Sergio Leone Web Board
Films of Sergio Leone => Duck, You Sucker => Topic started by: ShortFuse on January 14, 2009, 01:43:23 PM
-
Favorite track: I Figli Morti
-
I am a huge fan of Morricone & have many of his scores. This one may be my favorite of them all.
-
I am a huge fan of Morricone & have many of his scores. This one may be my favorite of them all.
Congratulations. You are clearly one enlightened individual.
-
I am a huge fan of Morricone & have many of his scores. This one may be my favorite of them all.
Like the film, I think it was underrated for years.
-
In France, both of them have been highly regarded since day one. For the generation that had a chance to see it in theater, the soundtrack is definitely one of the most famous Morricone work, up there with The Man With The Harmonica, GBU and Le Professionnel's main title. I don't know how many times people started singing "Sean Sean Sean" when I mentioned Morricone over the years. It's definitely lesser known by younger people. I'd say that the popularity of the film is decreasing here (while GBU emerges as the definitive Leone film among young film goers).
-
for me , the main theme is beautiful, but some of the other songs aren't as good. Unlike OUATIA, it's not great top to bottom. I don't like The March of the Beggars.
Overall, this is my least favorite among the 6 famous Leone-directed movies.
Frayling says that (because of the confusion about who would direct and Leone coming late to the game as director), he doesn't fully consider this a 100% Leone movie. Perhaps that is why. Not sure. But I never liked this as much as any of the Dollars films or the other "Once Upon a Time" films.
But the soundtrack does have some great stuff.
-
Frayling says that (because of the confusion about who would direct and Leone coming late to the game as director), he doesn't fully consider this a 100% Leone movie.
BS, BS, BS. It's pretty well established by now (post-Frayling) that Leone was going to direct it all along. At least, Santi was never intended to direct, as he knew nothing about it, as Santi admits.
The most likely reason the film may seem un-Leone-like is that it wasn't lensed by Delli Colli. After GBU and OUATITW, Delli Colli's camera work became part of Leone's signature, and his absence from the DYS production tells. Nonetheless, DYS is a great film: perhaps because of the score, but for me the film is second only to GBU in the Leone oeuvre. It certainly has more substance than any of the Dollars pictures.
-
BS, BS, BS. It's pretty well established by now (post-Frayling) that Leone was going to direct it all along. At least, Santi was never intended to direct, as he knew nothing about it, as Santi admits.
The most likely reason the film may seem un-Leone-like is that it wasn't lensed by Delli Colli. After GBU and OUATITW, Delli Colli's camera work became part of Leone's signature, and his absence from the DYS production tells. Nonetheless, DYS is a great film: perhaps because of the score, but for me the film is second only to GBU in the Leone oeuvre. It certainly has more substance than any of the Dollars pictures.
Maybe Santi was never going to happen, but it is definitely true that other directors were supposed to direct this movie.
(Whether Leone would never have allowed another director to put his stamp on the movie is another question that we can never know the answer to.)
Also, this is the only the only Leone movie of the six that did not have production design by Carlo Simi.
-
Maybe Santi was never going to happen, but it is definitely true that other directors were supposed to direct this movie.
Yes I agree. Leone was looking at getting into producing which he then did with My Name is Nobody a couple of years later. This was clearly him originally exploring the idea, it's just that ultimately he did it himself in the end.
The most likely reason the film may seem un-Leone-like is that it wasn't lensed by Delli Colli. After GBU and OUATITW, Delli Colli's camera work became part of Leone's signature, and his absence from the DYS production tells. Nonetheless, DYS is a great film: perhaps because of the score, but for me the film is second only to GBU in the Leone oeuvre. It certainly has more substance than any of the Dollars pictures.
I don't think I agree with this. Firstly the film does seem extremely Leone like. Secondly, while a cinematographer can become part of a director's style to a degree (Bertolucci and Storaro would be a perfect example of this), the cinematographer does not define the director but rather attempts to bring the director's vision to life. While this does of course leave room for individual style and naturally the ascent of certain distinguished cinematographers in the industry, it is a style that is subservient to the director's overarching one (by the way Ruzzolini shot all the scenes in Europe for My Name is Nobody as well). The situation is basically the same with the editor who in a sense has even more of a say over how the picture ends up, but still is executing the director's vision. A prime example here would be Peckinpah whose films are known for the editing and while he often worked with his editors more than once, he never had a consistent editor across all of his work. I would say the best editing for Peckinpah was done by Tony Lawson (under Peckinpah's ever-watchful eye) yet it was Lou Lombardo who edited the Wild Bunch which kicked the whole thing off.
-
for me , the main theme is beautiful, but some of the other songs aren't as good. Unlike OUATIA, it's not great top to bottom. I don't like The March of the Beggars.
Overall, this is my least favorite among the 6 famous Leone-directed movies.
Frayling says that (because of the confusion about who would direct and Leone coming late to the game as director), he doesn't fully consider this a 100% Leone movie. Perhaps that is why. Not sure. But I never liked this as much as any of the Dollars films or the other "Once Upon a Time" films.
But the soundtrack does have some great stuff.
-1
BS, BS, BS. It's pretty well established by now (post-Frayling) that Leone was going to direct it all along. At least, Santi was never intended to direct, as he knew nothing about it, as Santi admits.
The most likely reason the film may seem un-Leone-like is that it wasn't lensed by Delli Colli. After GBU and OUATITW, Delli Colli's camera work became part of Leone's signature, and his absence from the DYS production tells. Nonetheless, DYS is a great film: perhaps because of the score, but for me the film is second only to GBU in the Leone oeuvre. It certainly has more substance than any of the Dollars pictures.
