Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Once Upon A Time In The West => Topic started by: conradv on November 23, 2004, 10:31:24 AM



Title: 2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: conradv on November 23, 2004, 10:31:24 AM
Not sure if this had been discussed or not - couldn't find it



But, why do all of the posters, covers, etc... show all three of the baddies with coats (dusters), when only two were wearing them in the movie?

I guess they thought it looked more balanced?


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: dave jenkins on November 25, 2004, 12:16:45 AM
Hmmmmm.

"Inside the three dusters were three men. Inside the men were three holes."

Even Harmonica got it wrong!


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: Danny on November 25, 2004, 12:32:02 AM
Yep, you're right. He's the one without a duster.
(http://www.btinternet.com/~ramon/sw/images/cc03o.jpg)


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: The Smoker on November 25, 2004, 12:48:21 PM
Dosn't Woody Strode take his off??


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: grandpa_chum on November 25, 2004, 02:46:19 PM
I'm pretty sure he has it on when we first trail up from his gun to his face.


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: DJIMBO on November 25, 2004, 04:21:40 PM
strode definitely has it on when he chases the woman out...he obviously takes it off but we dont see him do it


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: KERMIT on November 25, 2004, 07:25:40 PM
so when harmonica arrives he sees three men.  two in dusters ?


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: grandpa_chum on November 25, 2004, 10:08:26 PM
well... I believe strode doesn't have it on when the shootout occurs... but it is in the general vicinity and i'm sure upon leaving the station harmonica can put two and two together... there are only 3 men currently at the station... and there are 3 dusters present... so i wouldn't call it a mistake... not in the movie anyway... the posters are obviously because they think it looks better... and i've never really noticed so i guess it worked well enough.


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: dave jenkins on November 25, 2004, 11:15:07 PM
But Harmonica says exactly, "In the dusters there were three men. In the men there were three holes."
It isn't literally true (only two of the men with holes in them were in dusters), but maybe we can give Harmonica some poetic license on this.


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: The Smoker on November 26, 2004, 02:27:29 AM
Yep, you're right. He's the one without a duster.
(http://www.btinternet.com/~ramon/sw/images/cc03o.jpg)

No look, when he finds his place in the shade (see Danny's posted photo)... look whats hanging up behind him.

That shadow looks very dustious in preportions  ;D


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: Angel-Eyes on November 26, 2004, 03:35:24 AM
Woody left his duster  on the saddle of his horse.

So Harmonica probably did see it.


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: The Smoker on November 26, 2004, 09:09:35 AM
Inside the three dusters hang on.. well actually one bloke wasn't wearing his.  Where was i' oh. Inside these men were three bullets. You see its a bit of a long story but.....well i shot all three of em dammit.. ..ya hear.. gimme that colt back!!!

....Don't have the same ring to it really.  ;D


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: Il Buono on November 26, 2004, 12:13:19 PM
 :Dlol


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: conradv on November 26, 2004, 04:20:52 PM
It's really too bad, I think, that all three weren't wearing them when they were gunned down.

I noticed it the very first time I saw the movie, and I always thought that Strode looked kind of out of place.


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: grandpa_chum on November 26, 2004, 11:37:00 PM
ok ok ok... i really don't want to get into the subtleties of the dialogue... but he does say exactly "Inside the dusters, there were three men." and technically there were... granted harmonica never saw all three of them in the dusters... but three men, three dusters... if strode left it on his horse... the horses were not only in plain view... but harmonica needed a horse to get to sweetwater, so he would have taken a look at them... then he says "Inside the men, there were three bullets."... that also is true... none of this technically implies or states that he saw three men wearing three dusters with three bullets in them... he just stated that three men wore three dusters, which they did, which he or anyone could obviously tell... he didn't imply when or that he saw them or that the bullets were ever in the men while wearing dusters...

also... the other two men are most definitly wearing the dusters, in fact they hold em back with one hand and shoot with the other... and strode doesn't look out of place... sure he's a black hired gun and isn't wearing his duster at the time of the showdown... but it still works.

