me to the emergency room, so she made aup a fake heroic story  - see Liberty Vanance)


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 23, 2012, 08:02:14 PM

What still riles me the most was him being so specific about a hand actor for the stubby middle finger of Van Cleef in GBU, which of course was totally wrong, and readily verifiable.  Sounds like my mom telling Mrs. Cusser how she took my knocked-out tooth, wrapped it in a paper towel soaked in milk, so that it could be re-implanted.  Mrs. Cusser was duly impressed.  However, I had to tell Mrs. Cusser that my tooth was NEVER knocked out at all, mom had it all wrong (my tooth was knocked, back, she bungled it by not taking me to the emergency room, so she made aup a fake heroic story  - see Liberty Vanance)

haha yeah I recently watched FAFDM again, in that scene just before the bank robbery in El Paso, you see Van Cleef wave to Eastwood from the window, the top of his middle finger is clearly chopped off.

Anyway, for now let's use this thread to correct any mistakes in Frayling's works. I have the ultimate respect and appreciation for Frayling's work, but it's important that the mistakes be corrected for the record.

I am not sure exactly how this should be compiled: (whether we should separate it by movie, or by the particular work or chapter, etc.); writing a new comment every time we come across a mistake, without any sort of order, doesn't seem to be the best way to organize it. So maybe eventually once we compile lots of them, we can put it in proper order. For now, I guess we'll just write 'em all here).


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: Senza on February 24, 2013, 01:03:39 AM
I wouldn't say this is a mistake, just something that I disagree with him on.
In the DVD commentary for TGTBTU, during the scenes where Tuco is forced to march through the desert, and then Blondie has to march through the desert, Frayling states that Tuco is the tougher/stronger character of the two because he managed to march through the desert without collapsing [like Blondie did from heat exhaustion or stroke]. But cut to the Tuco torture scene, and Tuco breaks under that pressure revealing the name of the cemetery. When Blondie [or Joe] is tortured in FOD by the Rojo's, he doesn't give in by revealing the location of Marisol and her family, he just continues to take the beatings, gets the strength to escape, train and build himself, and come back to defeat the Rojos. I think this shows Blondie to be the tougher character of the two.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 24, 2013, 01:32:39 AM
I wouldn't say this is a mistake, just something that I disagree with him on.
In the DVD commentary for TGTBTU, during the scenes where Tuco is forced to march through the desert, and then Blondie has to march through the desert, Frayling states that Tuco is the tougher/stronger character of the two because he managed to march through the desert without collapsing [like Blondie did from heat exhaustion or stroke]. But cut to the Tuco torture scene, and Tuco breaks under that pressure revealing the name of the cemetery. When Blondie [or Joe] is tortured in FOD by the Rojo's, he doesn't give in by revealing the location of Marisol and her family, he just continues to take the beatings, gets the strength to escape, train and build himself, and come back to defeat the Rojos. I think this shows Blondie to be the tougher character of the two.

you cannot compare Tuco against the Eastwood character of FOD. Although it's very loosely the same character, there is no way you can make that comparison; Frayling's statement in the GBU commentary was comparing Tuco vs. Blondie, it had nothing to do with Monco or Joe


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: Senza on February 24, 2013, 01:36:53 AM
I understand what you're saying, and I'd hate to be the guy with the unpopular opinion or trying to disagree with everybody but to me they're the same character.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 15, 2014, 01:32:10 AM
I just watched FOD again, without the commentary.

Now, I definitely remember Frayling saying – I don't remember if it was on the dvd commentary, or if it was in some other video, or in his book; but he absolutely said it somewhere – that when the Rojos and Baxters are shooting it out in the cemetery while TMWNN is looking for the gold in the Rojos' cellar by tapping the barrels with his gun, there is a symmetry in the editing as the movie cuts back and forth from the cemetery to the cellar: the number of shots and number of taps are the same in each cut. For example, it's like, TMWNN will tap the barrel 4 times, then we'll cut back to the cemetery and hear 4 shots; then TMWNN will tap the barrel twice, and then we'll cut back to the cemetery and hear two shots, etc....

