Sergio Leone Web Board

General Information => Sergio Leone News => Topic started by: Le Bon on May 05, 2006, 03:37:14 PM

Title: Alex Cox article
Post by: Le Bon on May 05, 2006, 03:37:14 PM
There's a interesting article on this link by Alex Cox. Pity he didn't print the photo though.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1767669,00.html
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Firecracker on May 05, 2006, 03:44:19 PM
There's a interesting article on this link by Alex Cox. Pity he didn't print the photo though.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1767669,00.html

I already hate the opening segment.




"Nothing-NOT EVEN BROKE BACK MOUNTAIN -could bring the western back"




 I love the way "Brokeback mountain" is depicted as the "western that would bring back westerns". It isnt even a f***ing western!! And not a classic. It will be forgotten by this time next year.
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Peacemaker on May 05, 2006, 03:46:27 PM
Yeh seriously, the only reason everyone praises the movie is because it's pro-gay. I'm not anti-gay ( I'm a Liberal who believes in total equality ) but just because it's different doesn't make it a masterpiece! God!

Someday in the future, the western will return........in a whole new style ( wonder what? ).
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: franksgrandson on May 05, 2006, 04:29:51 PM
lets not get me on the subject or THAT MOVIE
a more appropriate name would have been
Hairy back mountain
John Wayne, Ford and Leone would be turning in their graves having this disgrace classed as a western
what next a cross dressing cowboy or girl not quite sure but hey its normal, leave that sort of thing to Mel Brooks westerns
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: Sundance on May 05, 2006, 05:22:47 PM
So anybody seen that LONESOME COWBOYS from 1969?
Which the article mentions: "In 1969, Paul Morrissey and Andy Warhol made Lonesome Cowboys, the first "mainstream" gay western."

The plot sounds interesting (taken from xploitedcinema which sells it, and has spoilers :P):

This experimental western from cult icon Andy Warhol concerns nine people in a ghost town looking for love. Ramona Alvarez (Viva) and her perpetually stoned nurse (Mead) run into five gay cowboys led by Louis Waldon. They all want to have sex with a handsome drifter (Tom Hompertz), except for the transvestite sheriff (Francis Francine), who can't be bothered about anything but his outfit. Ramona is raped by the cowboys then has sex with Hompertz and wants to form a suicide pact in the afterglow. Hompertz wants no part of such a pact, however, and rides off into the sunset with another man (Eric Emerson)…

Will be on my to-buy list. 8)
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Firecracker on May 05, 2006, 05:24:15 PM

This experimental western from cult icon Andy Warhol concerns nine people in a ghost town looking for love. Ramona Alvarez (Viva) and her perpetually stoned nurse (Mead) run into five gay cowboys led by Louis Waldon. They all want to have sex with a handsome drifter (Tom Hompertz), except for the transvestite sheriff (Francis Francine), who can't be bothered about anything but his outfit. Ramona is raped by the cowboys then has sex with Hompertz and wants to form a suicide pact in the afterglow. Hompertz wants no part of such a pact, however, and rides off into the sunset with another man (Eric Emerson)…



sounds more interesting than the dreary Broke Back Mountain.
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Firecracker on May 06, 2006, 01:09:14 AM
There's a interesting article on this link by Alex Cox. Pity he didn't print the photo though.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1767669,00.html
read the article, very interesting.
I would love to see the picture Cox talks about with Leone, Peckinpah and Monty Hellmen on the set of "China 9 Liberty 37". I saw "china" the other night. I have a crappy pan and scan version of it. it stars Fabio Testi as the anti-hero and Peckinpah in a small role as a "western fiction" book writer wanting to write down the exploits of Testi's character(he doesnt get far).
Overall the film was ok. pleasent time consumer. Wouldnt advise anybody to go out of there way to seek it out though.

But I am getting off topic. does anybody have the picture mentioned in the article?
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: noodles_leone on May 06, 2006, 11:23:12 AM
!!! I think my aunt saw LONESOME COWBOYS from 1969... She actually often mentions a very strange western that she saw years ago, with gay cowboys... I think it was very "art et essais" as we say in french, and very engaged... But i'm afraid it is not so good...
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: Le Bon on May 06, 2006, 05:26:36 PM
Found the Peckinpah/Leone photo. ;D Well no i can't take the credit for finding it :-[ Someone on the SWWB found it. I 'll have to put the link here as i can't seem to get the photo on here.

http://s8.invisionfree.com/MHVF/index.php?showtopic=5361
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Firecracker on May 06, 2006, 05:29:08 PM
Thanks Le Bon :)

Leone seems to be sending hateful vibes towards Peckinpah ;D
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: Le Bon on May 06, 2006, 05:33:02 PM
Heh  ;) What's that in his hand!! ???
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Firecracker on May 06, 2006, 05:34:58 PM
What's that in his hand!! ???

