Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => For a Few Dollars More => Topic started by: tokyorose on July 27, 2007, 06:25:58 PM



Title: Another Confession
Post by: tokyorose on July 27, 2007, 06:25:58 PM
Though not nearly as intriguing as rrpower's...

This was the third of the Dollars trilogy that I saw, right after The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.  I knew it was part of the trilogy and just rented it for that reason without reading anything about it.  Only Clint's picture was on the box too.  So imagine my surprise during that first scene on the train when the "reverend" lowers his bible and it's...aaaah!  It's Angel Eyes!  He's back from the dead!! Head for the hills!

Although I did figure out that he wasn't actually Angel Eyes, I wasn't sure whether he was bad or good until the scene where he and Manco play their footsies game out in the street.  But then, maybe Leone meant to keep us guessing up until then.



Title: Re: Another Confession
Post by: dave jenkins on July 27, 2007, 07:49:43 PM
In fact, as titoli has argued so persuasively on another thread, the Dollars pictures are not a trilogy. I believe the term we finally settled on was "trio."


Title: Re: Another Confession
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on July 27, 2007, 09:42:30 PM
I don't think it's an actual trilogy myself. It's obvious.


Title: Re: Another Confession
Post by: tokyorose on July 28, 2007, 09:50:02 AM
Yes, they're not a trilogy as in a three-part story such as the Lord of the Rings films or Pirates of the Caribbean films.  They are three separate stories which are loosely related, due to the possibility that they share the same main character.  I would argue that while FOD and FFDM are stand-alones, GBU is meant to be viewed after the audience has seen at least one of the other two films.  This is suggested by Blondie's appearance in the cemetary, fully garbed in the same costume as the other two films, including the poncho.  This is the point where the audience is meant to say, "Hey!  Wait a minute!  We've seen that guy before!" and recognize him at least as the mysterious gunslinger, if not as Joe or Manco.

That point aside, would you say that Mortimer appears to be a sinister character up until the conclusion of the hat-shooting scene?


Title: Re: Another Confession
Post by: cigar joe on July 28, 2007, 10:10:26 AM
Actually no, tokyorose I saw this film first so I didn't have any idea or preconceived notion.


Title: Re: Another Confession
Post by: dave jenkins on July 28, 2007, 10:27:25 AM
Yes, they're not a trilogy as in a three-part story such as the Lord of the Rings films or Pirates of the Caribbean films.  They are three separate stories which are loosely related, due to the possibility that they share the same main character.  I would argue that while FOD and FFDM are stand-alones, GBU is meant to be viewed after the audience has seen at least one of the other two films.  This is suggested by Blondie's appearance in the cemetary, fully garbed in the same costume as the other two films, including the poncho.  This is the point where the audience is meant to say, "Hey!  Wait a minute!  We've seen that guy before!" and recognize him at least as the mysterious gunslinger, if not as Joe or Manco.
It's a touch the Master intended us to appreciate, certainly, but it merely alludes to the other films, it does not, IMHO, serve to announce Blondies "true identity," as it were. Otherwise we're back to the trilogy idea. If the character is the same in all 3 films, the set, by definition, is a trilogy. But I don't think that is the case.


Title: Re: Another Confession
Post by: noodles_leone on July 31, 2007, 06:38:27 AM
It's a touch the Master intended us to appreciate, certainly, but it merely alludes to the other films, it does not, IMHO, serve to announce Blondies "true identity," as it were. Otherwise we're back to the trilogy idea. If the character is the same in all 3 films, the set, by definition, is a trilogy. But I don't think that is the case.

As i quoted somewhere else, Sergio Leone talked about it. And of course, it is not a "traditional" trilogy, but it IS a trilogy. This is the same character, no doubt about it. It doesn't mean that it is in the same "life"... the Man With No Name is a movie character, these films are not realistic. Don't forget Manco is able to  shoot apples in a very far tree without aiming.

So, Sergio Leone refered to it as a trilogy sharing the same character: "and at the end of GBU, he takes the costume he had in the previous movies, and rides to the south, to the adventures of a Fistful Of Dollars. That was my final trick for the audience. I like it: finishing the trilogy with a loop." (not exact quote).


