No Confusion about Sean or John

[dave jenkins]

Frayling reports:

Leone noted that, in many countries, the last flashback to 'the two Irishmen sharing the same woman' was excised, which irritated him considerably. 'This wasn't just libertarianism and free love; there was also a symbolic dimension. This woman represented the revolution everyone wanted to embrace. And Sean sees these images while smoking his strange cigarette. You don't know if he's dreaming, imagining or remembering . . . . And I inserted the scene in such a way that Juan also sees Sean's phantasm . . . So they are together again, just before the Irishman blows up."

(330)

Note what this doesn't say. There's nothing about betrayal or jealousy or negativity of any kind. Erickson found it, so why didn't Leone?

[Skullchrist]

I agree with Skullchrist & Frayling on this, his smile sort of freezes and the music changes.

Thanks CJ.  I knew I wouldn't be alone on this.  Not trying to be an iconoclast, IMHO it makes the most sense to me.

Are you related to Coffin Joe?  

[cigar joe]

Are you related to Coffin Joe?

No 

[cigar joe]

Actually now watching this all again the commentary is made not by Frayling but in feature "Sorting Out The Versions", Frayling only comments that the music changes, the commentator mentions that the music changes and the rest.

[The Peacemaker]

YOU figured it all out?

    

....like I said, that guy got it all figured out!

[The Peacemaker]

I think that Sean killed Nolan simply because he betrayed him to the Brits, as a few members here stated.


People read too much into these things. Leone himself said that they shared the same woman and it's pretty obvious that there was no jealousy. Sean's smile at the end of the flashback reinforces this.

[dave jenkins]

Yes. The simplest explanation is the best.

[geoman-1]

Totally    Can we now move on?

[noodles_leone]

Hmm.  I know I can't be alone in this evaluation, as it was mentioned on the bonus disk, but I believe John murdered Sean because he ultimately wanted the girl for himself.

Maybe I have a darker nature, lol, but John's smile in the last flashback was extremely sinister.  And Sean was smiling right before John shot him because he didn't know that John had actually turned him in.

I'm against this interpretation. Of course no one can be sure of anything exept Sergio and Coburn, but since they are unfortunately not able to speak anymore... However, I truly hope i'm right since if the jalousie plot is the good interpretation, it makes the movie and its ending a really bad movie IMO, with no story at all... and if they are happy together at the end, that makes a masterpiece!

Do you really think that Leone would have made such a big mistake, ie instead of putting just another information at the end, he would have made a big revelation about a plot we don't care at all, since the story is about revolutions and friendship, not about a cliché love story? Morever, what is the point of the final discussion with the doctor if Coburn killed his friend because of a girl?

[noodles_leone]

Last point, that i already highlighted in another topic: Sergio Leone TOLD HIMSELF (i have the interview at home, it is Conversation avec Sergio Leone, by Noel Simsolo) that this girl is a metaphor for "the Revolution, that everyone wants to kiss". He never talks about jalousy. Never.

[dave jenkins]

I made this point above. Frayling includes such a quote in his book, probably a translation from the same interview.

Yes, it astounds me that people want to invent elaborate explanations for things just to make the film less interesting. The same thing happens when they insist on the "it's all a dream" reading of OUATIA.

[noodles_leone]

I made this point above.

 i'm at work now so I didn't have the time to read the whole topic... Anyway, sorry

The same thing happens when they insist on the "it's all a dream" reading of OUATIA.

Sorry again, but on that point (off topic, i know): in the same interview Leone speaks about it and says that it may all be a dream, that it is one of the possible meanings of the smile at the end. He even say that opium is the only drug that makes you imagine the futur (I never tried). And he isn't answering to a question like "is it a dream?", he just speaks about the movie.

[Silenzio]

Yes, it astounds me that people want to invent elaborate explanations for things just to make the film less interesting. The same thing happens when they insist on the "it's all a dream" reading of OUATIA.

Some people come to elaborate conclusions to satisfy their need to fully understand something.  I don't mind the Dream theory at all, hell I agree with it.  But the whole John turning the friend in and then killing him out of jealousy.... that is ridiculous.

[dave jenkins]

. . . in the same interview Leone speaks about it and says that it may all be a dream, that it is one of the possible meanings of the smile at the end. He even say that opium is the only drug that makes you imagine the futur (I never tried). And he isn't answering to a question like "is it a dream?", he just speaks about the movie.

SL, in my opinion, was just being a good showman here. He didn't want to exclude any reading that viewers might have, because he wanted all his customers to go away satisfied. But I doubt he was thinking about the dream idea when he was conceiving the project and making the film (sounds more like an ex post facto rationale). Man, cinema itself is a dream. Fifteen years of preparation just to put across a dream within a dream? Pardon me. I don't see Leone as a huckster, I see him as a serious artist making lasting art.

[dave jenkins]

I don't mind the Dream theory at all, hell I agree with it.  But the whole John turning the friend in and then killing him out of jealousy.... that is ridiculous.

You have said well, my friend. The "John is the original betrayer" theory is even more ridiculous than the ridiculous Dream theory.