I am not quite sure...perhaps some sort of weapon he was waiting to plunge into Peckinpah's back after the picture was taken ???
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: Groggy on May 07, 2006, 05:54:34 AM
Yeh seriously, the only reason everyone praises the movie is because it's pro-gay. I'm not anti-gay ( I'm a Liberal who believes in total equality ) but just because it's different doesn't make it a masterpiece! God!

THANK YOU!  If the movie were about two heterosexuals who liked to "fish", then nobody would've went to see it, and nobody would have cared!
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: Groggy on May 07, 2006, 05:57:44 AM
Found the Peckinpah/Leone photo. ;D Well no i can't take the credit for finding it :-[ Someone on the SWWB found it. I 'll have to put the link here as i can't seem to get the photo on here.

http://s8.invisionfree.com/MHVF/index.php?showtopic=5361

I assume Peck is the bearded fellow on the left?

Anyway, cool picture.  Now we have proof that they met at least once.
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Firecracker on May 07, 2006, 10:27:36 AM
I assume Peck is the bearded fellow on the left?

Anyway, cool picture.  Now we have proof that they met at least once.

yes that is him. He is in costume for the film he was acting in(which he is pretty laughable in).
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: Groggy on May 07, 2006, 03:36:43 PM
Was it that "China 9, Liberty 37" thing with Warren Oates?  I've heard of it.

Now, to get the picture onto this thread. . .

(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g118/cinedustries/PhotofromtheSetofCHINA9.jpg)
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: dave jenkins on May 07, 2006, 07:21:10 PM
Thanks, Groggy. BTW, did you read the Alex Cox piece? He had this to say about The Wild Bunch: " This was western as critique of the Vietnam war. Its protagonists dressed in US army uniforms and provoked massacres of civilians. Invading Mexico, trying to do the right thing, they racked up still greater inventories of innocent dead."

Are you gonna let that pass without a response?
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Firecracker on May 08, 2006, 09:26:23 AM
Was it that "China 9, Liberty 37" thing with Warren Oates?  I've heard of it.



Yes that is exactly what it is. I mentioned it in an earlier post here on this thread. It was ok. I would say it is just below average but it is worth a view. If your a fan of Peck Groggy perhaps you should check it out. I could send you a copy if you like

BUT BE WARNED, I have a crappy pan and scan copy. But since you would be getting it for free I dont think it is something to complain about. :)
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Peacemaker on May 08, 2006, 02:32:07 PM
I saw China 9, Liberty 27 and IMO it sucked.
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: Groggy on May 08, 2006, 04:12:05 PM
Thanks, Groggy. BTW, did you read the Alex Cox piece? He had this to say about The Wild Bunch: "This was western as critique of the Vietnam war. Its protagonists dressed in US army uniforms and provoked massacres of civilians. Invading Mexico, trying to do the right thing, they racked up still greater inventories of innocent dead."

Are you gonna let that pass without a response?

What do you want me to say??   ???
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Firecracker on May 08, 2006, 04:41:32 PM
I saw China 9, Liberty 27 and IMO it sucked.


yeah the first hour is slow and very boring but after the wife "kills" her husband and runs of with Fabio Testi it gets going rather well.

and I have seen much worse spaghetti westerns.
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Peacemaker on May 08, 2006, 04:43:37 PM

yeah the first hour is slow and very boring but after the wife "kills" her husband and runs of with Fabio Testi it gets going rather well.

and I have seen much worse spaghetti westerns.

Worse?!? That was the worst spaghetti I ever saw, I can't imagine how low the ones you saw go!
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Firecracker on May 08, 2006, 04:44:58 PM
Worse?!? That was the worst spaghetti I ever saw, I can't imagine how low the ones you saw go!

well I think I need to send you "Kid Vengeance" ;D
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Peacemaker on May 08, 2006, 04:46:20 PM
I saw Kid Vengeance and it was pretty bad. Just not as bad as C 9 L 27.
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Firecracker on May 08, 2006, 04:48:19 PM
I saw Kid Vengeance and it was pretty bad. Just not as bad as C 9 L 27.