Title: Re: Another Confession
Post by: dave jenkins on July 31, 2007, 08:20:44 AM
Ex post facto rationalizations are less impressive than stated intentions before the fact. This is the guy who also gave credence to the OUATIA dream theory--but only after the film was already playing. There are times to trust what SL said, and times when it is best to be wary. This was always the case with Hitchcock as well. In interviews, you could get straight answers to technical questions, but ask about the content of his films, and Hitchcock would start piling on the evasions and outright falsehoods.


Title: Re: Another Confession
Post by: noodles_leone on July 31, 2007, 08:35:06 AM
SL knew a lot of things about the american old west at the point where he directed GBU. He knew about guns. He knew that, according to History, GBU takes palce first, then FOD, and then FAFDM (their are even references to the civil war s a past event in FAFDM). He also knew how powerful (i mean as a character) the man with no name character was. He knew people didn't know all that. He knew people were expecting Clint to have his poncho... and he plays with that. I don't care about the "loop" thing, that about 1000 people in the whole world were able to understand at this time (you have to know the three movie by heart and know a lot about weapons and history). I'm just pintpointing that it is OBVIOUS that the man with no name is the same character in every movie, eventhough his name changes.

The "movie character" thing is my theory, and i'm sure SL didn't even thought about it. But he did things this way. What I mean is : this is the same character. He has the same face, the same expressions, his reactions are always the same. He is like famous characters in fairy tales : you don't care what happen between each story, he exists just for one story, but you use the same character.
baba Yaga in the russian fairy tales. Pai Mei in chinese exploitation movies. The Man With No Name in Leone's movies. Leone was not conscious of that, this is what he did... but he knew that THIS IS the same character.

I just cannot understand how it can be understood in another way... Look at Joe, look at Manco, look at Blondie, and try to assert this is not the same character. Come on...


Title: Re: Another Confession
Post by: dave jenkins on July 31, 2007, 10:12:23 AM

The "movie character" thing is my theory, and i'm sure SL didn't even thought about it. But he did things this way. What I mean is : this is the same character. He has the same face, the same expressions, his reactions are always the same. He is like famous characters in fairy tales : you don't care what happen between each story, he exists just for one story, but you use the same character.
baba Yaga in the russian fairy tales. Pai Mei in chinese exploitation movies. The Man With No Name in Leone's movies. Leone was not conscious of that, this is what he did... but he knew that THIS IS the same character.

I just cannot understand how it can be understood in another way... Look at Joe, look at Manco, look at Blondie, and try to assert this is not the same character. Come on...
There are differences, though. Joe responds to the "holy family" and acts to save them. Monco seems entirely motivated by money. Blondie is willing to surrender a very tidy sum for what amounts to a practical joke. These characters are close, it seems to me, but not necessarily identical.

I like to fall back on my "parallel worlds" theory. The 3 characters exist in 3 separate universes and are roughly the same person, but they've had different life experiences that make them distinct from each other. Then there is the world of OUATITW, where Joe/Monco/Blondie never existed......


Title: Re: Another Confession
Post by: cigar joe on July 31, 2007, 04:01:56 PM
Chronologically by weapons & other facts used it should go:

GBU - Civil War & Colt Navy's 1(862-63)

FAFDM - Newspaper dates, Colt Peacemakers (post 1873)

AFOD - Ramon uses a fully automatic machine gun (mid 1890's) (its not a Gatling Gun he's not cranking it) and the Mexican Soldiers are wearing Khaki uniforms, turn of the century


Title: Re: Another Confession
Post by: The Firecracker on July 31, 2007, 04:34:34 PM


AFOD - Ramon uses a fully automatic machine gun (mid 1890's)


But it's a fake? ???


Title: Re: Another Confession
Post by: cigar joe on July 31, 2007, 08:57:47 PM
yes, a prop mans creation sort of a cross between a Maxim and a Gatling, but the mex uniforms also point to the same time period.


Title: Re: Another Confession
Post by: noodles_leone on August 01, 2007, 03:04:54 AM
Chronologically by weapons & other facts used it should go:

GBU - Civil War & Colt Navy's 1(862-63)

FAFDM - Newspaper dates, Colt Peacemakers (post 1873)

AFOD - Ramon uses a fully automatic machine gun (mid 1890's) (its not a Gatling Gun he's not cranking it) and the Mexican Soldiers are wearing Khaki uniforms, turn of the century

What about Mortimer's Buntline Special (1889 i think)?


