Lip Readers / Eye Readers

[cigar joe]

Well I broke out "For A Few Dollars More" for one of my rare viewings this morning,  and as usual after waiting a long stretch between them the film attains a certain amount of freshness once again.

This time I studied the whole Mortimer@Tucumcari sequence, during that, I jotted down a couple of thoughts, one of them being a sort of revelation on a subject that poses itself occasionally more on the Imdb boards than here. That is subject of the dubbing. While watching the film, this time especially the close up dialog between Mortimer & the Tucumcari station ticket agent I determined that what I personally was paying attention to was the eyes and their expressions, more so than the lip synchronizations, perhaps this is some sort of tribal/cultural/instinctual hard wiring where in some cultures, races, or tribes the eye's are truer conveyors of veracity combined with speech, than the words stated alone.  When someone with a lip reading tendency confronts the dubbing in Italian Westerns they have a greater reaction (usually, a dislike to the point of making it unwatchable), while someone with an eye reading tendency see's lip movements as peripheral to the emotions and words displayed.  Something to ponder.

Another section of the Mortimer@Tucumcari sequence Mortimer/Calloway shootout. When Mortimer first shoots down Calloway's horse from the view point of the camera to Calloway is approximately 400 + feet. Mortimer slightly ahead and to left we can probably just call 400.

So if we reference this:



then if......

In US Army tests conducted from 1872 to 1876 the Colt Peacemaker had a mean absolute deviation at 50 yards of 3.11 inches compared to Smith & Wessons at 4.39 inches. At 25 yards the Colts pennetration was 4.1 inches compared to the S&W's 3.33 inches.

In 1898 it was officially stated that the mean absolute deviation of the Peacemaker was, at 50 yards- 5.3", at 100 yards- 8.3", at 150 yards- 12.3". at 200 yards 15.9" at 250 yards-  24.9" and at 300 yards 28.7".

....Calloway should have been aiming with his shorter barreled Colt high between 8.3 and 12.3 inches above a straight line aimed shot at Mortimer, that is why his shots hit the ground.

OK on to White Rocks, Eastwoods intro.

Observed: Eastwood doing every thing left handed from leaning his left arm on the sill of the batwing door to fighting Red, not because of a random Leone style, or because of the tag line "he does everything left handed because he shoots with the other" he doing it in deliberate Leone style to make everyone that it would matter to in the saloon think he is actually "left handed" and that is the the hand to watch when he goes for his gun.

Anyway more later.

[dave jenkins]

Thanks, Joe, very interesting. I too watched this portion of the film just the other day (I wanted to see if my Sherwood Blu-ray player would play my Japanese DVD of the film--it did), and I noticed a couple things as well about the Mortimer vs. Calloway confrontation. Mortimer fires three times: first, to unhorse Calloway; the second shot knocks Calloway down; and, of course, the third is the final shot through the forehead.

My questions: Why doesn't shot #2 kill Calloway, or even wound him? Right after, he gets up, seemingly unharmed, Calloway makes some comment about the fact that he's going to kill Mortimer for doing that to him. Like all he'd done is trip him up. This is how someone reacts just after they've been shot?

Second, why does Mortimer switch from his rifle to the handgun? Granted, the attachable stock gives him greater accuracy/range then he'd have with a handgun alone, but why even change weapons? He's already shown he can hit the guy from a distance with the rifle. Why surrender that advantage? Is he baiting Calloway, making him think he's playing fair in a duel-like confrontation? Or is this just a chance for SL to show off some moviemaking flash?

[cigar joe]

Thanks, Joe, very interesting. I too watched this portion of the film just the other day (I wanted to see if my Sherwood Blu-ray player would play my Japanese DVD of the film--it did), and I noticed a couple things as well about the Mortimer vs. Calloway confrontation. Mortimer fires three times: first, to unhorse Calloway; the second shot knocks Calloway down; and, of course, the third is the final shot through the forehead.

My questions: Why doesn't shot #2 kill Calloway, or even wound him? Right after, he gets up, seemingly unharmed, Calloway makes some comment about the fact that he's going to kill Mortimer for doing that to him. Like all he'd done is trip him up. This is how someone reacts just after they've been shot?

Second, why does Mortimer switch from his rifle to the handgun? Granted, the attachable stock gives him greater accuracy/range then he'd have with a handgun alone, but why even change weapons? He's already shown he can hit the guy from a distance with the rifle. Why surrender that advantage? Is he baiting Calloway, making him think he's playing fair in a duel-like confrontation? Or is this just a chance for SL to show off some moviemaking flash?