I would say it is worse. I would also say "Boot Hill" is worse too.
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Peacemaker on May 08, 2006, 04:49:05 PM

I would say it is worse. I would also say "Boot Hill" is worse too.

I like Boot Hill!  ;D
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Firecracker on May 08, 2006, 04:49:44 PM
I like Boot Hill!  ;D

well I dont! >:( >:(


 ;)
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Firecracker on May 08, 2006, 04:50:56 PM


(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g118/cinedustries/PhotofromtheSetofCHINA9.jpg)


by the way Le Bon, that object in leone's hand seem to be sun glasses.
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Peacemaker on May 08, 2006, 04:52:02 PM
That could be. I still like the knife in Peckinpah's back theory!  ;D
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: dave jenkins on May 09, 2006, 12:44:40 AM
What do you want me to say??   ???
Nothin', I guess. So you knew that TWB was actually a critique of the Vietnam War, eh? Well, it was news to me, but I guess Alex Cox knows what he's talking about. After all, he's made some of the greatest movies ever, so his understanding of the films of others must certainly be unparalleld. I really like the way he uses the term "invaded" to slam dunk his analysis. Yeah, the Wild Bunch "invaded" Mexico; a dozen guys qualifies as an invasion. That Alex Cox: look up the word "genius" in the dictionary, and you're sure to find his face there.
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: cigar joe on May 09, 2006, 05:42:40 AM
lets get back to the article instead of these tangents, I think it very interesting what he says about why the industry is shying away from making the kind of westerns I would want to watch.

This is the important point of the article, thay we should be hatching over.
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Firecracker on May 09, 2006, 08:36:24 AM
To be honest the article wasnt anything I already didnt know and wasnt that interesting. The only thing of interest(for me) that came out of this was the picture.

I have nothing to say on the subject so as not to upset others I will not post on this thread  any longer, unless a topic of interest arises.
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: cigar joe on May 09, 2006, 08:51:48 AM
Quote
It was a crisis point. The genre, which had once been a celebration of traditional American values of self-reliance and individuality, had forked. Its reactionary tendency - the films of Burt Kennedy and Wayne - had hit a brick wall. Its revolutionary tendency was postmodern, respecting neither genre nor linear narrative: the cowboy version of punk. Hollywood was wasting money on the former, and afraid of the latter. It didn't want any more individualism; it needed reactionary stories, with heroes who worked willingly for the rancher, for the military, for the man. The hero was no longer the outlaw. He was the corporate secret agent played by Harrison Ford, the patriotic airman played by Tom Cruise. He was the vengeful cop played by Bruce Willis, or the vengeful fireman, or war hero, or robot, played by an Austrian weightlifter.

This was the statement I found interesting.

In Unforgiven Eastwood plays a badman gone straight, until provoked by a bad apple sheriff.
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: Groggy on May 09, 2006, 04:12:21 PM
Well, I thought you wanted some kind of political crap.

No, I don't agree with that analysis, for numerous reasons.  Namely, that unlike America in 'Nam, the Bunch didn't even try or pretend to do the "right thing" until the very end of the goddamned movie, they were more worried about covering their own asses.  And yeah, the "US Army uniform" argument was garbage, they didn't wear them after the first thirty minutes, so what-the-f--k ever. 
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: cigar joe on May 09, 2006, 06:34:32 PM
I'm not talking about the wild bunch I'm talking about  this.....

Quote
it needed reactionary stories, with heroes who worked willingly for the rancher, for the military, for the man. The hero was no longer the outlaw. He was the corporate secret agent played by Harrison Ford, the patriotic airman played by Tom Cruise. He was the vengeful cop played by Bruce Willis, or the vengeful fireman, or war hero, or robot, played by an Austrian weightlifter.

