Mistakes in Frayling's DVD Commentaries

[dave jenkins]

High School? Hell, he doesn't have any friends NOW.

[drinkanddestroy]

A) I didn't say I have no friends. I said my friends are losers -- and that's not the same thing  


B) This thread is not mine. But it serves an important purpose -- when someone publishes a factual mistake about a movie in a public forum, it should be corrected for the record -- something that a feller by the name of dave jenkins advised me of when we were discussing Cinema Retro's Dollars Trilogy "Special" Edition. I'll give uncknown the benefit of the doubt and presume that he did not contribute to that mistake-riddled issue 

[Cusser]

He said the film opens in 1861, but Arch Stanton's grave marker said April 3, 1862, so I would think later.  I'll give him the benefit there.  


Arch Stanton´s grave was dated 3rd Febuary 1862

D'oh !!!

[dave jenkins]

A) I didn't say I have no friends. I said my friends are losers -- and that's not the same thing  

I didn't realize your words were holy writ. Ya see, here at the Leone board many of us practice a radical approach called "reading between the lines." I'm sure even Angel Eyes claimed to have friends.

[drinkanddestroy]

RE: the English dub of Gian Maria Volonte: I decided to look around YouTube a bit for samples of Volonte's voice. Here are two        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtx2d4wXQWs  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5E8nVGcMoY

I don't think he sounds anything like the English voice of Ramon or Indio. Volonte's voice sounds much softer

[drinkanddestroy]

I just watched Frayling's commentary to DYS, and there is something which I wanted to address, it's not a factual mistake but it's something I disagree with Frayling on.

He says that the final flashback is somehow shared by John and Juan. I don't know how or why he believes so. Immediately after that flashback ends, we see Juan's face and he screams "NO!" as he realize Juan is igniting a shitload of synamite and about to blow up. But I don't see any evidence of the flashback being "shared."


On that note, RE: shared flashbacks:


OUATITW: the final flashback is indeed shared between Harmonica and Frank: once Harmonica sticks the harmonica in Frank's mouth, Frank remembers him, and the final flashback is shared between the two (as Frayling mentions in the commentary). No doubt.

FAFDM: Frayling says (on pp. 180 - 181 of his book Spaghetti Westerns; direct quotes in yellow) that the final flashback is also shared between Mortimer and Indio. "In terms of plot, this sharing simply tells us that the girl is Mortimer's sister, and that Mortimer has a score to settle with Indio." (Interestingly, Indio is awoken from his daydreaming about that final flashback by Mortimer's screaming at him "this is Colonel Mortimer.... does the name mean anything to you?!" -- further emphasizing the connection between this flashback and Mortimer). However, Frayling goes a step further and says there is a possibility that the exact same flashback was shared, which would mean that Mortimer "was also there at the time (as a voyeur watching his sister's rape), and if he recalls the events in the same way as Indio (red filter, distorting sounds, sado-eroticism), then he is enjoying the fantasy as well. Those critics who look for subtle points being made in teh frame, within a Realist aesthetic, would presumably opt for the latter interpretation. In fact, in the terms of reference of the film, this is the least likely interpretation: what is more likely is that Leone was concerned about the most 'stylish' way of presenting his flashback, and he was simply making a point about the plot (retrospectively explaining Mortimer's motivation throughout the film, and showing him to have been a Hollywood-type 'goody' all along -- rather than a callous bounty-hunter or a psychopathic nut)." IMO, this idea that Mortimer was there at the time, as a voyeur watching his sister's rape, is ludicrous, but at least Frayling acknowledges that it is the "least likely interpretation."

In OUATIA, I believe that in the scene with Noodles and Bailey in his study, at the end when there is a montage of clips of the two of them as youngsters, both of them are sharing the flashback.

However, I think that the idea of Juan somehow sharing the final flashback with John in DYS is pretty ridiculous -- even in a vague, spiritual rather than literal sense. I think Juan just screams "NO!" cuz he realizes that John is abot to blow himself up, I don't think there is any reason to believe he is sharing the flashback, or how it would help the story if he does. It may be nice to think of this sort of symmetry between Leone's movies, that in all the movies that include flashbacks, the final flashback is shared between two characters; but IMO this doesn't work in DYS: there is no justification for arguing that Juan shares it, and anyway, I don't see how his sharing it it would affect the story.