there... if you disagree with any of that let me know... haha


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: Dlanor on November 27, 2004, 05:34:09 AM
Harmonica said the bullets were in the men, not in the dusters.
Woody Strode simply left his duster away and maybe Harmonica saw it. Or maybe Harmonica used  the word "duster" as a Nickname to design the members of Frank crew, as the dusters were their mark.
 In France we call the "Tedy Boys"," the Black bomber jackets": "Les blousons noirs". When we speak about a Black Bomber Jacket, we don't refer to the black bomber jacket in itself but to the man who belong to the gang. Even if is not  currently wearing his bomber , he is still a Teddy boy (black bomber jacket).


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: Denys on November 27, 2004, 07:04:07 AM
Well, in the italian version, where many shots aren't cue and cut at the same place, we can clearly see Woody Strode tying his duster on the saddle of his horse and then heading back to wait Harmonica. Et Voila! L'enigme est résolue!!


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: conradv on November 29, 2004, 11:27:44 AM
none of this technically implies or states that he saw three men wearing three dusters with three bullets in them... he just stated that three men wore three dusters, which they did, which he or anyone could obviously tell...

I agree with you in principal, but who's to say that he didn't just like to put the duster over his horse's rear when it got cold?  ;D

and strode doesn't look out of place... sure he's a black hired gun and isn't wearing his duster at the time of the showdown... but it still works.

But it would have looked SO MUCH better if all three had 'em on, in my opinion.  And apparently in a lot of studio exec's opinion's as well, or why would all of the posters & literature have all three with dusters? ;D


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: grandpa_chum on November 29, 2004, 09:47:46 PM
first off they only wore the dusters for that one day... they were posing as cheyennes men when they were clearly franks... so to say he just liked to warm is horses ass is ridiculous... and i guess he could have just carried it and never wore it... but thats not the point... point is the movie is damn near flawless


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: dave jenkins on November 29, 2004, 10:50:39 PM
first off they only wore the dusters for that one day... they were posing as cheyennes men when they were clearly franks...  point is the movie is damn near flawless
Then, why did Strode take his duster off? Since the plan was to put the blame on Cheyenne's men by wearing the dusters, the point of wearing the dusters was TO WEAR THE DUSTERS. Strode is rather casual about this. He doesn't seem very concerned about following Frank's plan. Makes you kind of wonder if he's ever even *heard* of Frank (or has read beyond the first 10 pages of the screenplay).

As for this being a perfect movie, I seem to remember something about a continuity problem involving the scene with Jill and Frank at the ranch, the cut to the Navajo cliffs, and then the cut to the bedroom scene with Frank.....


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: cigar joe on November 30, 2004, 04:06:17 AM
Quote
Then, why did Strode take his duster off? Since the plan was to put the blame on Cheyenne's men by wearing the dusters, the point of wearing the dusters was TO WEAR THE DUSTERS. Strode is rather casual about this. He doesn't seem very concerned about following Frank's plan. Makes you kind of wonder if he's ever even *heard* of Frank (or has read beyond the first 10 pages of the screenplay).

Well, Dave,  I could venture to guess that the dusters served there purpose since they were worn when Strode, Elam and Mulock came into the stationmasters shack and did their buisness with him. He would blame it on Cheyenne since they left him and the squaw alive. Harmonica was supposed to be shot down and his killing was to be blamed on Cheyenne's men by the stationmaster, no? So it wouldn't matter if any of them wore the dusters confronting Bronson.

On the other hand, Harmonica was supposed to be meeting Frank's men and not Cheyenne's so them wearing the dusters would have tipped off Harmonica that something was wrong....