A plausible explanation of why we don't have films like Peckinpah and Leone's.

mercenary individualist out for himself (bad)

quasi individualist working for system (good)
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: franksgrandson on May 10, 2006, 12:25:31 PM
Alex Cox has in general got it right, Hollywood and other film makers are living in strange conservative times they are making safe patriotic movies, looking at the type of leading roles that are being played at the moment it feels like watching the old early forties war movies where the propaganda hits you in the face.
And can you really blame Hollywood, now is not the time to have a raft of  new Airport diaster movies or films dipicting our cities and towns getting blasted by aliens.
The films need to boot national morale and although they are not as propaganda based as the early John Mills, Richard Attenbrough films they still carry the same message that the good ie America, England and the West will prevail no matter what evil we are faced with.
And this carries right through the latest movies to the lead role, what is a great pity is that John Wayne is not around as some pretty neat Westerns would have surfaced or that our man Clint has not saddled up once more, as these icons of our culture would have projected the parts so much better than Cruise, Pitt and co.
Mainstream Films will continue as they are until we have won our war on terror, it will only be after then that we will see more off the wall films, think about it, it was only after Vietnam was well over that Hollywood brought out a raft of movies raking over that messy war, and here is the real problem we have
WW2 was a period in History that everyone knew the Allies would win so there was confidence in the future where at present we do not have that confidence yet, but it will come when we wise up and fight a real war up till then it is importaint that through films Tv and other media sources our morale is boosted by the entertainment we watch where we can see the Cruise government type beating all commers 
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: Groggy on May 10, 2006, 05:15:44 PM
I wasn't talking to YOU, Joe.  ::)
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: cigar joe on May 10, 2006, 06:27:41 PM

Quote
I wasn't talking to YOU, Joe.
 
 
ok
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: dave jenkins on May 12, 2006, 10:13:26 AM
Yeah, I think Groggy was talking to me.

Anyway, for another take on the Western (from a conservative/libertarian POV) you might want to check this out:      http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken109.html

This guy makes some good points, although he seems to think that people go to movies to be indoctrinated and/or have their world-views confirmed. Instead, they go to be entertained. This is something that those damned intellectuals never get. I don't, for example, watch a film noir because I'm feeling alienated and under the system's thumb and want to experience more of the same; rather, I watch a film noir to escape from the dull routine of daily life and experience vicariously things that are unfamiliar . Westerns are also escapist entertainment. I don't want to see a representation of what 19th Century frontier life was really like (dull, dull, dull); I want certain elements of the period abstracted and presented in such a way as to make the period seem exciting. And what is exciting for men (at least this one) are stories about other men facing death (which is why if you have a taste for Westerns you should also like war and action movies). This is why the socially relevant 50s Westerns were so wrong-headed: one should NOT mix real-life concerns with genre conventions (That's like going to a guy's house to watch the Superbowl and at half time he turns off the set and gives you an Amway pitch). So, even if the Western repudiates the values of the period it ostensibly represents, this is entirely irrelevant to its purpose. Of course, you can point out that only the triumph of 19th Century liberalism has made it possible for 20th and 21st Century people to denigrate such values (at least for the short time it takes to watch an entertainment), but all you're really showing is how much we take such things for granted. Escapism is only enjoyable if the escapee knows he can return to safety at any time.

Anyway, film companies fail the deliver entertainment not because of political orientation, but because they are incompetent entertainers. People don't like that interpretation because it is so dull, and so they create intricate fantasies to explain it another way. When not sufficiently entertained by others, pundits will always find ways to entertain themselves. And so it goes.     
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: Groggy on May 12, 2006, 04:19:03 PM
Agreed, Dave.  As a moderate conservative, do you REALLY think I watch "The Wild Bunch", "Major Dundee", or "Dances With Wolves" to get my "convictions" confirmed?  Do you think I'm going to go out and stab somebody with a pen after watching "Casino"?  The mistake intellectuals make is that thinking that everyone is like them, or is indelibly affected by movies.
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: cigar joe on May 12, 2006, 04:23:59 PM
Modern set films incorporate product placement, its a big thing, according to a buddy of mine in the liquor biz, so it goes with cars,  & etc., etc.  Must be much easier to film in the here and now rather than in the past or future. I like the escapism.
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Peacemaker on May 14, 2006, 03:58:04 PM
Must be much easier to film in the here and now rather than in the past or future.

That's true. Cox is incorrect.

The REAL reason the western was killed off was simply due to cost. Let's remember that to make a western costs a lot of money. You have to buy horses, guns, gun technicians, costumes, props suitable to the time period, including the cost of just making a movie. Westerns started to lose interest in the 80's so the studios who are only concerned with profit decided to stop making westerns.