[stanton]

However, I think that the idea of Juan somehow sharing the final flashback with John in DYS is pretty ridiculous -- even in a vague, spiritual rather than literal sense. I think Juan just screams "NO!" cuz he realizes that John is abot to blow himself up, I don't think there is any reason to believe he is sharing the flashback, or how it would help the story if he does. It may be nice to think of this sort of symmetry between Leone's movies, that in all the movies that include flashbacks, the final flashback is shared between two characters; but IMO this doesn't work in DYS: there is no justification for arguing that Juan shares it, and anyway, I don't see how his sharing it it would affect the story.

I rarely agree with all the things you think off as ridiculous, but here I do.

[Groggy]

Any time Frayling discusses DYS he insists that the Governor character is General Huerta, the dictator of Mexico during that time period. I don't know where he got that idea, inasmuch as the Governor is explicitly identified as "Don Jaime" within the film.

[drinkanddestroy]

Any time Frayling discusses DYS he insists that the Governor character is General Huerta, the dictator of Mexico during that time period. I don't know where he got that idea, inasmuch as the Governor is explicitly identified as "Don Jaime" within the film.

haha no he doesn't! I just watched the dvd commentary and he never says he is Huerta; he always calls him the Governor.

[drinkanddestroy]

JUst saw FAFDM again; Van Cleef's finger tip is definitely missing; you can clearly see it when he waves to Eastwood from his hotel window, when Eastwood arrives in El Pso just before Indio's gang robs the bank


I watched the movie with Frayling's commentary, and I have a couple of questions on stuff he said. Not that they are mistakes, I just have questions:

1) he says that the Tucumcari set was the redressed set that was used in FOD. Doesn't look like it to me. That set had two very prominent buildings -- the Baxter and Rojo compounds -- at either end of the main street of San Miguel, and it doesn't look to me like there are any such buildings at the end of the street in Tucumcari.

Furthermore, when you see Mortimer enter the Tucumcari saloon, we see the saloon is made of red brick (similar to the buildings in El Paso); I don't recall any of those buildings from the San Miguel set being made of red brick

2) In the scene where Monco tells the residents of White Rocks "You people need a new sheriff," Frayling says this is a reference to the sequence in High Noon where Gary Cooper throws the tin star into the dust, "a sequence that irritated John wayne so much." I've seen sources for John Wayne's and Howard Hawks's hatred of High Noon, for the sherrif running around beggig for help and the townspeople refusing it, but I never heard that Wayne was bothered by the scene with Cooper throwing the star into the dust. Has anyone ever heard that?

[mike siegel]

2.) No.
I have a huge archive on Wayne and Hawks, but that would be new to me as well.  Maybe Wayne thought it would be 'un-american' to throw away the star, but I can't find or remember a quote. Both thought though (especially Hawks), that a Sheriff should be a professional. And a professional would never asked amateurs for help. Not only would their action be uncontrollable, but also represent rather a danger than any kind of help to him. And this begging for help is the major content of the movie, no wonder they hated it . HIGH NOON is a great film, but when it comes to that point, I'm with them. RIO BRAVO is the real thing

[drinkanddestroy]

2.) No.
I have a huge archive on Wayne and Hawks, but that would be new to me as well.  Maybe Wayne thought it would be 'un-american' to throw away the star, but I can't find or remember a quote. Both thought though (especially Hawks), that a Sheriff should be a professional. And a professional would never asked amateurs for help. Not only would their action be uncontrollable, but also represent rather a danger than any kind of help to him. And this begging for help is the major content of the movie, no wonder they hated it . HIGH NOON is a great film, but when it comes to that point, I'm with them. RIO BRAVO is the real thing

We recently discussed Wayne's and Hawks's opposition to High Noon starting here http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=8098.msg157906#msg157906 (on the second half of p. 12, and on page 13, of that "overrated movies" thread).

As we detailed on that thread,  Wayne and Hawks had two complaints with the movie (we're not sure if both of 'em had both complaints; but between the two of 'em, we've heard of at least two complaints): firstly, as you mentioned, that the sheriff is running around asking for help (I think Hawks used some phrase like "running around like a chicken with his head cut off"; and also, it bothered Wayne very much that the citizens refused to help when asked. (see the last two paragraphs here http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090715/REVIEWS08/907159989/1023 ) We discussed this stuff extensively at that "overrated movies thread". But I never recall hearing Wayne having a problem with Cooper throwing the star in the dust (although I guess that if I did see a source for it, it sure would not shock me!)

