"Something to do with death"

[cigar joe]

I have read, if you look closely, you might be able to view in the background a car driving through in the last scenes of GBU. Now, what does that mean?

It means apples & oranges, to me, one's a definite missed flaw (the car) not caught until the availability to freeze frame the film, the other would be an inexcusable continuity error, the director, the costumer, the makeup artist, the screenwriter-continuity editor, all would have had to have forgotten that Harmonica had a gunshot wound to the shoulder, it just doesn't compute for me.

[stanton]

It means apples & oranges, to me, one's a definite missed flaw (the car) not caught until the availability to freeze frame the film, the other would be an inexcusable continuity error, the director, the costumer, the makeup artist, the screenwriter-continuity editor, all would have had to have forgotten that Harmonica had a gunshot wound to the shoulder, it just doesn't compute for me.

I had set a smiley, which means it wasn't meant serious.

But I don't think that it is inexcusable if it was a continuity error. Such errors had never had any importance for me.

But it seems you really seem to believe in this supernatural idea, and seeing in it much more than a mental exercise.

But then again, and forgive me as it surely was mentioned before, what was then the explanation for Harmonica's wound? Which was shown in a close up, so that this must have been important.

[cigar joe]

But then again, and forgive me as it surely was mentioned before, what was then the explanation for Harmonica's wound? Which was shown in a close up, so that this must have been important.

Exactly the point, why show it, then entirely forget about it, like I said it doesn't make any sense, in that context.

The way I've come to grips with it is Harmonica is not what he seems, he has something to do with DEATH, and that something is unknowable, a mystery, something we all may know eventually but only at the point of dying.

[stanton]

I understand this, but I still don't understand how you explain his wound if you want to take his ghost nature for real.

The scenes of his wounding (bullet slams him to the ground, nursing the wound, bullet hole in the trading post) are obviously there and no one can miss them, while the disappearing of the wound isn't shown in a way that the audience is forced to notice it, and it is easily to explain with a continuity error. I think there were worse errors in other films.

[cigar joe]

I understand this, but I still don't understand how you explain his wound if you want to take his ghost nature for real.

The scenes of his wounding (bullet slams him to the ground, nursing the wound, bullet hole in the trading post) are obviously there and no one can miss them, while the disappearing of the wound isn't shown in a way that the audience is forced to notice it, and it is easily to explain with a continuity error. I think there were worse errors in other films.

I think the the problem stems from you wanting to define it in absolutes. You are saying that if he's supernatural, then the bullet shouldn't effect him. I don't think he's a a supernatural being, but I also don't think he's human, he belongs to that ancient mythological race of something, maybe for want of a better term a mythological demi-god.

while the disappearing of the wound isn't shown in a way that the audience is forced to notice it

huh? that is the first thing I noticed when he removed his clothing at the well.

easily to explain with a continuity error

Only easy if you don't want to accept the possibility of him being something other than what he seems.

[stanton]

As I said, I never noticed it in 30 years and over 20 viewings. And none of my friends ever wondered about it.

[cigar joe]

As I said, I never noticed it in 30 years and over 20 viewings. And none of my friends ever wondered about it.

Well I guess you'll be aware of it now 

[stanton]

I think so ...

[drinkanddestroy]

1. While I have serious doubts about the "s/t 2 do w/ death" theory, I do agree with cj that it's not all or nothing; ie. someone can have certain stdwd/supernatural abilities but that does not mean that he becomes God; I mean, that would make the movie kinda dumb, right? Therefore, in theory at least, I can accept that Harmonica has eg. a supernatural-like power over time and space, but not that he is immune from every earthly force. However, I believe that whatever stdwd powers he does have, he should have completely. ie. if he is not bound by time and space and always is in just the right place at the right time, then it would make no sense for him to have to follow Wobbles to find Frank. (I have not yet seen a satisfactory answer to that question). To put it formally: having Power X does not necessarily mean he has Power Y; but I cannot agree that he can have Power X only part of the time.

2. There is absolutely no way that the disappearance of the bullet hole in Harmonica's jacket can be a "simple" continuity error. Considering that there is a big focus on it at the end of the opening scene and in the trading post, that would have to be one of the most glaring continuity errors of all-time... I have more respect for Sergio Leone and his crew than that...

3. cj: assuming the stdwd theory is correct: why do you say Harmonica's "death and resurrection" moment happened when he was a child, rather than in the opening scene? What is the significance of Harmonica being shot and resurrected in the opening scene?