It's a nice idea, but the only problem is that it's not true. The Number of shots and number of taps are not the same. The pace of the editing does vary; eg. at some points, the camera holds on TMWNN for a while, then holds on the goings-on cemetery for a while; and at other points, there is very quick cutting back-and-forth between two locations. But there is no symmetry in the number of shots.

(I watched the Ripley's version; I assume it's the same editing as the version Frayling would have seen; I can double-check it with the MGM version at some point...)


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: stanton on January 15, 2014, 03:27:07 AM
This is actually the weakest scene of FOD. The cemetery shooting, not the montage. This and the lame river massacre. I'm sure Leone would have conceived these scenes very differently if had shot FOD after FaFDM.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 15, 2014, 03:55:23 AM
I love the whole movie, i don't have a problem with any of the scenes. I particularly don't understand what your problem is with the massacre scene, which I like very much... Come to think of it, I actually have one problem with the massacre scene: Why are the Mexican soldiers such pussies? They are soldiers, they all have guns, why wouldn't they fire them at Ramon? All the shooting is coming from one man - Ramon - firing the machine gun. Why wouldn't any of the Mexican soldiers fire their guns at Ramon and try to kill him, instead of running away like a bunch of scaredy cats? Were they so rattled by the rapid fire of the machine gun that they turn into a bunch of scared little kids? But overall, it is a very good scene.... I do recall Frayling saying that the massacre scene was directed by the second-unit director (preumably while Leone was filming scenes on the main set). I don't understand why Leone would leave such a major scene in the hands of his second-unit director (i can't imagine it's because he, a sophmore, didn't have the confidence to think he could pull off that big scene; after all, he did have lots of experience on sword and sandal films, including with action scenes like supposedly the chariot race scene of Ben ... Maybe it's cuz the budget was so small that they had save money by shooting very quickly, forcing them to use  the second unit whenever possible?)..... RE: the cemetery scene: notice how different the sky looks in the cemetery scene (blue, like its evening) and in the scenes - taking place at the same time - in the Rojo courtyard (like when TMWNN knocks out Mario Brega, and where he later tries to revive Marisol after punching her) - the sky is black, like at night. Since those scenes were occuring (simultaneously) after the Rojo-Baxter dinner meeting, it would have been late at night. So, while the sky was properly black in the Rojo compound, it should have also been black by the cemetery


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 15, 2014, 04:16:10 AM
To clarify the first sentence of my previous post: i didn't mean that I don't have any problems with anything that happens in the movie, as if it were a perfect movie. What i meant was, there are no scenes in which I have a problem with the scene as it is, like where i would say "this is a bad scene" or "the movie would be better off without it". This is a great movie, and every moment  is a joy Certainly, it shows the effects of having such a miniscule budget, but in a way, that is its charm. Eg. As Sir Christopher has said, the budget was so small, they couldn't afford to pay extras to fill the streets of San Miguel. But as it turns out, that contributes to its look, like a ghost town... Kinda like how great paintings are so beloved - even the small cracks in the canvas come to be seen as a part of the great whole :-)..... (set aside Colossus of Rhodes) : Unbelievable how, starting with FOD, every film Leone directed was great (or at least very very good.) Not a bad one in the bunch - just about every well-known director has a bad one here or there, but not The Geat Leone. Of course, one can wonder whether he would have kept that perfect record if he had lived longer and directed, say, 26 movies instead of 6. But, all we have is what we have, and we are lucky to have had Sergio long enough for a perfect 6 masterpieces out of 6 :-)....btw, the 25th anniversary of Leone's passing is coming up on April 30, 2014; we should plan something. Maybe a trip to Almeria or NYC filming locations. Maybe we can make special t-shirts or sumthin. We should definitely do sumthin to commemmorate it....


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: stanton on January 15, 2014, 05:46:21 AM
1. The problem of the river massacre is not so much the directing, but the lame cutting and the unimaginative conception.
The Cemetery scene is even worse. It looks ridiculous and is really badly directed.

2. A director who cares for his film uses a 2nd unit director by giving him exact instructions what he wants and how he has to shoot it. Leone is responsible for what the 2nd unit does also when he did not care for it, cause then he should have cared.

