Sergio Leone Web Board

General Information => General Discussion => Topic started by: uncknown on December 06, 2016, 01:48:18 PM



Title: Does CLint really shoot people in the back?
Post by: uncknown on December 06, 2016, 01:48:18 PM
There is a new book out about Eastwood's westerns by James Nieibaur.

He repeats a claim that I have read before; TMWNN was the first anti-hero because he "shot people in the back", something John Wayne would never do.
Now, he did kill bad guys for dubious reasons e.g. the three members of Indio's gang ("Too bad you have to die"). You would not have seen that kind of violence in previous westerns from the "hero". He would have tied them up or turned them in to the law.

But, "in the back"? In any of Clint's westerns?
Bruce Marshall


Title: Re: Does CLint really shoot people in the back?
Post by: stanton on December 06, 2016, 02:44:19 PM
There is a new book out about Eastwood's westerns by James Nieibaur.

He repeats a claim that I have read before; TMWNN was the first anti-hero because he "shot people in the back", something John Wayne would never do.


Actually he did sometimes, e.g. in Rio Bravo.

Quote
You would not have seen that kind of violence in previous westerns from the "hero". He would have tied them up or turned them in to the law.

E.g. the hero of The Last Wagon kills his enemys without mercy and without giving them a chance. And they are funnily all lawmen (corrupt ones though).

Just check the first scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdyPgFVQpXc

There are of course enough other examples.


It's often funny what people think (and write) about westerns before Leone. They must never have watched one. Or only the ones with Roy Rogers and co.


Title: Re: Does CLint really shoot people in the back?
Post by: cigar joe on December 06, 2016, 03:34:55 PM
Quote
TMWNN was the first anti-hero because he "shot people in the back", something John Wayne would never do.

Wayne also shot Liberty Valence from cover.


Title: Re: Does CLint really shoot people in the back?
Post by: uncknown on December 07, 2016, 01:36:21 PM
 No one has answered my question:
When, if ever, did an Eastwood character in a  western shoot someone in the back? >:(


Title: Re: Does CLint really shoot people in the back?
Post by: uncknown on December 07, 2016, 01:37:52 PM



It's often funny what people think (and write) about westerns before Leone. They must never have watched one. Or only the ones with Roy Rogers and co.
[/quote]

 8)


Title: Re: Does CLint really shoot people in the back?
Post by: stanton on December 07, 2016, 02:03:55 PM
No one has answered my question:
When, if ever, did an Eastwood character in a  western shoot someone in the back? >:(

Probably really none, probably cause Leone wanted Eastwood not to become a Wayne clon ;), but Eastwood kills some without giving them a chance. But of course always those who deserved it. That's because he's our hero, not an anti-hero.


Title: Re: Does CLint really shoot people in the back?
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 07, 2016, 05:39:07 PM
I do not think TMWNN shoots anyone in the back. In another Eastwood western, maybe. I can't recall.

IMO, that statement probably comes from an incident  that happened on the set of THE SHOOTIST, with John Wayne and Don Siegel.
It seems that the script called for Wayne's character to shoot someone in the back during the  final shootout. Wayne objected to this and had an argument with Siegel about it. Wayne said  that he doesn't shoot people in the back. Siegel retorted: Clint Eastwood would!

This incident illustrates the tension between the (supposed) values of the older Westerns vs. the revisionist ones. Whether or not an Eastwood character ever actually did shoot someone in the back, I don't know. But it's a funny story with Siegel and Wayne, and I am guessing that's the source.

Or, just the fact that TMWNN would shoot people for money, without any real values, the bad-good guy, may have led to people saying that Eastwood plays the TYPE OF CHARACTER who Would shoot people in the back. But I don't recall him ever actually doing so.


Title: Re: Does CLint really shoot people in the back?
Post by: titoli on December 08, 2016, 05:42:52 AM
The story has been told in an interview by Eastwood whose video was posted here twice. It was not the script but the original source which required the shooting on the back. Which makes me wonder how much of it is true as I doubt that Wayne didn-t raise objections before filming started.


Title: Re: Does CLint really shoot people in the back?
Post by: uncknown on December 09, 2016, 02:47:57 PM
I do not think TMWNN shoots anyone in the back. In another Eastwood western, maybe. I can't recall.


Or, just the fact that TMWNN would shoot people for money, without any real values, the bad-good guy, may have led to people saying that Eastwood plays the TYPE OF CHARACTER who Would shoot people in the back. But I don't recall him ever actually doing so.

It always bothers me when TMWNN is labeled as completely cynical or all bad.
One of the reasons this character is so loved is precisely  because he does, on occasion, act altruistically or compassionately.
In other words , he is a cool cat who doesn't conform to Hollywood's childish Production Code morality
bruce marshall


Title: Re: Does CLint really shoot people in the back?
Post by: stanton on December 10, 2016, 05:39:40 AM
It always bothers me when TMWNN is labeled as completely cynical or all bad.
One of the reasons this character is so loved is precisely  because he does, on occasion, act altruistically or compassionately.
In other words , he is a cool cat who doesn't conform to Hollywood's childish Production Code morality


But many protagonists of 50s westerns did not do this either, and that developed in the 60s before the Spagies could have had any influence on the US westerns.

Eastwood is of course not bad, but he sure does often act in a cynical way. Leaving back Tuco in the desert with his hands tied on the back and without water and a gun is not exactly the behaviour of a philanthropist.


