Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 18, 2017, 02:39:37 PM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  General Information
| |-+  Sergio Leone News (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  Cinema Retro Movie Classics Dollars Trilogy Special Edition
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Cinema Retro Movie Classics Dollars Trilogy Special Edition  (Read 38832 times)
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8302

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2011, 11:40:01 AM »



I'd never before thought about the relationship between the family businesses and how Leone used products from those businesses to further the plot. Very interesting, D&D, thanks for the food for thought.

As I recall -- and I have only seen Yojimbo once and don't remember it very well -- there is a scene in Yojimbo where the casks of sake are smashed open and the sake comes pouring out, though I don't think they were set on fire. The sake merchants vs. the silk merchants was changed, for a Mexican border town in the 1890's, to liquor vs. guns  Smiley

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8302

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2011, 11:46:01 AM »

Good observations, D&D. I guess some might complain that you're being too picky, but, after all, who is this magazine intended for? It's for people who really care about the films in all their details, and who know the films well, and who are certain to squawk if anything isn't reported correctly. And plot material is the easiest data to check. The Cinema Retro editors did well--but they should have done better.


Mistakes in plot are inexcusable, careless, and IMO show a laziness and/or lack of interest in the subject matter. I know you have read Cinema Retro extensively, while this is the first edition I have ever seen. So I don't know what it is like generally.

I have also seen discrepancies in some of their facts about the making of the movie and Frayling's works-- which I will point out specifically when I come across them again for purposes of discussion. But of course, that is not necessarily a "mistake," cuz I wasn't there and have no clue what really happened; perhaps they are right and Frayling is wrong on a couple of things.

 But mistakes about basic plot elements are IMO inexcusable. I mean, as a huge Leone fan, I bought it for the piece of history and the photos etc., not to learn about the plot of the movies. So I am still glad I bought it. But there is something inside me that just gets very annoyed at this level of carelessness. I spotted those in my sleep instantly, within the first 9 pages. I wonder what more surprises await....  Wink

« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 11:47:34 AM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13630

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


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2011, 09:36:41 AM »

Just noticed that they perpetuate a falsehood by following Frayling and not doing any independant verification. They list, on page 70, the name of GBU's title designer as "Luigi Lardini", but that mistake was long ago corrected here: http://www.watchthetitles.com/designers/Iginio_Lardani

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for getting out of bed this morning.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8302

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: December 14, 2011, 07:38:26 PM »

on page 15, in the second paragraph from the bottom, they also repeat the "censorship rule... which prohibited a firing gun from being shown in the same frame as the person who is struck by the bullet."

Though Frayling has said this,  I think we have pretty well established that that wasn't correct. Frayling himself said here that it came from an interview he conducted with Eastwood, and may be incorrect http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=7532.msg118286#msg118286

« Last Edit: December 26, 2011, 06:27:29 AM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2934



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: December 15, 2011, 05:48:49 AM »

I have read somewhere that the greatest censorship problem of Psycho was the shot of a toilet, even if in this scene nothing more happens than Leigh flushing a shredded letter down the toilet.

Logged

cigar joe
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12595


easy come easy go


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: December 15, 2011, 05:58:41 AM »

But also you have to remember that the Hayes Code (MPPD-MPAA) and Breen (PCA) were sort of "created' by the Film Industry itself and they voluntarily followed it.

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: 13630

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


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: December 15, 2011, 08:58:44 AM »

on page 15, in the second paragraph from the bottom, they also repeat the "censorship rule... which prohibited a firing gun from being shown in the same frame as the person who is struck by the bullet." Though Frayling has said this,  I think we have pretty well established that that wasn't correct. Frayling himself said here that it came from an interview he conducted with Eastwood, and may be incorrect http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=7532.msg118286#msg118286
The best proof that this practice wasn't followed is in the period films themselves. You can find any number of films showing shooter-and-shootee in the same frame well before the code was abolished (the climactic scene in My Gun Is Quick has an example).

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for getting out of bed this morning.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8302

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: December 15, 2011, 12:50:38 PM »

The best proof that this practice wasn't followed is in the period films themselves. You can find any number of films showing shooter-and-shootee in the same frame well before the code was abolished (the climactic scene in My Gun Is Quick has an example).

yeah, so perhaps Frayling/Eastwood aren't wrong; maybe that this was indeed a general rule, but not followed in all cases. Also, I believe someone suggested somewhere in that Shooter/Shootee thread that since Eastwood had been on tv on Rawhide prior to the Dollars film, perhaps this was indeed a tv convention (and maybe even some movies followed it), but it didn't apply as strictly to movies, and Eastwood, who hadn't really worked on movies, mistakenly believed that the same convention applied to movies.

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2934



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: December 15, 2011, 01:49:11 PM »

yeah, so perhaps Frayling/Eastwood aren't wrong; maybe that this was indeed a general rule, but not followed in all cases. Also, I believe someone suggested somewhere in that Shooter/Shootee thread that since Eastwood had been on tv on Rawhide prior to the Dollars film, perhaps this was indeed a tv convention (and maybe even some movies followed it), but it didn't apply as strictly to movies, and Eastwood, who hadn't really worked on movies, mistakenly believed that the same convention applied to movies.