3. If the FOD budget was really 200 000 $ or even 250 000 $ it is not that cheap compared to the 600 000 $ for FaFDM or the 1 200 000 $ for GBU. Unlike these 2 film FOD used mostly already existing sets, decors and costumes and I'm sure that the complete crew was only paid at a fraction compared to the successors. Actually FOD doesn't look really cheap thanks to directing, photography and the production design.  

4. Leone made 7 good films (including Nobody), but only 2 masterpieces. Imo


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: dave jenkins on January 15, 2014, 07:26:39 AM
3. If the FOD budget was really 200 000 $ or even 250 000 $ it is not that cheap compared to the 600 000 $ for FaFDM or the 1 200 000 $ for GBU. Unlike these 2 film FOD used mostly already existing sets, decors and costumes and I'm sure that the complete crew was only paid at a fraction compared to the successors. Actually FOD doesn't look really cheap thanks to directing, photography and the production design.  
More than the amount of money involved, the special conditions of the production should be remembered. I found a relevant passage in the SL Encyclopedia:
Quote
Bullets don't argue/Le pistole non discutono. Directed by Mario Caiano and starring Rod Cameron, this was the other Western Papi and Columbo were producing at the time AFOD was shot to take advantage of costs averaging. The two productions used "the same locations, most of the same crew, the same costumes, the same kind of screenplay, and even some of the same actors" (Frayling 131).
FOD had to piggy-back on the production of this other film. Thus, we can imagine that Leone operated under constraints (not only financial) he would not have to endure later. Subsequent producers allowed Leone to be more himself.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 15, 2014, 08:38:29 AM
DJ citing the SL "Encyclopedia" reminds me of a law professor I had who used to rant about judges who, when writing a ruling, would stated a "fact" with a citation, and when you actually go and check the source in the citation, it is of a previous ruling by the very same judge ;-)


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 15, 2014, 08:44:40 AM
I wouldn't say FOD looks "cheap" in a negative sense, but you can definitely tell it did not enjoy the same budget as Leone's later movies.... RE: stanton's point about the later budgets: Frayling did say that when you consider that FAFDM built a whole new set, the $600,000 budget wasn't that much more than FOD's $200,000..... (also, Eastwood was paid only $15,000 for FOD; I think he got $50,000 for FAFDM.)But to me, FAFDM definitely looks like a much more expensive production.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: dave jenkins on January 15, 2014, 09:52:54 AM
DJ citing the SL "Encyclopedia" reminds me of a law professor I had who used to rant about judges who, when writing a ruling, would stated a "fact" with a citation, and when you actually go and check the source in the citation, it is of a previous ruling by the very same judge ;-)
You will note that my citation contains an embedded quote from Frayling. Is it your contention, then, that I and Frayling are the same person???(which would be quite a compliment). We'll have to wait a bit, I'm afraid, before bestowing on you the Oliver Wendell Holmes Award For Advanced Rationalization.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: stanton on January 15, 2014, 10:01:02 AM
Another story is that Rod Cameron, the lead of Bullets Don't Argue, got as much money as the whole cast of FoD.

FoD was a cheap film, but it was also a film which did not need that much money, which could be made with a small budget without suffering from that. Compared to most other SWs FOD looks quite expensive.

Btw, are there any informations how much shooting days it had?


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 15, 2014, 04:16:39 PM
You will note that my citation contains an embedded quote from Frayling. Is it your contention, then, that I and Frayling are the same person???(which would be quite a compliment). We'll have to wait a bit, I'm afraid, before bestowing on you the Oliver Wendell Holmes Award For Advanced Rationalization.

I don't want anything with Holmes's name on it. Fuck him.

One generation of imbecile is enough.



Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: Novecento on January 15, 2014, 06:20:15 PM
Roughly translated from the Tonino Valerii MNIN commentary:

Quote
Things like this happen. I ask myself why one makes such a big deal about the three scenes that Leone filmed in my film when no one cares that Franco Giraldi filmed half of ‘A Fistful of Dollars.’ Half of the film, it is Giraldi. The massacre of Rio Bravo, it is Giraldi. The night at the Baxters’ and the killing of all the family, it is Giraldi. The cemetery scenes, the comings and goings, the burying of the bodies, it’s Giraldi. Leone did not spend a single day in Almeria. When I did the location scouting for ‘For a Few Dollars More’ he had never seen Almeria. Giraldi filmed half of his film. No-one remembers it.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 15, 2014, 07:22:04 PM
That's fucking. dynamite.  I did not know that... and I don't recall Frayling mentioning it in STDWD, or on the dvd commentary. The only scene I recall Frayling saying that the second-unit filmed was the massacre at the Rio Bravo.
(I was not aware, until I just checked IMDB, that Valerii was actually an undredited assistant director on FOD.)

