Thoughts on this film

[Tim]

  Groggy, I've always thought Gettysburg was pretty historically accurate, although some things are condensed for time and whatnot.  What things were you thinking of that were inaccurate?  At this point, I've seen the movie a ton of times so I've probably just gotten to the point where I accept it as the truth.

  As for Gods and Generals, I saw it in theaters and haven't seen it since so I won't comment.  I know it was the point of the movie with the whole religious side, but I got really tired of hearing about god and religion in that long, long movie.

[Groggy]

  Groggy, I've always thought Gettysburg was pretty historically accurate, although some things are condensed for time and whatnot.  What things were you thinking of that were inaccurate?  At this point, I've seen the movie a ton of times so I've probably just gotten to the point where I accept it as the truth.

The biggest one being that the 20th Maine remained on the Round Tops on July 3rd, and was not in any way shape or form involved in Pickett's Charge.  Also, Kevin Conway's character Kilrain was fictional.  And now quite a few people seem to think that Hancock and Armistead weren't as close of friends as the film (and admittedly generally accepted fact) made them out to be.  Most of the other errors are of little consequence.

As for Gods and Generals, I saw it in theaters and haven't seen it since so I won't comment.  I know it was the point of the movie with the whole religious side, but I got really tired of hearing about god and religion in that long, long movie.

Well. . . I really liked it when I first saw it.  I still think the battle scenes are great, arguably better than those in "Gettysburg", and I check them out every once in awhile, but I've only watched it the whole way through once since I've gotten it on DVD.

[Tim]

  Ok, those are legitimate points, but really the 20th Maine isn't that involved in Pickett's charge in the movie.  That conversation between Hancock and Chamberlain just seems to be a way of beginning the artillery barrage.

  And Kilrain is a fictional character, but I loved him in the book and the movie.  I thought Kevin Conway did a great job w/ the character, and even though he was fictional Kilrain allows the viewer to get to know both Joshua and Tom Chamberlain better.

  I did like the battle scenes in G and G, especially Chancellorsville and Fredericksburg with the 20th Maine out in the field.  And I always remember the scene w/ the Union and Confederate soldier exchanging things on Xmas.  I might have to rent that sometime soon just to refresh my memory.

[The Firecracker]

Following on from my point about my friend Sean(real name John),doesn't the fact that there being a Johnny & Johnny, as painted on the toy train at Mesa Verde,re-iterate the likelihood of two Seans in the movie?Juan is quite willing to call himself John,so why not Mallory "Sean" to his family and friends in Ireland?Men whose name are Patrick in Ireland are also likely to be affectionally called Pat,Paddy or Packie!

sorry if this was already mentioned but...


perhaps Juan is willing to call himself John because the anglo version of the name "Juan" is in fact "John". I guess the same can be said about Coburn's character where the anglo version of "Sean" could be "John". Then again I am quite fond of the theory of Warbeck being Sean, which would make sense out of the title theme which signifies John's haunting memories of his old friend.

[Banjo]

Hey, this thread is really getting good. It makes sense that John/Sean's friend might also be called Sean ("They Shared a Revolution, A Woman . . . And a Name!") for the reasons stated above. There is an obvious parallel between the two revolutions and the two friendships, and that parallel is reinforced if the first friendship is between Sean and Sean and the second between John and John. And since Sean and John are variants of the same name (as are Jean, Jan, Johan et. al.) the secret title of DYS could be "My Three Seans." That would mean that the "Sean, Sean, Sean" lyric is not referring to any one person: the repetition actually names each of three characters in turn. And Morricone's score supports this: after the Mesa Verde job, which ends with a complete presentation of "The March of the Beggars" theme, that theme almost disappears from the movie (it recurrs once after Juan has killed Huerta). Instead, Juan begins to be associated with the more melancholy passage from the main DYS theme. It is the main DYS theme that contains (elsewhere) the "Sean, Sean, Sean" motif, so John and Juan become musically connected.

Firecracker,while we're looking at old posts i very much go along with what Dave Jenkins said above,especially with the Sean chants being made in triplicate in places!

[cigar joe]

Duck You Sucker

Well I must admit that seeing this for the first time on the new pristine R1, wide screen SE DVD, with the original "mono" audio was a revelation. In 1970 I left New York City for first the Adirondacks, and then Montana, so my easy access to the theaters on Times Square was eliminated and the ability to be aware of much less be able to see the Spaghetti Westerns that occasionally graced the big screens in double & triple bills was curtailed.

My previous viewing experiences with this film were once on a 70’s or 80’s VHS tape and then dribs and drabs that I caught from time to time while switching through channels on TV. In regards to the Pan & Scan and commercial breached versions my reaction to Rod Steigers performance was decidedly negative. It seems in retrospect that the combination of cuts, trimmed scenes, and commercial breaks, emphasized the clownish facial expressions and exaggerated his accent while negating the serious side of his performance. Now viewed as a whole his performance becomes more easy flowing and contiguous. You realize that Steiger was playing Juan as a cagey Mexican bandito playing the fool when the situation required it and reverting back at the drop of a hat back to bandit leader.  With James Coburn’s performance I never had an issue.

