IS Blondie really that good?

[pablo113]

So does that means that Lee Van Cleef is really the Ugly?

Pablo

[dave jenkins]

No.

[dave jenkins]

I picked this up a while ago, but I'm just going through it now: Patrick McGee's From Shane To Kill Bill: Rethinking the Western (2007). This is essentially a survey of the usual American Westerns from a Marxian perspective, but there are two things in its favor: although it misreads larger matters, its observation of smaller details can be revealing; and, it has a whole chapter on Leone.

As per the topic at hand McGee has this to say:

In the opening sequences of the film, each character is labeled by a moral or aesthetic term that appears on the screen over a freeze-frame of his image. The last to be identified is the Good, Eastwood's character; and it can be inferred from his role in the film that the word "good" applied to him can be read as both an aesthetic and a moral category and probably is meant to represent the confusion of the two in the modern Nietzschean world. (174, 175)

This is interesting, although it will take me time to work through the implications of the Nietzsche reference. And the confusion of the moral and aesthetic categories seems worth exploring, beyond what McGee is willing to do. For him, Blondie is Good morally viz a viz Angel Eyes, but Good aesthetically in relation to Tuco.

Since the difference between Tuco and Blondie is an aesthetic one, it tends to subvert itself, if only because Tuco is the real human being while Blondie is a fantasy. Tuco's ugliness cannot be separated from a gaze determined by class, race, and national identity, a gaze that constructs the blond, blue-eyed, soft-spoken man as the idealization of itself. In other words, the differences between them are largely matters of surface. (176)

This is untrue, of course. A few sentences later, McGee himself undercuts his argument.

Yet throughout the film, as the relationship between Tuco and Blondie develops, it becomes increasingly obvious that Blondie feels empathy for Tuco, starting from the moment he overhears the latter's conversation with his brother the monk, who faults Tuco for deserting his mother and father. When they ride off in a coach, Blondie offers Tuco a smoke after listening to his lies about the warm relations he has with his brother. This act signals a compassion in their relationship that wasn't there before, and when Tuco later takes on Angel Eyes's gang by himself, Blondie joins them to seal their partnership. . . . Meanwhile, Blondie encounters the young, dying confederate soldier, covers him with his coat, and gives him a last smoke. Afterwards, he puts on the green poncho for the first time. Thus, the poncho actually signifies compassion in the heart of the Man with No Name, a compassion that grows through his relationship with Tuco . . . . (176,177).

Realizing that he's arguing against his stated position, McGee hastily adds "Still, Blondie's compassion is not a psychological development but an allegorical one." (177) But I'm not buying it. If Blondie's compassion isn't psychological, then nothing in any movie is.

In spite of himself, McGee has demonstrated how Blondie and Tuco are morally different. Blondie's capacity to empathize allows him to change over the course of the film, and that change is for the better. Notice how the use of the cigarillo alters meaning over the course of events: when Blondie first places the smoke between Tuco's teeth, he does so patronizingly, duplicitously. Later, as McGee has observed, the cigarillo functions as an objective correlative of Blondie's compassionate feelings. Tuco, by contrast, could not be more different. His character does not change throughout the film. Would he have done what Blondie did if he'd found the dying confederate soldier, or would he have gone through the guy's pockets looking for loot?

[Groggy]

Nice article. I'm not quite sure that the poncho equals compassion though, that seems like a rather odd equation to me.

I don't think Tuco would have bothered looting the dead soldiers. He seemed pretty preoccupied with the gold by that point.

[dave jenkins]

But you take my point? Tuco wouldn't have done anything to ease the soldier's suffering.

The idea that the poncho is symbolic is an interesting one to play with, but it isn't necessary to recognize that Blondie becomes more demonstrably compassionate over the course of the film. McKee, who sees narrative continuity between the Dollars pictures, then goes on to argue that its Blondie's development in GBU that allows him to go on to FAFDM and assist Mortimer in his quest for revenge (by ensuring he gets a fair showdown at the end), and then in AFOD to help the holy family. And of course, he's wearing the poncho in those films. I guess that reading is available for those who want it; on the other hand, the poncho could just be a poncho.