I assume this must have been due to budgetary constraints mandating a short shooting schedule.

On the subject of MNIN - so I know there's been lots of discussion and debate about which scenes Leone actually directed - what does Valerii say about that? Does he say specifically which scenes Leone directed?


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: stanton on January 16, 2014, 03:09:15 AM
What Vallerii says about half of FOD is wrong anyway. It's not half of the film, it's mostly 2nd unit material, and we don't know for sure if it's all true.

Valleri claims that he made MNIN in the sense of MNIN being his film, but he seems to be the only one who thinks so according to most of the stuff I read about MNIN. For the scenes which Leone actually directed Valleri gives him only credit for some minor comedy stuff, while Leone grabbed in later interviews all the fillet pieces for himself, which is most likely not true, and remained silent about the comedy parts he most likely also directed.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: dave jenkins on January 16, 2014, 06:04:08 AM
What Vallerii says about half of FOD is wrong anyway. It's not half of the film, it's mostly 2nd unit material, and we don't know for sure if it's all true.
Right. Vallerii is notoriously unreliable.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: stanton on January 16, 2014, 06:12:18 AM
Is it?

Any other examples?

I only know that Terence Hill calls him a great liar, and was Hill says about MNIN is often the opposite of what Valleri says. But unfortunately Hill is, like so many others, not very specific about certain details. Just like that there was some kind of agreement to remain silent.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: dave jenkins on January 16, 2014, 11:17:03 AM

I only know that Terence Hill calls him a great liar, and was Hill says about MNIN is often the opposite of what Valleri says. But unfortunately Hill is, like so many others, not very specific about certain details. Just like that there was some kind of agreement to remain silent.
This is what I was referring to. But it is not only what Hill says. Long before I came across his interviews there were obvious discrepancies in what Vallerii has said about the production of MNIN.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 16, 2014, 01:21:08 PM
RE: Valerii saying Leone had never been to Almeria before FAFDM: Los Albaricoques is in Almeria; does Valerii also say that Leone never filmed any of the scenes in that village?


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: dave jenkins on January 16, 2014, 02:57:45 PM
RE: Valerii saying Leone had never been to Almeria before FAFDM: Los Albaricoques is in Almeria; does Valerii also say that Leone never filmed any of the scenes in that village?
If so, that would be an astounding claim.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 16, 2014, 04:08:05 PM
If so, that would be an astounding claim.

if that were the case - that Leone didn't direct any of those scenes Valerii says, and also any of the scenes in Los Albericoques – then Leone would literally have not directed (at least) half the movie. I wasn't there, but I find that very hard to believe....


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 26, 2014, 05:16:38 AM
 Frayling's audio commentaries to FOD & FAFDM are on YouTube

FOD http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dQX2M2PpRU

FAFDM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eau7ziWrRY


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: stanton on November 23, 2014, 08:47:42 AM
I just re-watched Fod and also listened to the audio commentary. There are indeed in about 20 min more mistakes than a knowledgeable guy like Frayling should make.

He says that there are no extras in the streets because of the limited budget, but even the cheapest SWs have always crowded streets (actually much too much crowded).
And besides, every SW shot in Spain did not belong to the cheap type of SWs. About 70 % were solely shot in Italy, and Fod looks like Ben Hur compared to the really cheap ones.

He says that the hero of Yojimbo was unlike Eastwood in FoD an established character from other films, but as far as I know there was only Sanjuro, and that was a sequel.

Then there are these usual comparisons with US westerns which are often wrong, or at least not really true. Un-shaved protagonists in US westerns were not the rule of the day, but also not an exception. And surely not a thing never seen in US westerns like Frayling wants us make believe.

His audio commentaries are informative, but he should maybe rework them.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 23, 2014, 01:53:00 PM


He says that there are no extras in the streets because of the limited budget, but even the cheapest SWs have always crowded streets (actually much too much crowded).


