Wallach was the star, not Eastwood...

[Lac qui Parle]

(I’m sure this topic has already been discussed, but I’m going to forgo the obvious and start posting because I want to earn my stars as a greenhorn.)

What I always found interesting about TGBU is Wallach is obviously the star. His character is the most dynamic: we get to meet his brother at the monastary, learn about his troubled past; we see his plans, his weaknesses, his strengths. The entire first act follows him 10x more than it follows Blondie.

Yet Eastwood’s character is the one is is cherished, immortalized ... blazoned across the movie poster???

Even Frayling said that when Leone approached Eastwood about doing the film, “You must understand that [Tuco] is your water carrier. And the moment you appear, it is the star who is his making his entrance.”

Wth? I have never understood this fallacy. Is this because

-Tuco’s depth is just a way to accentuate the mystery behind Blondie?
-was the script not written expecting Clint Eastwood to come along and steal the show? Does he?
-Eastwood’s super-stardom came after this movie’s release, thus reinventing the movie’s marketing appeal?

Anyone care to enlighten me?

[noodles_leone]

(i'm going to use Lavandier's book "la dramaturgie")

Their is a difference, in a movie, between the hero and the protagonist.

We all know what a hero (or anti-hero, in this case) is. In GBU, the hero is Clint.
The protagonist, according to Lavandier, is the character which experiences the most conflict. Clint doesn't experience many real conflicts or difficulties in GBU: Eli Wallach does. The consequence is that the audience is more likely to identify with tuco than blondie.

The example given by Lavandier is Mon Oncle, by Tati: Tati plays the hero, but the protagonist is the father.

[Tuco the ugly]

Now, that's what I call explanation. THE explanation to be precise.

[Angel Eyes Jr.]

WHile I'm a huge fan of Wallach and believe he id the best part of GBU, even I admit without Eastwood opposite him his character would never develop and would not be as likeable to watch.  Eastwood was the "Straight Man"...ala Martin, Smothers, Benny, etc.

[Calamity Jane]

I also have to say that there would be NO great contrast or comparison between the two.  The character 'chemistry' wouldn't be there without one or the other to accentuate the 'opposites' we see between them.

[dave jenkins]

The protagonist, according to Lavandier, is the character which experiences the most conflict. Clint doesn't experience many real conflicts or difficulties in GBU: Eli Wallach does.

This isn't quite true. During the crossing of the desert, Tuco nearly tortures Blondie to death.

N_L's larger point is worth noting, however. One caveat: cinema is not (entirely) drama, it incorporates elements of the other narrative arts. GBU is quite a hybrid, at times drawing on the traditions of epic and romance (the antecedents of adventure stories) and, some would have you believe, the picaresque novel more specifically. Naturally, in a picaresque, the picaro is the protagonist, and Tuco is one of the best picaros ever imagined. Eastwood has more heroic stature, but he isn't entirely free of the picaro taint: the bounty con game he plays is the work of a rogue. This indeterminacy of roles allows the narrative focus to shift as the movie unfolds: sometimes Tuco is the protagonist, sometimes Blondie is. When the two are re-united for the last third of the movie, they fall into a more conventional buddy-picture relationship, with Blondie as the protagonist, Tuco the deuteragonist. Once Angeleyes, the antagonist, is killed at the end, the relationship between Blondie and Tuco appears ready to transform again: possibly a protagonist-antagonist dynamic will develop, which can then be carried over into the sequel.

[dave jenkins]

A thread where similar thoughts have been expressed: http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=1840.0

[Angel Eyes Jr.]

There wouldn't have been a sequel.  Which is another reason Leone was so special.

[dave jenkins]

Moriarity! Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves?

[Lac qui Parle]

Wow, Lavandier. I had to look “la dramaturgie” up on Wikipedia. The essential conditions of a protagonist, quite a read. Love learning something new.

It’s an interesting analysis. My original OP was on stardom and billing, and this has become a discussion on hero vs a protagonist. I’m nothing if not flexible. Actually I'm even more so intrigued.

...it incorporates elements of the other narrative arts. GBU is quite a hybrid, at times drawing on the traditions of epic and romance (the antecedents of adventure stories) and, some would have you believe, the picaresque novel more specifically. Naturally, in a picaresque, the picaro is the protagonist, and Tuco is one of the best picaros ever imagined. Eastwood has more heroic stature, but he isn't entirely free of the picaro taint: the bounty con game he plays is the work of a rogue. This indeterminacy of roles allows the narrative focus to shift as the movie unfolds: sometimes Tuco is the protagonist, sometimes Blondie is. When the two are re-united for the last third of the movie, they fall into a more conventional buddy-picture relationship, with Blondie as the protagonist, Tuco the deuteragonist.

Dave Jenkins, you’re a funny one. I was just reading your playfully sexist comments on a different thread (renaming 12 Angry Men “Hen Party”) and I was in stitches. Now you are revealing this complex literary vocabulary. How are you even the same person, lol?

[dave jenkins]

I'm not. "Dave Jenkins" is a house name used by a group of many different writers. No single person would have enough idle time to post to this board as often as "DJ" does. Glad you enjoyed the Hen Party joke, no one else seemed to have gotten it.

I guess it's worth making the point that at the time GBU was filmed, the biggest named star in the cast was Wallach.

[Angel Eyes Jr.]

I did not wish to convey any negativity.  Just mentioning that Leone didn't have much of a taste for sequels.

[Groggy]

I'm not. "Dave Jenkins" is a house name used by a group of many different writers. No single person would have enough idle time to post to this board as often as "DJ" does. Glad you enjoyed the Hen Party joke, no one else seemed to have gotten it.

I guess it's worth making the point that at the time GBU was filmed, the biggest named star in the cast was Wallach.

That would explain a lot, but if this were the case it would be a bit implausible that they had identical tastes in everything. Maybe DJ's schizophenic?

[Lac qui Parle]

I guess it's worth making the point that at the time GBU was filmed, the biggest named star in the cast was Wallach.

Wallach was the bigger star at the time? So what had the greater effect on Eastwood’s leading man portrayal, time ... or the movie’s American release?

[cigar joe]

So what had the greater effect on Eastwood’s leading man portrayal, time ... or the movie’s American release?

Effect, in what way do you mean?

One effect on Eastwood was that he decided it was time to return to the US since in each film his parts were getting smaller, in For a Few Dollars More he shared screen time with  Van Cleef , in GBU he shared with Van Cleef & Wallach.  In America the marketing emphasis was on Eastwood, as "the man With No Name" campain,  I'm not sure how it was marketed in Europe (our Euro members can probably tell us (titoli)  but I suspect that there Leone was the emphasis.