Title: Re: Does CLint really shoot people in the back?
Post by: uncknown on December 13, 2016, 12:58:56 PM
Eastwood is of course not bad, but he sure does often act in a cynical way. Leaving back Tuco in the desert with his hands tied on the back and without water and a gun is not exactly the behaviour of a philanthropist.


yeah, no many how many times I try to justify that one , I just can't come up with a reason that is justifiable.

Bad, bad, move, Blondie!


Title: Re: Does CLint really shoot people in the back?
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 13, 2016, 09:19:49 PM
Indeed, that's (one of the things) the title THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY is about: playing with our usual definitions of the words. Morally, "the good" in this movie is not very good; and "the ugly" is often a lovable character. Frayling discusses this in the BRD commentary, during the scene where Blondie walks in on Tuco in the bath in the bombed-out hotel.


Title: Re: Does CLint really shoot people in the back?
Post by: noodles_leone on December 14, 2016, 03:47:21 AM
Indeed, that's (one of the things) the title THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY is about: playing with our usual definitions of the words. Morally, "the good" in this movie is not very good; and "the ugly" is often a lovable character. Frayling discusses this in the BRD commentary, during the scene where Blondie walks in on Tuco in the bath in the bombed-out hotel.

Of course. And of course, that's what Leone said several times. But in the end the movie is moral and not amoral. It's even too moral for its own good: you cannot run aroudn telling everybody how cynical and amoral the film is, how it plays with the definition of "good", and then in the end your "good but actually bad" character has learned to be actually 100% as good as the nicest John Wayne character.


Title: Re: Does CLint really shoot people in the back?
Post by: dave jenkins on December 14, 2016, 11:01:04 AM
yeah, no many how many times I try to justify that one , I just can't come up with a reason that is justifiable.

Bad, bad, move, Blondie!
If you mean it was foolish to cross Tuco and leave him alive, I agree. Tuco even says as much. But Blondie was right to act against Tuco before Tuco thought to act against him. It was only a matter of time before Tuco decided to kill Blondie for ALL the bounty money (I presume Blondie wasn't stashing his winnings in a bank). But leaving Tuco in the desert to die instead of killing him outright? Bad, bad move, Blondie!


Title: Re: Does CLint really shoot people in the back?
Post by: uncknown on December 14, 2016, 01:27:27 PM
Am I the only one who believes Blondie returns his half of the stolen money to the Army?

Reason one: he will get a reward for the $125k which would be substantial and he would not have to worry about being caught.
reason two: he developed great sympathy for the plight of the soldiers and would want them to get their deserved pay

reason three: he was broke at the start of FOD

bruce marshall  8)


Title: Re: Does CLint really shoot people in the back?
Post by: stanton on December 14, 2016, 02:40:49 PM
Am I the only one who believes Blondie returns his half of the stolen money to the Army?


Congratulations, you are the only one ... ;)


Title: Re: Does CLint really shoot people in the back?
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 14, 2016, 06:01:51 PM

 he was broke at the start of FOD


FOD takes place at least 15 years after GBU. TMWNN does not exactly seem like the character who would put the money in the bank, as dj said. He could blow through that money in 15 years, maybe even 15 months. A drifter will always be a drifter  ;)


Title: Re: Does CLint really shoot people in the back?
Post by: cigar joe on December 15, 2016, 04:51:07 AM
Quote
FOD takes place at least 15 years after GBU.

No, way, way, past GBU, if the US troops are still wearing Blue Kersey uniforms and there are fully automatic machine guns the small time window is 1895 (for the guns) to 1898 (when the US troops changed to Khaki).


Title: Re: Does CLint really shoot people in the back?
Post by: dave jenkins on December 15, 2016, 08:19:43 AM
Am I the only one who believes Blondie returns his half of the stolen money to the Army?

Reason one: he will get a reward for the $125k which would be substantial and he would not have to worry about being caught.
reason two: he developed great sympathy for the plight of the soldiers and would want them to get their deserved pay

reason three: he was broke at the start of FOD

bruce marshall  8)
The other plus is that it would also take Tuco off his back. As it is now, Blondie has to worry the rest of his life about Tuco catching up with him. You can't steal from Tuco and get away clean.

OTOH, if Blondie were going to give money back, why not take all of it back? Why leave any of it with Tuco? The feds are gonna get half and Blondie's explanation is that the other half is with a guy he knows? If I were on the receiving end of that proposition I'd be suspicious that Blondie was holding out on Uncle. Maybe Blondie wants a clean slate with the gov AND half the stolen money. I think I'd have Blondie committed to Betterville 2 and see if Cpl. Wallace's brother can get any more info out of him.


Title: Re: Does CLint really shoot people in the back?
Post by: uncknown on December 15, 2016, 12:33:11 PM
No, way, way, past GBU, if the US troops are still wearing Blue Kersey uniforms and there are fully automatic machine guns the small time window is 1895 (for the guns) to 1898 (when the US troops changed to Khaki).

You and DAD are nuts! :D
15 years, 30 years????!!!!! ???
bruce marshall >:D


Title: Re: Does CLint really shoot people in the back?
Post by: uncknown on December 15, 2016, 12:34:40 PM
The other plus is that it would also take Tuco off his back. As it is now, Blondie has to worry the rest of his life about Tuco catching up with him. You can't steal from Tuco and get away clean.


Steal?
He gave him his half of the looT
Fair and square


Title: Re: Does CLint really shoot people in the back?
Post by: dave jenkins on December 15, 2016, 01:00:43 PM
The loot is ALL Tuco's. Blondie only gave him half. Blondie must die.

You have to look at these things from Tuco's point of view.