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: grandpa_chum on December 02, 2004, 01:02:13 AM
well harmonica didn't know anything about cheyennes men... so them wearing dusters wouldn't have thrown anything off for him... not until after franks men didn't suceed in killing him of course.

and jenkins... my god!... is everyone crazy! does anyone else seriously think that 2 men wearing dusters and a 3rd carrying his does not competently carry out the plan of blaming harmonicas murder on cheyenne?!... hell look at the mcbain massacre... no one even saw them in their dusters and lived to talk about it and they still successfully pinned that one on cheyenne by leaving a piece of duster behind.... GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF THE SAND PEOPLE... THIS IS THE TOWN SHERRIFF NOT AN FBI STAKEOUT!


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: cigar joe on December 02, 2004, 04:23:17 AM
Quote
On the other hand, Harmonica was supposed to be meeting Frank's men and not Cheyenne's so them wearing the dusters would have tipped off Harmonica that something was wrong....


I'll stand corrected....it wouldn't have mattered what they wore then if Harmonica wasn't aware of Cheyenne or his gang. But it does make for a memorable line.


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: grandpa_chum on December 02, 2004, 11:20:59 AM
actually you don't really need to stand corrected... you are right... but only after harmonica gets away and realizes that cheyenne's gang wears the dusters... that actually does tip him off that something is wrong and that frank really was the one that massacred the mcbain family and that cheyenne is clean in that respect


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: NoGoodBoyo on December 03, 2004, 03:09:24 PM
As for this being a perfect movie, I seem to remember something about a continuity problem involving the scene with Jill and Frank at the ranch, the cut to the Navajo cliffs, and then the cut to the bedroom scene with Frank.....

One of the people on the DVD commentary mentioned this supposed continuity error.  But, if you look closely at the background in the "bedroom" scene, it does look like it's a "cave", so I don't think there is an error.  I guess Frank likes his comfort even in his temporary hideouts.

I take it that the three were wearing dusters because they were late getting to the Mcbain ranch with Frank.  I think the commentary also pointed out the train was late as is indicated on the chalkboard in the station.

Perfect movie...? pretty damn close.


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: Belkin on December 03, 2004, 03:20:08 PM
Maybe HARMONICA didn't get off the train.....Maybe he was hiding in the distance.....Maybe he saw three men arrive in dusters.....Maybe he trailed em' fer' days/hours before they arrived at the station.....Maybe.....maybe..... ::)


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: dave jenkins on December 03, 2004, 04:32:46 PM
One of the people on the DVD commentary mentioned this supposed continuity error.  But, if you look closely at the background in the "bedroom" scene, it does look like it's a "cave", so I don't think there is an error.  I guess Frank likes his comfort even in his temporary hideouts.

Perfect movie...? pretty damn close.

It's not the locations that I have a problem with, it's the sequence of events: Jill is looking for the model sign that says "Station" when Frank hands it to her. The implication is that she is now in his power. So, what does Frank do with the opportunity? He immediately goes to the Navajo Cliffs so he can humiliate Morton! Only later do we see him in bed with Jill (possibly in one of the caves in the cliffs). And this follows another intervening scene (the one where Harmonica and Cheyenne start laying out Sweetwater). It has taken Frank 3 scenes after capturing Jill to get her into bed! Unbelievable! No story logic can account for this, but a continuity error could.


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: grandpa_chum on December 03, 2004, 10:58:18 PM
It's not the locations that I have a problem with, it's the sequence of events: Jill is looking for the model sign that says "Station" when Frank hands it to her. The implication is that she is now in his power. So, what does Frank do with the opportunity? He immediately goes to the Navajo Cliffs so he can humiliate Morton! Only later do we see him in bed with Jill (possibly in one of the caves in the cliffs). And this follows another intervening scene (the one where Harmonica and Cheyenne start laying out Sweetwater). It has taken Frank 3 scenes after capturing Jill to get her into bed! Unbelievable! No story logic can account for this, but a continuity error could.

Dave, Dave... i hate to continue the theme here... but I disagree completely and passionately... although respectably this time...