[Groggy]

But you take my point? Tuco wouldn't have done anything to ease the soldier's suffering.

Probably not.

[pablo113]

The Poncho is the beginning of the Trilogy. Leone shot the films backwards in time. "The Good" is the first film, thats where he gets the poncho from...and "Fistful" is the last film in the trilogy!

Pablo

[dave jenkins]

We're only debating whether the poncho is symbolic or not, not whether GBU comes first chronologically (that's obvious). But now that you raise the issue, does FAFDM necessarily precede AFOD in time? How do we know one way or the other?

[marmota-b]

But now that you raise the issue, does FAFDM necessarily precede AFOD in time? How do we know one way or the other?

We might see sooner or later...
http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=7522.0

[Leonardo]

So does that means that Lee Van Cleef is really the Ugly?

Pablo

In the italian original version:
Il buono (the good) = Eastwood
Il brutto (the ugly) = Wallach
Il cattivo (the bad) = Van Cleef

[O'Cangaceiro]

We're only debating whether the poncho is symbolic or not, not whether GBU comes first chronologically (that's obvious). But now that you raise the issue, does FAFDM necessarily precede AFOD in time? How do we know one way or the other?

Many are assuming that, because Clint wears the same clothes in all three movies, he is the same character in all three. But is he? I think he is not. In GBU he is referred as "Blondie"; in FAFDM as "Manco"; and in FOD as "Joe".

[Ben Tyreen]

Many are assuming that, because Clint wears the same clothes in all three movies, he is the same character in all three. But is he? I think he is not. In GBU he is referred as "Blondie"; in FAFDM as "Manco"; and in FOD as "Joe".

 Just to play devil's advocate, "Blondie" seems more like a nickname Tuco gives him, Joe could have been just something people called him because it's a common name, "Hey, Joe."  The only issue is Manco, but a translation of that is one-handed, or that's what I remember at least.  So chronologically, maybe after all the use the MWNN had for his gun, he used the sleeve on his hand/wrist.  But the gist of it, I think it's a trilogy with the same character.

[dave jenkins]

We might see sooner or later...
http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=7522.0

I had that thread in mind when I asked the question. There used to be an idea that that FAFDM was set in the 1870s; that notion is giving way (apparently) to one that places the film in the 1890s. But if AFOD is in the 1890s as well, then how are we to determine which occurs before the other?

Perhaps we should continue this in the thread referenced above.

[O'Cangaceiro]

Just to play devil's advocate, "Blondie" seems more like a nickname Tuco gives him, Joe could have been just something people called him because it's a common name, "Hey, Joe."  The only issue is Manco, but a translation of that is one-handed, or that's what I remember at least.  So chronologically, maybe after all the use the MWNN had for his gun, he used the sleeve on his hand/wrist.  But the gist of it, I think it's a trilogy with the same character.

You could be right. However, let us keep in mind that we have the same actors playing in more than one movie; 1) Lee van Cleef as Angel Eyes (he is killed) and Colonel Mortimer; 2) Gian Maria Volonte as El Indio (he dies) and Ramón (he dies); 3) Mario Brega as Cpl. Wallace (he dies), as Niño (he dies) and as Chico (he dies); 4) Aldo Sambrell (member of Angel Eye's gang), Cuchillo, and member of the Rojo's gang; 5) Joseph Egger as Piripero and the Old Prophet; 6) Benito Stefanelli as member of Angel Eyes' gang (he dies), Luke (he dies) and Rubio (he dies)......and so on.

So, if we were to assume that GBU, FAFDM and FOD are a trilogy and that Manco (or Blondie or Joe) is the same character in all three movies, then I think it would be fair to assume that in Leone's west most baddies (and not-so baddies) came from families with twins, triplets, quadruplets and even quintuplets (Aldo Sambrell acted in all five of Leone's SWs).  We know that multiple births are not all uncommon, but what seems rather unusual to me is that so many siblings in several families ended their lives in confrontation with the same person (Manco-Blondie-Joe) over a period of time .

[dave jenkins]

Rather than just recover old ground, and in the process take this thread completely off-topic, I recommend that the discussion about the continuity among the "trilogy" be continued here: http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=2820.0