No, they are completely wrong. There are dozens of films in the 50s (and also in the 40s) with the shooter/shotee shots. And there was somewhere a thread in which also examples of 60s TV movies were shown. Too much films to believe that it was a problem. Maybe it was a rule (or an unwritten one) in the first years of the Hays Code. In the early 30s. But later surely not.

There are so many films that it is incredible that Frayling hasn't noticed his error in the 25 years between his books. But sometimes such things happen.

« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 01:54:47 PM by stanton » Logged

drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8302

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: December 15, 2011, 02:10:47 PM »

No, they are completely wrong. There are dozens of films in the 50s (and also in the 40s) with the shooter/shotee shots. And there was somewhere a thread in which also examples of 60s TV movies were shown. Too much films to believe that it was a problem. Maybe it was a rule (or an unwritten one) in the first years of the Hays Code. In the early 30s. But later surely not.

There are so many films that it is incredible that Frayling hasn't noticed his error in the 25 years between his books. But sometimes such things happen.

yeah, I just watched the scene in Shane (1953) where Palance kills the little guy in front of the saloon (at 1:16:50). Shooter and shootee definitely in the same shot

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2934



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: December 16, 2011, 01:56:03 AM »

yeah, I just watched the scene in Shane (1953) where Palance kills the little guy in front of the saloon (at 1:16:50). Shooter and shootee definitely in the same shot

As I said there are many, and they are easy to find in all sorts of action films.

Wagonmaster (1950) even has a video game like first-person shooter perspective with the gun big in the foreground. In The Last Wagon Widmark kills in the first scene from a long distance with his rifle a Sheriff who waters his horse. And when the wounded Sheriff tries to get up he shoots him again. Both done in a shooter/shootee scene. That's cols blooded murder, even if the Sheriiff was corrupt and was tracking him. Quite unusual for a 50s film.

« Last Edit: December 16, 2011, 01:57:05 AM by stanton » Logged

drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8302

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: December 16, 2011, 05:25:31 AM »

there is one convention that you pretty much always see (probably more of a Western honor code thing than Hays Code): Obviously, you never shoot an unarmed man till he is ready etc. (and if you do, you automatically become the BAD GUY). If eg. a guy is looking for you and you have a gun on him, you can't just shoot him; you have to first scream at him eg. "Johnny!...." or "Ringo!..." or whatever. Not sure if that was so that

a) they'd have that moment to see/hear you before you shot them, so they can draw, making this more of a "fair fight"; or

b) so that they'd instinctively turn to face you, so that way (even though you can shoot them from an ambush and it's in no way a "fair fight,") you ultimately would be shooting them in the front, rather than in the back, preserving your honorable name and/or legal justification.


Of course, this is probably all part of the myth that was the Western. I am sure just as many murder victims got it in the back in the real Wild West as do today.

I just wonder if  that "worst thing you can do is shoot someone in the back" convention was I) in any way due to the Hays Code; or whether II) that had nothing to do with Hays, but was simply one of those Western conventions that pre-revisionist Western filmmakers dared not veer from.

I'm just throwing those possibilities out there, though my strong guess would be that option II is the correct one.

« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 05:30:01 PM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2934



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: December 16, 2011, 01:13:06 PM »

there is one convention that you pretty much always see (probably more of a Western honor code thing than Hays Code): Obviously, you never shoot an unarmed man till he is ready etc. (and if you do, you automatically become the BAD GUY). If eg. a guy is looking for you and you have a gun on him, you can't just shoot him; you have to first scream at him eg. "Johnny!...." or "Ringo!..." or whatever. Not sure if that was so that

a) they'd have that moment to see/hear you before you shot them, so they can draw, making this more of a "fair fight"; or

b) so that they'd instinctively turn to face you, so that way (even though you can shoot them from an ambush and it's in no way a "fair fight,") you ultimately would be shooting them in the front, rather than in the back, preserving your honorable name and/or legal justification.


Of course, this is probably all part of the myth that was the Western. I am sure just as many murder victims got it in the back in the real Wild West as do today.

I just wonder if  that "worst thing you can do is shoot someone in the back" convention was I) in any way due to the Hays Code; or whether B) that had nothing to do with Hays, but was simply one of those Western conventions that pre-revisionist Western filmmakers dared not veer from.

I'm just throwing those possibilities out there, though my strong guess would be that option II is the correct one.

but there were always lots of westerns which didn't cared for this convention.
You find that maybe in a Roy Rogers western, but there are enough old westerns in which the hero isn't always fair. And this includes sometimes shooting in the back.

But generally there was a rigid censorship up to the mid 60s which didn't allowed a lot of things which in the newly won freedom of the 70s became the rule of the day. And you find a similar censorship in all European countries without having the Hays code. And this includes at first extreme violence, nudity and rude language.

Logged

Cusser
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1552


Remember, I always see the job through !


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: December 17, 2011, 07:36:39 AM »

Sure, there are mistakes in this and in other books, some of which even I wouldn't have made.  Always happens.

But it's still way cool !!!

Logged
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13630

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


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: December 17, 2011, 01:15:21 PM »

But it's still way cool !!!
Yup. And we're way cool to point out what's wrong with it. Eventually someone will get around to detailing its good points.

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for getting out of bed this morning.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 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 0.033 seconds with 19 queries.