... it all makes sense to me and i see no continuity problem... Frank tells his men or morton or whoever to meet him at the navajo cliffs... Frank gets Jill... Frank is talking with morton at the navajo cliffs, actually discussing jill's fate, while obviously jill is being held by some baddie at the cliffs... Jill and frank then have their little bed scene, which is obviously not the bed from the sweetwater ranch... we all know that... Intercut with harmonica and cheyenne laying out sweetwater unaware that jill has been hijacked... what is the error there...

... this is in my opinion not only the best movie of all time... but also one of the most flawless; technically, dramatically, and atmospherically.


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: cigar joe on December 04, 2004, 06:49:01 AM
Yea Dave I got to kind of agree with g_c there, I don't see any problem with the senario the way he layed it out.


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: DJIMBO on December 04, 2004, 08:42:33 AM
Dave, Dave... i hate to continue the theme here... but I disagree completely and passionately... although respectably this time...

... it all makes sense to me and i see no continuity problem... Frank tells his men or morton or whoever to meet him at the navajo cliffs... Frank gets Jill... Frank is talking with morton at the navajo cliffs, actually discussing jill's fate, while obviously jill is being held by some baddie at the cliffs... Jill and frank then have their little bed scene, which is obviously not the bed from the sweetwater ranch... we all know that... Intercut with harmonica and cheyenne laying out sweetwater unaware that jill has been hijacked... what is the error there...

... this is in my opinion not only the best movie of all time... but also one of the most flawless; technically, dramatically, and atmospherically.



Grandpa_chum i could not be in greater agreement with you, this film, as far as i can see, is flawless, the only flaws that people can highlight are in the old yankee versions when they cut out 20 minutes which made the story make no sense. However davejenkins has a point, ive never worked out why that love scene comes later than the 'station' thing.

The point is that leone's lyrical sweep means that little details like that dont matter...as a viewer you're completely convinced by Leone's whole message.


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: grandpa_chum on December 04, 2004, 11:32:19 AM
yeah... i see his point... probably because i was convinced it was a continuity error for a year or so... i always thought they were still in sweetwater doing the "love scene" but once i realized that wasn't the case it all made sense.


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: dave jenkins on December 05, 2004, 10:48:46 PM
Grandpa_chum i could not be in greater agreement with you, this film, as far as i can see, is flawless, the only flaws that people can highlight are in the old yankee versions when they cut out 20 minutes which made the story make no sense. However davejenkins has a point, ive never worked out why that love scene comes later than the 'station' thing.

The point is that leone's lyrical sweep means that little details like that dont matter...as a viewer you're completely convinced by Leone's whole message.

Okay, I agree with everybody, especially the bit about the lyrical sweep of things. None of this really matters and it only starts to occupy your thinking after you've seen the movie about 20 times. First-time viewers never have any trouble with these issues so Leone did his job just fine.

But I have to say, regarding the Sweetwater/Navajo Cliffs/Jill-and-Frank-in-bed sequence that, although it works as is, it could have been sequenced in a different and (to me) slightly more pleasing way. My biggest problem is that Frank takes too long to get Jill into the sack. I've another concern as well: as the film exists now, we go from Jill-and-Frank-in-bed to the auction, and the cut is slightly confusing. I think Alex Cox mentions this in his commentary. The auction scene begins with a shot of Harmonica stepping into frame in profile and then peering through some curtains (or something). Coming as it does right after the bed scene, there is a split second when the viewer might think that H is spying on Frank and Jill. Granted, the viewer immediately discards that notion as soon as he sees that the scene has changed, but that moment of disorientation where the viewer doesn't know where he is seems unnecessary. I say unnecessary because by reordering the preceding scenes it can be eliminated.

Here's my preferred sequencing: Frank-and-Jill at Sweetwater/Harmonica and Cheyenne at Sweetwater/Frank-and-Jill in bed/Navajo Cliffs/the auction. By cutting away from Navajo Cliffs to the auction the audience immediately knows the scene has changed, and waits for more information before jumping to conclusions. There is no longer any temptation to be misled into thinking Harmonica is in the same scene with Frank and Jill (to me this makes for superior montage).

