Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 15, 2017, 01:33:57 AM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Films of Sergio Leone
| |-+  Duck, You Sucker (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  what were Sean's motivations/positions vis a vis the Mexican Revolution?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: what were Sean's motivations/positions vis a vis the Mexican Revolution?  (Read 6574 times)
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8446

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« on: July 04, 2011, 11:33:50 PM »

I have watched DYS many times, yet I have never understood Sean's motivations/interests involving the revolution.

When Juan first meets Sean, Sean tells him "one revolution was enough for me." So if Sean was telling the truth, then why was he in Mexico -- did he just randomly pick that country as a place to escape the English authorities; or was he really there to fight the revolution, and he lied to Juan when he said "one revolution was enough for me"?

Later, we see Sean involved in the planning of the raid on the bank -- so he clearly is interested in fighting the revolution. (True, this was after Juan had killed Sean's employer [in an attempt to get Sean to partner with him to rob banks], but did Sean really begin working for the revolutionaries only cuz his boss was dead and he needed a job?...)

Then, after Juan lectures Sean "Don't tell me about revolution," Sean thrown his book into the mud; presumably, he is indeed having doubts about the ideology of the revolution.... but then he leads the blowing up of the bridge, after talking about "ridding the world of a few uniforms..." So presumably, Sean still believes in revolution.

(Once Juan's family is massacred, I have no questions anymore; whether or not Sean wanted to join the revolution initially, I understand that he would join it after the opposition massacred his friend's family).

But throughout the movie, I never got a clear understanding of what Sean's true motivations were, ie. whether or not he truly supported the Mexican Revolution....

« Last Edit: July 04, 2011, 11:35:33 PM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
tintinteslacoil
Guest
« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2011, 08:29:16 AM »

Who Knows?

But, it is essential to the action in the film.  A disappointment if he didn't, even though it is a non-sequitor.

He was conned by Juan into it--Juan blew-up his boss, Auscenbach, and a few army personnel, including a Captain. Now wanted for the "murder", John realised he could no longer turn to the federal government  or its employees for work--may as well join the Revolutionaries,  get some gold; and get even with Juan, in the take.


I personally thought it Nuts for a fugitive Irishman to try to hide in Northern Mexico during one of its most turbulent times. A big city, say Chicago or New York, where he could possibly hide with some emigrant family members, made more sense. Plus the Weather is brutal in Northern Mexico--a place like Seattle would seem more familiar to a Dubliner. (The book mentions his sunburning and passing-out during a forced march.)

No lily-white man with a price on his head from a non-hostile European nation--he'd stick out like a sore thumb, unless he stayed in a large city with a lot of European emigres, like Mexico City.

The Mexican government would extradite him at the drop of a hat  if the British government insisted--anything to aide the flow of arms into the country by the conservative federal government. And, the Revolutionaries.

 He did work for Auscenbach, a German working with Huerta's government--possibly Auscenbach was blackmailling him.

 

Logged
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8446

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2011, 08:48:13 PM »

so Juan kills Auscenbach in an attempt to get Sean to partner with him in robbing  banks -- but instead, Sean decides to work for the revolutionaries, whom he previously had no plans on working for? i find that hard to believe

And what book to do refer to?

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
cigar joe
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12783


easy come easy go


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2011, 07:28:40 AM »

so Juan kills Auscenbach in an attempt to get Sean to partner with him in robbing  banks -- but instead, Sean decides to work for the revolutionaries, whom he previously had no plans on working for? i find that hard to believe

And what book to do refer to?

I think you were either with them (one of the various revolutionary factions) or against them, Juan killing Auscenbach & the federales puts Mallory on the anti gov side.

I think the book referred to is one of Frayling's.

Logged

"When you feel that rope tighten on your neck you can feel the devil bite your ass"!
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13706

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2011, 03:35:26 PM »

so Juan kills Auscenbach in an attempt to get Sean to partner with him in robbing  banks -- but instead, Sean decides to work for the revolutionaries, whom he previously had no plans on working for? i find that hard to believe
Juan wants to deny Mallory the possibility of other employment so that he may have to turn to robbing banks. Because of Aschenbach's association with Huerta, and the fact that Mallory will be implicated in his death, Mallory will be unable to work with the government ever after. However, what makes him persona non grata to the federales puts him in good with the revolutionaries. Because of the "assassination" and his past connection to the IRA, he immediately is offered employment with the rebels. Mallory sees that as a better alternative to robbing banks, AND it provides him an opportunity to get even with Juan. He gets Juan to believe that he is taking part in bank robbery when in fact what he's doing is liberating political prisoners. Mallory smirks as Juan is denied gold and receives the approbation of the revolutionaries--whom he despises--instead. Thus ends the game of tit-for-tat that Mallory and Juan began playing with guns and firecrackers when they first met.