I think shot two does wound him but just slightly, I thinks its Leone showing some flash through the Mortimer character and baiting Calloway to come closer also, its also a set up for the the Mortimer-Manco hat shootout later on where once again Mortimer's long-barreled Colt shows its advantage to out of range short barreled Colt SAA of Manco.

[dave jenkins]

I think shot two does wound him but just slightly, I thinks its Leone showing some flash through the Mortimer character and baiting Calloway to come closer also, its also a set up for the the Mortimer-Manco hat shootout later on where once again Mortimer's long-barreled Colt shows its advantage to out of range short barreled Colt SAA of Manco.

Good point. And you're right, Calloway does put one hand up near his shoulder to show that he's wounded, but it's pretty fakey. Still, it's only a movie, right?

[cigar joe]

Yes only a movie.....

More thoughts that I jotted down the other day....

Style Definitions:

1. The way in which something is said, done, expressed, or performed: a style of speech and writing.
2. The combination of distinctive features of literary or artistic expression, execution, or performance characterizing a particular person, group, school, or era.
3. Sort; type: a style of furniture.
4. A quality of imagination and individuality expressed in one's actions and tastes: does things with style.

These first four are the ones to concentrate on.

STYLE, in FAFDM, it permeates the whole film. While watching the film the other day it struck me that almost all the characters posses some degree of STYLE. It must have been easy back in the 1960s'  for critics to just make a throw off statement that Leone's films possessed style and little else. But watching the films again after viewing countless American Westerns in the interim you come to the understanding of why they were so different and energizing to a tired genre.

Style is not just not just a look composed of dialog, clothing, mannerisms, in Leone's films STYLE = LIFE, it brings the all the characters more to life than countless run of the mill American Westerns that proceeded them.  Watching American Westerns its very hard to extract any style out of the characters, of course actors like Wayne, Scott, Peck, Ford, etc., etc., have their individual personalities which sort of passed for style, and directors such as John Ford had his personal touchstone's in films i.e., for example the square dance sequences, which assembled together are labeled his style, but for the most part the average run of the mill American Western didn't didn't posses much STYLE.  You can see that they are for the most part put together in a formulaic manner, and if you got all the building blocks in the right place you ended up with a Western.

About the closest thing I can think of to an American Western character having style is in some of the ridiculous looking bandannas that the lead characters wear around their necks over their, for the most part, spotlessly clean shirts, some are downright GAY looking, lol.

Real individuals/characters possess STYLE, that style makes them stand out from all the conformists, the 8-4:30, 9-5 people who do the same routines day in day out.
You are not really living unless you break out of the mold & acquire a STYLE.

Just my thoughts, and a reason why Leone's films even though existing in an imaginary, "once upon a time" , legendary West seemed more real to us Western lovers in the 1960's.

[marmota-b]

Eye reading: also notice the bartender who shows Mortimer the way by rolling his eyes.

[cigar joe]

On the subject of the dubbing:

I came across something related to this that makes sense once you think about it.

"They say that only a small portion of personal communication is verbal, and that the rest of it is posture, expression, gesture, those physical aspects of man which antedate his ability to speak "  John D. McDonald.

So again I personally find myself paying attention while watching Leone films to the eyes and the facial expressions, more so than the lip synchronizations, so this is some sort a tribal/cultural/instinctual hard wiring antedating speech where in some cultures, races, or tribes the eye's, posture, expression, and gesture are still truer conveyors of communication than speech, they are still attuned to THE ANCIENT RACE. 

When someone with just a limited lip reading communication tendency confronts the dubbing in Italian Westerns they have a greater reaction (usually, a dislike to the point of making it unwatchable), while someone with an eye, posture, expression, and gesture reading tendency sees simple lip movements as peripheral to the emotions and words displayed. 

[archangel]

hey joe,
cool observations.
remember that when these were made, nobody had any idea the things like DVDs and home theaters would happen, and that these movies would become iconic.
so, when these where shown at a cinema - and i saw them plenty times in differing movie houses through-out Australia - the bogus dubbing didn't matter.
it was ALL out of sync, because the speakers were either on stage or/and behind the screen!!!!!!
certainly NOT surround sound. lol.
light travels many, many times faster than sound.
the images would hit your eyes instantaneously but the soundtrack was/is delayed.
if you are sitting ~ 30feet back in the cinema, the sound arrives 30milleseconds late.
believe me, 1/30th of a second is a looooong time with audio.
in other words, the editor would have know this, and wouldn't have bother syncing as tight as they do today.
BUT on DVD or TV, yes it's very obvious, now. (didn't bother me at all then.)
archie,
.