Other advantages result from this sequencing, the chief being that Frank gets Jill into bed sooner. Also it may make more sense that Frank insults Morton after bedding Jill (perhaps in part because he has both her and her land at that point and feels particularly powerful). Finally, Frank's concession that Morton can pay for Sweetwater makes a very good lead into the auction scene which, in this altered sequencing, immediately follows.

As far as I can see, this alternate sequencing does not create any problems and solves the issues I've mentioned above. Others may feel all this is unnecessary and that the film plays fine as is. To each his own.


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: grandpa_chum on December 06, 2004, 01:06:21 AM
WOW.... first off... if you've ever watched a leone movie you know the Harmonica in the window confusion scene is Leone's way of having a little fun and is done on purpose... secondly... the auction scene doesn't work unless it's directly after the bed scene... we need to know why Jill is just giving in and selling the ranch... if jill and frank are in bed sooner it takes away that whole mood of frank forcing her into it...

as for the scene with frank and morton coming after the jill and frank scene... it just wouldn't work for me... the bed scene just doesn't pan out the way it does without the morton wormy apple scene coming before it... First off you'd have a real continuity problem, because frank and jill would instantly go from the sweetwater ranch to a bed in the navajo cliffs without any sort of transition... Secondly because the only reason Frank talks to jill the way he does is because he finally feels superior to Morton and more powerful, which was setup in the wormy apple scene... i just don't think it has the same effect as a wrap up scene instead of a set up scene.

I know i must sound like a "don't EVER question Leone... he is a god" and i have been known by my friends to sound that way... but this is just one sequence of scenes i just can't see a problem with.

And everything Cox says on the dvd is with the understanding that he thinks they are in bed in sweetwater not the navajo cliffs.


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: conradv on December 07, 2004, 03:14:57 PM
*drools*

(http://a1259.g.akamai.net/f/1259/5586/1d/images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/large/10104000/10104369.jpg)


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: dave jenkins on December 10, 2004, 12:18:37 AM

I know i must sound like a "don't EVER question Leone... he is a god" and i have been known by my friends to sound that way...

Gramps, this brings up an interesting question I've been meaning to ask you: What do you think about the alternate versions of OUATITW? And what about the Italian version, which has some of the same shots but of either longer or shorter duration, and even shots that don't appear in the U.S. version? Is it true that the restored Italian version is 16 minutes longer than the current U.S. one? If so, wouldn't that make the Italian version the "better" version (even more of "the greatest film ever made")? If not, why not? Enquiring minds want to know.....


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: Dlanor on December 10, 2004, 06:56:37 AM
 I don't understand why Frank should jump on Jill immediately in Sweet Water. I don't understand  why he should take her immediately in bed in Navaro cliff immediately after Sweet Water either.
Frank is not a teenager who react to his immediate impulse. His experience in what I what I would call "bad buisness" may have learned him that in order to reach your goal it's sometime better to put things in stand by. Frank wanted to marry Jill, do you think that "rapping" her at Sweet Water would be the best way to persuade her?
The scene with Morton before is usefull as it gives the idea of the location of the scene, without it we could have thought that the bed scene took place at Sweet Water. And as said Gran Pa the cut need a certain "variety" to perform. If you see Frank and Jill in Sweet Water and then immeditely after in Navajo cliff I don't know but it tends to be too demonstrative.
 Frank must had his reasons to make her waiting, remember he is sixity, so is not pressed by his hormones and the charcateristic impatience of the young age. In Navajo, Jill is in his power, at his home, not at Sweet water.
 I don't say that this montage was perfect anyway, it could have been better that's true and I never said that anything Leone did was perfect.
 I don't really visualize what scene you are reffering to with H spying Jill before the auction. I just remember a scene when H was "spying" Jill just before she met the "fat man" ( I don't remember his name) of the laundry. Jill and H were in the same shot there.