Title: Re: Another Confession
Post by: noodles_leone on August 01, 2007, 03:05:32 AM
I like to fall back on my "parallel worlds" theory. The 3 characters exist in 3 separate universes and are roughly the same person, but they've had different life experiences that make them distinct from each other. Then there is the world of OUATITW, where Joe/Monco/Blondie never existed......

so we completly agree...


Title: Re: Another Confession
Post by: cigar joe on August 01, 2007, 05:30:29 AM
Quote
What about Mortimer's Buntline Special (1889 i think)?


Actually almost everyone who sees that gun automatically assumes its a "Buntline Special". Mostly because that is all they have ever associated it with,  but in reality Colt made long barreled revolvers that they called "Colt Carbines" since the 1850's, you could order what ever length barrel you wanted. I thing its just Mortimer's version of a revolving carbine.

(http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/3497/coltcarbinepd2.jpg)


Title: Re: Another Confession
Post by: noodles_leone on August 01, 2007, 05:33:26 AM
really? i always saw it as a buntline special... i'll check again :)


Title: Re: Another Confession
Post by: cigar joe on August 01, 2007, 05:42:35 AM
no you are right they (most) people call it a Buntline Special, but I'm just saying they made long barrled Colts long before Buntline gave his "specials" to Wyatt & Bat.

I thing its just Mortimer's version of a revolving carbine, with a "pistol grip", That he probably adds the rifle stock attachment to.


Title: Re: Another Confession
Post by: ThePainkiller on August 15, 2007, 02:02:32 PM
I personally view this trilogy the same way I view the Jack Ryan/Tom CLancy movies. Same guy? Yes. Same Universe? Who knows, its possible (In the books Im sure they are, but the movies rarely allude to others in the group.)

I'd like to think he's the same guy, it helps you connect with the character more by knowing what sort of things have shaped his life. If you take it as three chronological films, its no wonder by the time we get to FFDM that Blondie doesnt say much, I mean look at everything he's seen in his life. He's watched a country tear itself apart. He's seen hundreds of men die, many at his own hand. I can only imagine that all the money he has made was spent on women and booze. I wish FFDM was the last chronologically, it ends on a high note for the character. After all of the death and destruction he has witnessed, he finally sees someone do something worth while and almost chivalrous (Mortimer blasting away Indio for his sister). After seeing some good left in the world, he rides off with a butt load of cash. Its a shame FFDM wasnt the thrid one chronologically, it ends perfectly for the character.


Title: Re: Another Confession
Post by: Mw/NNrules on September 25, 2007, 07:42:08 PM
I personally view this trilogy the same way I view the Jack Ryan/Tom CLancy movies. Same guy? Yes. Same Universe? Who knows, its possible (In the books Im sure they are, but the movies rarely allude to others in the group.)

I'd like to think he's the same guy, it helps you connect with the character more by knowing what sort of things have shaped his life. If you take it as three chronological films, its no wonder by the time we get to FFDM that Blondie doesnt say much, I mean look at everything he's seen in his life. He's watched a country tear itself apart. He's seen hundreds of men die, many at his own hand. I can only imagine that all the money he has made was spent on women and booze. I wish FFDM was the last chronologically, it ends on a high note for the character. After all of the death and destruction he has witnessed, he finally sees someone do something worth while and almost chivalrous (Mortimer blasting away Indio for his sister). After seeing some good left in the world, he rides off with a butt load of cash. Its a shame FFDM wasnt the thrid one chronologically, it ends perfectly for the character.
Very well made points. I often just see it as a chronological trilogy for my own amusement. Just for cheap kicks. An example I can use to make a small point: The Spanish Civil War Trilogy. A great trilogy, still in the making from Guillermo del Toro. In the first movie, The Devil's Backbone, it features two kid actors who have cameos in the second: Pan's Labyrinth. In that one they're now guerrilla soldiers, and they're only featured for a few shots. No one would even notice if the director hadn't pointed it out on the commentary. My point is: same universe, so what? Believe what you want. Other wise both plots of the two movies had nothing in common. Nothing. Say that an author decided to link a bunch of his favorite creations for a crossover. He writes it in. Say that then the author writes an apocalypse story where the sun blows up. After that he writes a small novel about... a dude in New York City. That would contradict the previous story, as long as the characters are linked. I'm just saying that in a way, you get to pick and choose what you believe. Well to be honest, my example was really sketchy.