I’m also mature enough now to see that this was a transitional film for Leone not only as a complete film but it was transforming before our eyes. I can see now why it tanked in the US. In Europe I believe you had the luxury of getting served your Leone in well paced over time releases, you had the opportunity to savor and enjoy and digest each and were ready to see what the maestro would serve up next.  We "kids" here in the US were blasted by both barrels in 1967 when both "A Fistful of Dollars" and "For A Few Dollars More" premiered within months of each other, and then theaters ran double bills for months at a time. Within a year "The Good The Bad & The Ugly" also hit the theaters and we were totally immersed in the Leone style and eager for more of the same, I think we may have been under the impression that these films were similar to the James Bond franchise where a successful formula would be repeated over & over.

"Once Upon A Time in The West" was a totally different animal it did not star Clint Eastwood (which was the way the dollars trilogy was promoted (strike one) it was misunderstood upon release and panned by the critics who did not understand its nature(strike two) it was then re-cut (Strike three) and released widely to a quick demise.

"Duck You Sucker" not really a traditional Western never had a chance, it was Leone’s reaction to the Zapata Westerns that never did have a wide showcase or following here in the US, his quotes & references to these Zapatas would have flown over the heads of most. While Leones previous "Dollars" films were just fun adventures, and "OUTITW" was an homage Western about Westerns, this film had a Leone message, a statement, it was not only that "Revolution is Confusion" but also to "keep your head down" (Duck You Sucker) and stay out of politics, because only the people who read books survive the poor who do the fighting and make the changes end up dead.

There are the comedy elements from his pervious films juxtaposed with serious new depths to his characters, the beginning of DYS is very reminiscent to GBU and the cat and mouse games played between Tuco and Blondie are reflected in the Juan/Sean relationship each using the other for opposite purposes. Juan is also the head of his extended family of banditi and all actions are shown to have consequences.

I’m pulled buy opposing emotions while watching this film, on one salient I want it to be another grand adventure a la GBU, and that is the way it started out. On another it’s not up to the mythic qualities of OUTITW, though it does quote from Eisenstein’s "Que Vive Mexico" and the Hollywood tradition of Zapatas, Leone purposely shuns the "romance of the sombrero" we get no ballads, no soldadas (ie, no beautiful Adelitas or Columbas),  no festivals all touchstones of the Italian Zapatas. On still a third salient the film has a very bleak ending. Not exactly a feel good fun to watch over and over.

OUTIA Leone’s next and last film continues in the mode and is equally beautiful but bleak. a film about melancholy and regret.

Morricone’s score great as usual I find a just a tad bit uneven, the leitmotif’s for Juan and Sean/John are good but the grotto massacre theme just seems a bit to breezy & lighthearted for the images. Listening to the Frayling commentary I have an understanding of what he was attempting.

I’d now rate my favorite Leone films in this order.

GBU & OUTITW a tie
FAFDM
DYS
AFOD
OUTIA
COR 

[dave jenkins]

On still a third salient the film has a very bleak ending. Not exactly a feel good fun to watch over and over.

Bleak for Juan Miranda, certainly (he's really alone at the end), not necessarily so for Mallory. The flashback intimates absolution, provides perhaps a foretaste of a blessed final state. Add Morricone's music, and you have something other than a downer ending.

[cigar joe]

not necessarily so for Mallory. The flashback intimates absolution, provides perhaps a foretaste of a blessed final state. Add Morricone's music, and you have something other than a downer ending

a half downer then 

[moviesceleton]

As Frayling said, the biggest changes from Leone's earlier films in this movie are that all actions have consequences and that characters develop and affect eachother. That is more mature Leone and not everyone like it. I do like it, but I can't say which Leone I like better.

Joe, I can't understand how OUATIA is your least favorite of Leone's main films .

[cigar joe]

Joe, I can't understand how OUATIA is your least favorite of Leone's main films

I prefer his Westerns, gangster films are ok but not something I'm into, I grew up in New York City and couldn't wait to get out into the wide open spaces of the West.

I hardly ever watch OUTIA, its a beautiful but depressing film.

[moviesceleton]

I think you're one of those who don't like this new less-fun Leone.

[cigar joe]

Well, I sometimes just like to have a good laugh, DYS is more than laughs, I just have to be in the mood for more serious fair. 

[moviesceleton]

Well, I sometimes just like to have a good laugh, DYS is more than laughs, I just have to be in the mood for more serious fair. 

Fair enough. Life ain't easy without laughter    .

[cigar joe]

Fair enough. Life ain't easy without laughter 

WE all have to cherish DYS as being Sergio's last great Western

[The Firecracker]

Been sayin' it since I got here. My favorite.