+1
Yes I agree. Leone was looking at getting into producing which he then did with My Name is Nobody a couple of years later. This was clearly him originally exploring the idea, it's just that ultimately he did it himself in the end.
I don't think I agree with this. Firstly the film does seem extremely Leone like. Secondly, while a cinematographer can become part of a director's style to a degree (Bertolucci and Storaro would be a perfect example of this), the cinematographer does not define the director but rather attempts to bring the director's vision to life. While this does of course leave room for individual style and naturally the ascent of certain distinguished cinematographers in the industry, it is a style that is subservient to the director's overarching one (by the way Ruzzolini shot all the scenes in Europe for My Name is Nobody as well). The situation is basically the same with the editor who in a sense has even more of a say over how the picture ends up, but still is executing the director's vision. A prime example here would be Peckinpah whose films are known for the editing and while he often worked with his editors more than once, he never had a consistent editor across all of his work. I would say the best editing for Peckinpah was done by Tony Lawson (under Peckinpah's ever-watchful eye) yet it was Lou Lombardo who edited the Wild Bunch which kicked the whole thing off.
Every DP will tell you exactly what you're saying: their role is to serve the director's vision, not to impose their trademark on the film. Still, good DP are easy to spot, and whether they want it or not, there signature is all over the films they do. Deakin's work is always hugely recognizable although the films he works on have very distinct look (example: Sicario, Skyfall, A Serious Man). That being said, I have seen rare examples of a DP doing something REALLY different (Lubezki's work on Burn After Reading).
Now back to Leone/Delli Colli. Leone was a great director, and as a great director:
- he knew had great ideas that usually made great shots
- he knew how to tell a story through shots (especially by playing with different levels background/foreground)
- he knew how to structure a shot
What he didn't know, and you can see it clearly in the films Delli Colli didn't do:
- how to use light. The lighting is TERRIBLE in FOD and FFDM, and mediocre in DYS.
- how to precisely frame the well structured shot he conceived
- how to grade
which is normal, because it's precisely the job of a DP.
-
Re: color: how can you tell when color was done poorly, as opposed to a film not being preserved properly/color degrading?
-
Every DP will tell you exactly what you're saying: their role is to serve the director's vision, not to impose their trademark on the film.
I would say yes and no to that. Yes they view their role as serving the director's vision; no it is not an issue for them to impose their style on the film, particularly given that is usually the reason why a director chose them in the first place and continues to work with them in the future.
What he didn't know, and you can see it clearly in the films Delli Colli didn't do:
- how to use light. The lighting is TERRIBLE in FOD and FFDM, and mediocre in DYS.
- how to precisely frame the well structured shot he conceived
- how to grade
which is normal, because it's precisely the job of a DP.
Again yes and no. Yes, that is the job of the DP. No - particularly as regards your second point, Leone was fantastic at framing his shots and he quite clearly must have been working very closely with the DP when shooting all of his films. To give another Leone appropriate example, take a look at Kurosawa. Kurosawa was an artist who carefully composed/framed everything but he was not the DP (he was, however, unlike Leone, his own editor - Leone's editor Baragli was present from GBU onwards)
-
Talking of Kurosawa, similar to the incredible "Leone - Delli Colli" relationship, I would love to have seen more of the "Kurosawa - Miyagawa" relationship.
I'm sure part of the reason why I love Rashomon is down to Kazuo Miyagawa as much as Kurosawa.
-
Re: color: how can you tell when color was done poorly, as opposed to a film not being preserved properly/color degrading?
It's a possibility. Especially since the Leone films not shot by Delli Colli are his lowest budgets, which means poorer film stock. But the misuse of lighting suggests someone didn't do his job anyway :)
-
Talking of Kurosawa, similar to the incredible "Leone - Delli Colli" relationship, I would love to have seen more of the "Kurosawa - Miyagawa" relationship.
I'm sure part of the reason why I love Rashomon is down to Kazuo Miyagawa as much as Kurosawa.
Exactly. Other great ones:
Spielberg / Kaminski
Coen / Deakins
Cuaron / Lubezki
More occasional ones that lead to huge leap forward in the history of cinematography:
Fincher / Cronenweth
Jeunet / Khondji
-
I would say yes and no to that. Yes they view their role as serving the director's vision; no it is not an issue for them to impose their style on the film, particularly given that is usually the reason why a director chose them in the first place and continues to work with them in the future.
I agree.
No - particularly as regards your second point, Leone was fantastic at framing his shots and he quite clearly must have been working very closely with the DP when shooting all of his films.
I don't think he was. He was great at imagining them. He was great at structuring them. He had some great framing ideas (keep the chin out of the frame, frame the guy between these elements in the foreground........) but the execution in non Delli Colli films is poorly done. It's still good because Leone's ideas were great enough.
If you want me to rephrase in a way we'll probably agree: FOD, FFDM and DYS would probably have (much) better shots if Delli Colli had done the cinematography.
-
FOD is obviously shot cheaply, but I don't know what your problem with FAFDM is.
FAFDM is probably my favorite Leone film. Which means my favorite movie of all time. (yes, even without a serious theme).
-
Come on it's not half as good as The Patriot.
-
If you want me to rephrase in a way we'll probably agree: FOD, FFDM and DYS would probably have (much) better shots if Delli Colli had done the cinematography.
Right I see what you mean. I'd have to re-watch DYS before properly commenting, but I certainly can't argue with the premise.
-
Come on it's not half as good as The Patriot.
The Mona Lisa, The Creation of Adam, and The Patriot