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for being such an annoying Melville fanboy.
tintinteslacoil
Guest
« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2011, 03:21:52 PM »

Quote
Auscenbach

I meant: "Auschenbach".  That would be the  German spelling.

Quote
I think the book referred to is one of Frayling's.

No, I meant the one by James Lewis.  A lot of the  versions first  shown in the US in 1971 had Juan's forced march of Mallory, and his mistaken attempt to blow up Juan, missing.

Quote
so Juan kills Auscenbach in an attempt to get Sean to partner with him in robbing  banks -- but instead, Sean decides to work for the revolutionaries, whom he previously had no plans on working for? i find that hard to believe

In a revolution, or civil war, it is hard to be neutral--"Pacifico".  Those who try by selling to both sides end up being hung by one or the other.



Thanks for clearing it up for him Smiley

« Last Edit: July 07, 2011, 03:29:20 PM by tintinteslacoil » Logged
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8446

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2011, 03:34:31 PM »

Juan wants to deny Mallory the possibility of other employment so that he may have to turn to robbing banks. Because of Aschenbach's association with Huerta, and the fact that Mallory will be implicated in his death, Mallory will be unable to work with the government ever after. However, what makes him persona non grata to the federales puts him in good with the revolutionaries. Because of the "assassination" and his past connection to the IRA, he immediately is offered employment with the rebels. Mallory sees that as a better alternative to robbing banks, AND it provides him an opportunity to get even with Juan. He gets Juan to believe that he is taking part in bank robbery when in fact what he's doing is liberating political prisoners. Mallory smirks as Juan is denied gold and receives the approbation of the revolutionaries--whom he despises--instead. Thus ends the game of tit-for-tat that Mallory and Juan began playing with guns and firecrackers when they first met.


1. where do we see that Auschenbach works for the federales?

2. So -- after saying "one revolution was enough for me" -- Sean returns to fighting revolutions cuz that is his only option after his employer's death?.... But then, Sean suddenly finds Revolution Religion again (eg. lecturing Juan on "ridding the world of a few uniforms")?






Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
tintinteslacoil
Guest
« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2011, 06:17:39 PM »


1. where do we see that Auschenbach works for the federales?

2. So -- after saying "one revolution was enough for me" -- Sean returns to fighting revolutions cuz that is his only option after his employer's death?.... But then, Sean suddenly finds Revolution Religion again (eg. lecturing Juan on "ridding the world of a few uniforms")?

1) It's in the book--plus, when Mallory wires the old mission tower, we hear the soldiers yell out: "John! It's us! Where are you? We're looking for you...". So, he was working, at least indirectly, for the Federal government.

Again, it's not in the clipped US 1971 version.  Only in the full-length movie.

Oddly, Ted Turner put this scene In, and removed where Juan later gives John the finger, after John cons him into "Recuing 150 patriots in the face of danger".( I remember the finger distinctly.)

2)  Read the previous posts--he was "conned" into it by Juan.  I Guess he could have emigrated to the US, or, taken up knitting... But, John, being who he was ("You can't break the mold"--Alan Ladd, "Shane"); had realised he was a sucker to lost causes.


Logged
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2988



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2011, 02:12:04 AM »

The name is in fact Aschenbach, without the "u". Auschenbach is not German.

Logged

drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8446

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2011, 04:28:26 AM »

The SE dvd is the full-length movie, correct?

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
tintinteslacoil
Guest
« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2011, 03:09:58 PM »

The name is in fact Aschenbach, without the "u". Auschenbach is not German.

It Could be.   "Ausgezeichnet" is German. So is: "Ausgang". I'm sure I could find Mom's German dictionary and find a lot more "au"-words. But, Why? It's made up for the movie, not a real, historical character. Besides, people spell their names any way they want to. "Reed" can be "Reid" or "Read". "Jode" can be "Joad". Or even, "Jodd".


Perhaps I misspelled it.   On That you are Right. It could be Jewish, also. "Feinman" is German Jew, but Proper German would be: "Feinmann".

Quote
The SE dvd is the full-length movie, correct?

Pretty much. Still, the torture of Villega  and  Juan's he forced-march scene are missing.  These are mentioned in the second disc.  THe British cut out 7 seconds of a Horse falling! Guess thay are  against animal "cruelty". Cheesy

« Last Edit: July 08, 2011, 03:14:18 PM by tintinteslacoil » Logged
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8446

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2011, 05:53:32 PM »


Pretty much. Still, the torture of Villega  and  Juan's he forced-march scene are missing.  These are mentioned in the second disc.  THe British cut out 7 seconds of a Horse falling! Guess thay are  against animal "cruelty". Cheesy


I don't know if that means they are "missing." Could be the scene was shot and then Leone decided not to include it in the movie; doesn't mean it's "missing." When I use the term "missing scenes," I refer to what Leone intended to be in the movie but the asshole studio executives cut

« Last Edit: January 24, 2012, 02:10:36 AM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2988



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2011, 05:41:03 AM »

It Could be.   "Ausgezeichnet" is German. So is: "Ausgang". I'm sure I could find Mom's German dictionary and find a lot more "au"-words. But, Why? It's made up for the movie, not a real, historical character. Besides, people spell their names any way they want to. "Reed" can be "Reid" or "Read". "Jode" can be "Joad". Or even, "Jodd".



