Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 21, 2017, 04:00:47 PM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Films of Sergio Leone
| |-+  A Fistful of Dollars (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  Shane in relationship to Fistful of Dollars
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Shane in relationship to Fistful of Dollars  (Read 4906 times)
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13684

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


View Profile
« on: September 14, 2006, 09:18:23 AM »

"A Fistful of Dollars, although it is a remake of Kurosawa's Yojimbo, is also structured through an explicit reference to Shane. In the first scene, the Man with No Name stops at a well set off to the side between two adobe buildings, seemingly in the middle of nowhere. He watches a small boy harassed by a gang of hooligans for trying to see his mother who is being held against her will. At one point, the mother Marisol (Marianne Koch) appears in the window and stares out at the stranger through the bars that hold her in, recalling Marian's first look at Shane through the kitchen window. . . . There seems to be some kind of attraction between them, though it will never be consummated. Yet this scene clearly motivates the events that follow. Like Shane, the Man comes upon a family in distress and, in his own way, sets out to reverse the situation and set them free."

--Patrick McGee, From Shane to Kill Bill: Rethinking the Western (169-170)

« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 03:19:31 AM by cigar joe » Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for being such an annoying Melville fanboy.
cigar joe
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12703


easy come easy go


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2006, 04:32:49 PM »

Huh?

I think that the opening sequence showed just how different this film was from Shane and the AW's. In the AW's the hero would have immediately rescued the damsel in distress, here he basically continues what he's doing.

Money is what motivates the events that follow.

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: 13684

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


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2006, 01:40:08 PM »

No reason why Joe can't have mixed motives for what he does. I think McGee has raised an interesting point. Obviously, Joe is unlike Shane, but there could also be similarities between the two.

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for being such an annoying Melville fanboy.
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2006, 04:02:16 PM »

But Joe ultimately does save Marisol, so isn't that a moot point? 

The idea of the MWNN as a completely amoral person is not borne out by any of the Dollars trilogy, except maybe FAFDM (even there he has flashes of humanity).  Maybe Joe didn't want to get his ass kicked, or get shot up seconds after entering the town?  Or maybe he just wanted Baby Jesus to get killed, like the rest of us.  Grin

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
cigar joe
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12703


easy come easy go


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2006, 04:18:30 PM »

 Grin

I think the family obviously becomes a useful pawn to Joe, if he was amoral he could have held them hostage, but he is basically good.

Logged

"When you feel that rope tighten on your neck you can feel the devil bite your ass"!
CISCO
Guest
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2006, 05:48:03 PM »

just as the samuri's had a code so  joe. much plot
dosn't come to new light due to clint altering the original script in order to help create TNWNN.

one thing joe isn't that the others are is a murderer. would
an amoral man come back and give the rojo's a chance to get him only to have tha hot headed madman ramone to steal all the glory by repeatively shooting joe in the heart.  the rojo's were full of themelves until the family started collectiong led from joe's . 45. that is.

it just wasn't joe's style to murder. least we not forget silvanito shooting estaban before he bushwhacks joe.

questione : how the hell did estaban get up to that second floor hotel building ?  wasn't he down on the street w/ his other brothers moments before ? he couldn't have "backed off thus becoming chicken ".
and wouldn't TMWNN spotted this and stoped esteban from getting the upper hand in the situation?

« Last Edit: September 15, 2006, 07:33:27 PM by cisco » Logged
franksgrandson
Gunslinger
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 221


just the man


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2006, 05:48:28 PM »

I do not think that FOD and Shane are alike at all really
totally different film altogether, what does strike a chord though is Cheyennes statement in OUATITW, where he says he will kill anything apart from a priest, a catholic priest that is.
I think Joe in FOD is a man cut from the same cloth and morals as Cheyenne.

Logged

MORTON ONCE TOLD ME I COULD NEVER BE LIKE HIM, NOW I UNDERSTAND WHY
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2006, 07:01:10 AM »

Well I'll concede MWNN is not completely altruistic - he preferes to help the family out on his terms, in the way most advantageous to him.  But he does help them out ultimately, which is the point.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13684

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


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2006, 09:20:36 AM »

The McGee book referenced above is interesting for its perspective on certain Westerns. It sees continuity running through the genre back to Owen Whistler's The Virginian, which, in turn, has its basis historically in the Johnson County War. The story, McGee claims, has been retold and transformed a number of times: Shane, Heaven's Gate, Pale Rider are examples. The Mysterious Stranger is a convention important to the genre, one Leone himself employed. We see him in FOD and OUATITW, of course. Interestingly, McGee argues that LVC has the Mysterious Stranger role in FAFDM.

This makes sense, especially once you get beyond the idea that Eastwood is playing a single character in all 3 Dollars pictures. Once you grant that Joe and Monco are distinct, it's easy to appreciate how different they are. Joe does temper his avarice with altruism, but Monco is strictly business (he is, though, capable of a certain affection for Mortimer). McGee suggests that Angel Eyes in GBU is a variation on the Mysterious Stranger idea, but a perverse one (we could call him the Mysterious Stranger From Hell).

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for being such an annoying Melville fanboy.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8381

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2011, 07:38:07 AM »

the opening shot in FOD is definitely a reference to the opening shot in Shane. And as Frayling says, in Shane it's a little man (Alan Ladd) on a big horse, in FOD it's a big man (Clint Eastwood) on a little mule.

NOTE: Shane in italics = the movie; Shane not in italics = the person

 a separate point on Shane: i do not think that film should have opened with the shot of Shane. Since the whole film is about the myth of the West(ern hero), as seen through the eyes of the little boy, that hero should not realy have an independent existence outside the boy's eyes; therefore, to be consistent with its point, I think Shane should have opened with the shot of the boy, and only panned to Shane after we see the boy, making the point that it's all about the myth of the West(ern hero).

of course, you may respond that the ending, where Shane rides away (and past where the boy can see him) is essential to the movie, and the beginning mirrors the end. Well, my response to that is that once the boy has been introduced to Shane, of course its ok for Shane to do things outside the boy's field of vision; it's not like the boy is within Shane every second of the day. But I think that considering that the movie is a self-conscious bit of mythmaking, Shane's introduction should have been through the eyes of the boy, IMO.


Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
Pages: [1] 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 0.051 seconds with 19 queries.