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: dave jenkins on December 10, 2004, 07:25:29 PM
... the auction scene doesn't work unless it's directly after the bed scene... we need to know why Jill is just giving in and selling the ranch... if jill and frank are in bed sooner it takes away that whole mood of frank forcing her into it...

as for the scene with frank and morton coming after the jill and frank scene... it just wouldn't work for me... the bed scene just doesn't pan out the way it does without the morton wormy apple scene coming before it... First off you'd have a real continuity problem, because frank and jill would instantly go from the sweetwater ranch to a bed in the navajo cliffs without any sort of transition... Secondly because the only reason Frank talks to jill the way he does is because he finally feels superior to Morton and more powerful, which was setup in the wormy apple scene...

The sequencing as I've imagined it would work like this:
Jill and Frank are at Sweetwater/CUT TO: Harmonica and Cheyenne at Sweetwater (time has passed)/CUT TO: Frank and Jill in bed in a cave in the Navajo Cliffs. Frank talks about not wanting to kill Jill; there must be another way to get control of her land. What about marriage? No, Frank decides that won't work. A simpler way has to be found (there's a beat while the audience ponders what Frank might come up with)/CUT TO: CU of Morton, EXT Navajo Cliffs: "I know that woman is here.....I want to make a deal." The humiliation of Morton follows. Frank's last line, in a wide shot: "Oh, Morton, about the land. You can pay for it if you want to....." Morton has supplied Frank with the solution he was looking for./CUT TO: Auction Scene where Jill (under duress) is selling out.

The way the film runs now works, but I think this alternate sequencing works too. Sure, Frank could act the way he does with Jill because he's had his interview with Morton; he could also act the way he does with Morton because he's had his "interview" with Jill. The exercise of power enhances sex, but the opposite is also true (at least, that's what they tell me.....)


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: dave jenkins on December 10, 2004, 07:36:33 PM
Frank must had his reasons to make her waiting, remember he is sixity, so is not pressed by his hormones and the charcateristic impatience of the young age.

Henry Fonda may have been 60 when he made the movie, but Frank is a considerably younger man. Mid-40s, I'd guess, just old enough to start developing prostrate problems, but still young enough to get headaches from going without.....


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: grandpa_chum on December 10, 2004, 08:15:01 PM
I have absolutely no knowledge of any other versions of west because the restored dvd version released in the US is the only one i've seen... and a restored film version i saw at a theatre in chicago... and they were both the same as far as i know...

and i never said you're sequence wouldn't work... it sounds like it would... but if it ain't broke don't fix it... i could go through a million changes to this movie that would technically work... but who knows how it would effect the overall picture... we just don't know.


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: Jupa on December 28, 2004, 08:31:09 AM
And what about the Italian version, which has some of the same shots but of either longer or shorter duration, and even shots that don''t appear in the U.S. version? Is it true that the restored Italian version is 16 minutes longer than the current U.S. one? If so, wouldn''t that make the Italian version the "better" version (even more of "the greatest film ever made")? If not, why not?

Well yes,you''re right,the Italian DVD version is indeed longer.However,the quality of the Italian DVD is poorer than the quality of other DVD''s,so quality-wise it is not a better version.

But I would have wanted to see the extra minutes in the non-Italian OUATITW DVD''s too.It''s sad they excluded them from the DVD.The GBU DVD has the extra scenes,why can''t the OUATITW DVD have them?


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: Jupa on December 28, 2004, 08:36:42 AM
But Harmonica says exactly, "In the dusters there were three men. In the men there were three holes."

Well,to be precise,Harmonica says exactly "Inside the dusters there were three men.Inside the men there were three bullets."


Title: Re:2 dusters, not 3....
Post by: Jupa on December 28, 2004, 08:40:32 AM
I''ve never noticed this illogicality in the movie,but I understood it right away from the title of this thread,before even reading it.

And yes,you''re right!Harmonica should have said:"I saw two of these dusters and Woody Strode a short time ago,they were waiting for a train."  :D