Everything goes in a cycle, however. We just need a REALLY popular western to be made to start the trend. It doesn't have to be a Leone epic, just something popular, then we can make Leone style epics.
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: Groggy on May 14, 2006, 04:52:53 PM
Dunno if I can agree with that, Peacemaker.  I mean, "Dances With Wolves", "Unforgiven", and "Tombstone" were very popular, but there wasn't exactly a huge rush of Westerns coming after that (I know there were a couple but again, it wasn't like a wave of popularity). 

Really though, Westerns haven't been popular in the US since the '70s at the latest.  An occasional individual film, like "Silverado", notwithstanding.
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: cigar joe on May 14, 2006, 08:18:54 PM
I think another part of the problem is no one is writting Western based best sellers in the book department. You can see how fast popular books are turned into films.
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: Groggy on May 29, 2006, 03:38:40 PM
The biggest reason for the lack of Westerns is probably that, with the possible exception of Sam Elliot (IMO the closest thing to a John Wayne we have) and Kevin Costner, there aren't really any big Western stars.  I mean, think about it:

- John Wayne, Charles Bronson, Henry Fonda, James Stewart, James Coburn - dead
- Clint Eastwood - old, and has said he isn't going to do anymore
- Charlton Heston - pretty much a vegetable at this point, sadly

Who else is there?

Most actors do Westerns (when they do them) as a fun one-off film; I don't think there's been anybody in quite awhile who's made a career out of them (excluding character actors like Terry O'Quinn, who seems to pop up in most every Western of the last ten years).  I mean, Kurt Russell, Val Kilmer, and Kevin Kline were all in very popular Westerns, but have any of them made any since?  I'd be surprised.
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: JamesK on July 08, 2006, 05:51:55 AM
I already hate the opening segment:

"Nothing-NOT EVEN BROKE BACK MOUNTAIN -could bring the western back"
In Cox's defense, that's not part of the article, but a logline added by the editors.
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: iceman on July 15, 2006, 01:30:09 AM
There's a interesting article on this link by Alex Cox. Pity he didn't print the photo though.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1767669,00.html


Photo's here.....


http://www.alexcox.com/ppp.htm


ICE
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Firecracker on July 15, 2006, 02:04:13 AM

Photo's here.....


http://www.alexcox.com/ppp.htm


ICE

isnt there an alternate copy of that picture?
I swear I have seen the photo's occupance much more up close.
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Peacemaker on July 15, 2006, 11:16:10 AM
I still think Leone has an evil grin on his face as he stares at Peckinpah.   ;D   ;)
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: noodles_leone on July 19, 2006, 09:50:28 AM
COncerning westerns, these movies have always worked by waves, and each wave had to destroy "codes" f the previous ones.  I'm not going to make an history of the western, but the best example is of course the end of the classic amercan westerns in the late 1950's... The genre was going very bad. Then, the SW arrived, destroying many codes (anti-heroes, "cheap" esthetic, explicit violence and camerawork...).
Then, in the late 1960's, Peckinpah, brook and the like began another kind of westerns with TWB, the professionals, integrating the new ideas of SW. Then, it changed again, and again.

Each time, codes have been destroyed... Until Unforgiven, Brokebak Montain and Blueberry. These 3 latest popular "westerns" are a telling example of what the actual situation of the genre is: there is no code to break, no rule to destroy anymore. This is why, IMO, it is nowadays very difficult to help the genre to come back: it wouyld be so hard to find  a commun caracteristic for a new wave... Still, all of the futur film directors of this board (including me ;D) have to find sthg...
Title: Re: Alex Cox article
Post by: The Peacemaker on July 19, 2006, 11:04:39 AM
COncerning westerns, these movies have always worked by waves, and each wave had to destroy "codes" f the previous ones.  I'm not going to make an history of the western, but the best example is of course the end of the classic amercan westerns in the late 1950's... The genre was going very bad. Then, the SW arrived, destroying many codes (anti-heroes, "cheap" esthetic, explicit violence and camerawork...).
Then, in the late 1960's, Peckinpah, brook and the like began another kind of westerns with TWB, the professionals, integrating the new ideas of SW. Then, it changed again, and again.

Each time, codes have been destroyed... Until Unforgiven, Brokebak Montain and Blueberry. These 3 latest popular "westerns" are a telling example of what the actual situation of the genre is: there is no code to break, no rule to destroy anymore. This is why, IMO, it is nowadays very difficult to help the genre to come back: it wouyld be so hard to find  a commun caracteristic for a new wave... Still, all of the futur film directors of this board (including me ;D) have to find sthg...

I'll help any way I can.   ;D