1. Auschenbach is possible, but unlikely as it sounds a bit strange. The "au" in your examples are to be viewed different. The combination of the letters "sch" belongs in German always together, so it is A-sch-enbach but it is Aus-gezeichnet and Aus-gang. So it would be Au-schenbach and not Aus-chenbach, which is definitely wrong. Rauschenbach is a typical name.

2. Aschenbach is a German name which is not uncommon.

3. And the name in the film is actually Aschenbach.

« Last Edit: July 09, 2011, 06:01:17 AM by stanton » Logged

tintinteslacoil
Guest
« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2011, 07:56:53 AM »



You said:"not  German"; not " an improper German name".


As I pointed out , there are several words in German with"aus" prefix. We weren't discussing Names, necessarily.

I said; Could Be. And, anyone can spell their proper name any way they want, and pronounce it any way they want.  Feinman=Feinmann.  Feinman is a proper German name, and common, although "correct German " would be "Feinmann". The rules of most German words, you're right, say: two "n's"; "ie" pronounced "e"; and ach...but Not in proper Names. An English or French name is not changed, for example; it does not , then, follow German rules. 

Note: In Goldfinger, Auric Goldfinger's gold refiner was in St. Moritz, Switzerland. But, the road signs were in German. They would be in French in that part of Switzerland (C.H.) "St. Moritz" is Still pronounced :"San Mohrits", even by German-speaking Swiss. It's still spelled the Same way.

"Stephen" is technically "Steefenn". Yet, it is colloquially "Steeven". "Dylan" is technically "Dielann". But, he says:"Dillon". It is a Stage Name, anyway. McMahon is technically "Mckmahonn" to distinguish it from: "McMann". But,  Ed always slurred it into" :"MckMann".  It's Their names, they can spell it or pronounce it any way they want.

I've taken some Deutsches; "Au" is ok in some proper names in German.

Sorry, I misspelled "Aschenbach". I Know it's "Aschenbach", I have the book, too.  I accidentally put the "u" in, my spell check didn't catch it.  No need to crucify a productive member over a simple misspelling.  Go to ShadowRX.com, Prexis.Com or Bombshock.org if you want to be petty.

It's just a Movie; it isn't Real. Leone was Italian; who knows what  name he meant when he wrote the screenplay?  Probably pulled it out of a phone book. The fact that "Mesa Verde" reads the same in Spanish and Italian, yet was translated to":"Green Table" on the album of the score is incorrect, as it is a proper name and shouldn't be translated.

Why  not get on the three Other posters who also spelled it: "Auschenbach"? Tab down a few days. Don't single me out.

Besides, this is off-topic. It doesn't relate to John's  change of heart. We can both be sanctioned for it.

I'd rather this petty argument end now and get back on topic, if it hasn't been settled.

 I was confused when I first saw the movie in '71, too.  John so adamant about "one was enough for me", then Mesa Verde. It Doesn't make sense with the scenes removed. The movie is more exciting and amusing without the forced march, blown-up mission tower, torture, and drawn-out  love scenes, anyway. It didn't bother me until I was older, and saw more into movies than I had at 13.  The forced-march scene would be too reminiscent of TGTBATU at that point, anyway.  It seems darker with the scenes, but, it is a dark movie. The glib wit and con jobs the major characters pull lightens things immensely, but now I am more thrilled by the character development. For this movie to run less than 2 hours doesn't allow the development to flow correctly. It is the most character study of any Leone film, even the Master said that. My email address is still "duckyousucker@'... Smiley

Logged
tintinteslacoil
Guest
« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2011, 08:03:09 AM »

I don't know if that mans they are "missing." Could be the scene was shot and then Leone decided not to include it in the movie; doesn't mean it's "missing." When I use the term "missing scenes," I refer to what Leone intended to be in the movie but the asshole studio executives cut

Who Knows?  The second DVD calls them "missing" or "deleted".  Too bad Director's don't get first dibs.  It is the producer, the Money, , that gets to make the run-time decisions.

The Author really gets reamed. He signs it over,  possibly gets a hand  writing the screenplay, but that's it. He can protest, but the decisions are now out of his hands.

Imagine Lawrence of Arabia , Dr. Zhivago , or The Ten Commandments,   cut?  Shocked They seem to go Fast, as they flow so well.

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.033 seconds with 20 queries.