I agree that Rio Bravo is a great movie, but I did not like High Noon. This has nothing to do with the politics; I just didn't find it an interesting movie. There's nothing very compelling about spending an hour and a half watching a guy run around and around and around asking for help. Can you help me? No. Can you help me? No. Can you help me? No. Okay, I guess I'll just have to do it myself. Not a very interesting movie.

[drinkanddestroy]

In his interview with Michael Parkinson in 1974, John Wayne talks about Gary Cooper throwing his star to the ground:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFScHRfNrLo

John Wayne:
"...then at the end of the picture, he took the United States Marshal badge, threw it down, stepped on it and walked off. I think those things are just a little bit un-american..."

 
 

Thanks for the link!


So from what I have seen, Wayne hated how the townspeople refused to help; whereas the complaint that mike siegel mentioned, about how unprofessional it was for the sheriff to run around begging for help, was made by Hawks. It's possible that each of them believed in the other complaint as well, but from what I've seen thus far, Hawks complained about the unprofessionalism of the sheriff's actions, whereas Wayne complained about the citizens' refusal to help.


Interesting also in that clip, to see Wayne discuss the blacklist; he says that the reason he fought against the Communist writers is cuz those people at first made it difficult for right-wingers to get jobs. So I guess that once the Commies made life difficult for the right-wing writers, then the right-wingers decided to fight back by getting the commies blacklisted... so assuming what Wayne is saying is true, if the Commies hadn't made an effort to prevent "unsympathetic" writers from getting jobs, Wayne wouldn't have made an effort to get rid of them. Interesting.

btw, RE: these Western ethos and "unamericanism," I have this to say: I appreciate how Wayne (and some others, like John Ford) believed very staunchly in the idea of Western ideals, frontier ideals, and sought to portray that in their movies, eg. Ford has this very staunch ideals of communities and hope for a better tomorrow; whether or not I personally believe in it, I can certainly understand those ideas and I enjoy their movies (and I enjoy movies with other ideals, like Leone's, no less  ) However, I REALLY, REALLY can't stand when people throw around the term "unAmerican." America is a vast nation of many people from different countries, religions, cultures, beliefs, etc. and the notion that any particular  idea is "unAmerican" bothers me; IMO it displays ignorance and arrogance (and a whole bunch of other words that you can choose from the following terms, depending on how charitable or how mean you wanna be  ) People often just call beliefs that oppose their own "unAmerican." And this is not the excludive domain of the Right or the Left; it's been done by both sides.

The way I see it, there is one basic ideal that is firmly American, and that is LIBERTY. The right of individuals to be free, to speak as they please, worship as they please, vote as they please, to be free of intrusion from government, such as to be guaranteed protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, or cruel and unusual punishment, etc. The liberties proclaimed in our Bill of Rights and in the basic natural law notions, that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. etc. So LIBERTY is an ideal that we can unambiguously say is AMERICAN, and limitations on individual liberties are certainly un-American. But of course there is much debate on exactly what sort of liberties should be limited, and on all sorts of other political opinions. And I am very uncomfortable with the idea of one person or group of people telling another that their ideas are un-American. Even if I disagree with your ideas, it is very rare that I;d go so far as to call something "un-American." I believe in freedom, and opposition to freedom is un-American. But beyond that basic and most important ideal, you have to be very careful about calling another person's ideals un-American..... And while I wasn't around in the 40's and 50's, haven't read up much about the blacklist or HUAAC, and understand that its hard to judge actions undertaken in an era you didn't live through; it seems to me that forcing people to testify before Congress about their political beliefs and affiliations, and causing them to lose their jobs based on these beliefs/affiliations or refusal to testify or name names is political persecution at its worst, and political persecution, no matter what side it comes from, is as detestable -- and yes, un-American -- as is any particular political belief, including Communism.

[Groggy]

HIGH NOON is a great film, but when it comes to that point, I'm with them. RIO BRAVO is the real thing

I'm not crazy about either.

[drinkanddestroy]

you know about the six degrees of Kevin Bacon. Well I think that no discussion on these boards is more than six degrees away from a discussion on High Noon; that's what everything always comes back to. Every time