You assume that Frayling is wrong that Leone didn't have the money to pay extras just because some SW's that look cheaper than FOD have more extras than FOD does? Well maybe those SW's are cheap in other places - maybe if Leone had used the money on extras, he wouldn't have been able to afford shooting the massacre at the Rio Bravo. The fact that cheaper SW's had crowded streets doesn't necessarily mean that the reason FOD didn't have crowded streets is not due to budget constraints.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: stanton on November 23, 2014, 03:16:40 PM
They did not only look much cheaper, they were much, much cheaper. 

Every SW shot in Spain was a premium Spag compared to most (if not all) shot in Italy. FoD was not an expensive film, but financial problems aside it wasn't a B-picture either. B-pictures were often shot in one or 2 weeks, but Leone had according to a German book 7 -9 weeks. The budget of FOD was not that low compared to FAFDM and GBU, nor was the shooting period compared to the about 10 weeks of FAFDM and only 12 -13 weeks for GBU.

When Eastwood enters the outer parts of the town there are a few people to spot who instantly seem to hide of fear. I think that it smells like obvious purpose to have an emptied part of the town which is dominated by the Rojos and the Baxters. With only 2 people left, a hotel keeper with no guests and the coffin-maker, the only other person who has a flourishing business (well and maybe the bell ringer, but he seems to belong to the outer parts).
And believe me there would always be some bucks to pay a few extras to run around senselessly in the streets (which is always funny if one observes in westerns in such street scenes all those besides the protagonists). 

With all that in mind it is absurd to assume that money was the reason.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: Novecento on November 23, 2014, 06:46:13 PM
He says that the hero of Yojimbo was unlike Eastwood in FoD an established character from other films, but as far as I know there was only Sanjuro, and that was a sequel.

Frayling is probably referring to the fact that the concept of a Ronin offering his services as a bodyguard (a Yojimbo) was nothing new. Even Kurosawa's own Seven Samurai is an example of this.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: stanton on November 24, 2014, 02:16:10 AM
No, it was about Sanjuro being an already established character from other films, while the audience knows nothing about Joe when FoD begins.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: uncknown on June 22, 2016, 08:44:12 PM
In his interview with Michael Parkinson in 1974, John Wayne talks about Gary Cooper throwing his star to the ground:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFScHRfNrLo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFScHRfNrLo)

John Wayne:
"...then at the end of the picture, he took the United States Marshal badge, threw it down, stepped on it and walked off. I think those things are just a little bit un-american..."

John Wayne was a flag waving, jingoistic , idiot.
Check out his PLAYBOY interview where he defends the genocide of American Indians 'cuz "they wanted all the land to themselves, they didn't want to share it"
Bruce Marshal

 
 



Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: Groggy on June 25, 2016, 01:14:24 PM
Frayling states in STDWD that Jason Robards' only Western pre-OUATITW was A Big Hand for the Little Lady. Strange that he'd remember that one rather than Hour of the Gun.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: uncknown on December 13, 2016, 01:01:39 PM
FAFDM

H states that Tucumcari is south of the border.
Is it not north of the border?


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: dave jenkins on December 14, 2016, 11:25:36 AM
FAFDM

H states that Tucumcari is south of the border.
Is it not north of the border?
This was previously discussed here: http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=1878.0

It wouldn't be such a bad mistake if it were just something he said in passing. But Frayling tries to make a point about Leone depicting Mexican settings as being very different from those depicted on the U.S. side, so his point is undermined by his misattribution.


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: uncknown on December 14, 2016, 01:22:23 PM
Thanks Dave.

I purposely phrased my comment as south of the border and north of the border, not Mexico or USA.
As the astute commentators in the linked topic state, NM was barely a territory and years from being a state.

SO, it's a minor 'mistake' if any. More like a territorial  dispute O0


Title: Re: Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries
Post by: dave jenkins on December 15, 2016, 08:27:59 AM
SO, it's a minor 'mistake' if any. More like a territorial  dispute O0
Except, as I pointed out, Frayling wants to see Leone making a comment on US vs. Mexican culture using that very territory. But his example doesn't support his position.