[Groggy]

And again, I'll ask you to explain the disappearance of the gunshot wound on Harmonica just a few days after the confrontation at Cattle Corner (cuz to me it seems that if it disappears that instantly blows up the normal human being theory).  lol.

Probably the same explanation as Arnie in Commando, Indy in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Sarah in Terminator 2... heroes (or anti-heroes) don't get killed unless a bullet goes straight to their head. And sometimes, not even then.

[cigar joe]

3. cj: assuming the stdwd theory is correct: why do you say Harmonica's "death and resurrection" moment happened when he was a child, rather than in the opening scene?

If Frank kills Timmy because one of his henchmen mention his name, Harmonica it stands to reason would most assuredly have known who he was at his brothers hanging. Its Franks MO to leave no witnesses who can identify him so Harmonica gets it just like Timmy. Look also at the way Harmonica as a child is dressed red shirt, duck pants, patch-coat. Exactly as he is dressed as Avenging Harmonica.

What is the significance of Harmonica being shot and resurrected in the opening scene?

I would suppose to show us a clue that he is not what he seems.

[dave jenkins]

Is this a good place to bring up the theory that everything that happens after Harmonica gets shot is a dream?

[drinkanddestroy]

If Frank kills Timmy because one of his henchmen mention his name, Harmonica it stands to reason would most assuredly have known who he was at his brothers hanging. Its Franks MO to leave no witnesses who can identify him so Harmonica gets it just like Timmy. Look also at the way Harmonica as a child is dressed red shirt, duck pants, patch-coat. Exactly as he is dressed as Avenging Harmonica.

I would suppose to show us a clue that he is not what he seems.

cj: mindful of your objections, I use the term "supernatural" very loosely -- just for conversations' sake --  here and throughout this thread  to refer to whatever Harmonica's status is, though a more complicated term [eg. "stdwd" or the like] may be more accurate:

I certainly do not discount the possibility of the supernatural theory. But assuming the supernatural theory is correct, I think you have to say that the death and resurrection at the end of the opening scene is the moment when he goes from human to supernatural. If you believe that he was actually killed by Frank as a kid, and the resurrection in beginning of the film is not really happening, it is just to give us a clue that there is something supernatural about him; that doesn't make much sense to me. I think that is getting more complicated than you have to get.  I think you have to say Harmonica's death occurs in the opening, unless for some reason you are forced to say that Harmonica's death occurred when he was a kid. I understand that his clothing may be similar when he is a kid; and later we see that Frank is not averse to killing children. So though there may be some basis for not discounting this possibility, I think that it is unnecessary and therefore wrong IMO to go that far. My general rule is that I don't think you should go any further than is necessary, and I don't see why that is necessary here. What is wrong with saying it occurs at the beginning

[cigar joe]

 

What is wrong with saying it occurs at the beginning

The alternative is what a dumb ass Frank would be in letting him live. He be leaving a definite revenge seeker alive after having him used as an instrument in own brother's hanging. I would think that again # 1 its dumb, and #2 he be always looking over his shoulder for him.

[drinkanddestroy]

The alternative is what a dumb ass Frank would be in letting him live. He be leaving a definite revenge seeker alive after having him used as an instrument in own brother's hanging. I would think that again # 1 its dumb, and #2 he be always looking over his shoulder for him.

Is that your only reasoning? If so, I have to respectfully say that I cannot possibly disagree more strongly with that  

Sure, it's always more "prudent" for a murderer to kill all potential revenge-seekers. But in both cinema and in life, people don't always kill (or attempt to kill) every potential revenge-seeker,  (unless you are the Sicilian top mafia guy in the town of Corleone in the beginning of The Godfather Part II)  
or every killing would end up turning into a massacre. And criminals are often pretty stupid and frequently screw up.

So basically, I am supposed to believe believe that Frank killed Harmonica as a kid simply cuz we know Frank isn't averse to killing child witnesses and cuz it would be dumb for him not to have killed him? There is no way I can accept that. Particularly when we do see a sort of death & resurrection at the beginning of the film

Btw, in the first paragraph of p. 200 of Spaghetti Westerns, Frayling does mention the supernatural -- his word, cj   -- aspects of Harmonica but clearly mentions the resurrection at the beginning of the film, and never says a word about the possibility that Frank killed Harmonica as  a kid. Of course, I don't mean  that Frayling is the only one with authority to interpret Leone films; I am just mentioning this as in interesting point, for whatever is worth. Everyone is free to interpret (and misinterpret ) Leone films in any way he/she chooses