Il mio nome è Nessuno aka My Name Is Nobody (1973)

[stanton]

MNIN looks cheap?

MNIN looks fantastic.

MNIN had 2 DoPs. Some say they recognize the different style, I don't.

[dave jenkins]

too much slapping?

How can there be too much slapping? Bite your tongue!

[Groggy]

Can't we talk about how awesome Morricone's music is and forget the auteur prattle?

[noodles_leone]

MNIN looks cheap?

MNIN looks fantastic.

MNIN had 2 DoPs. Some say they recognize the different style, I don't.

Appart from the aged zooms (see: opening shot. Why did they spoil this great crane shot with a pointless vertigo effect?), MNIN usually looks really good. But we're pretty far from Deli Colli territory:

- framing is very good
- lightening isn't
- wide shots are good
- close ups aren't
- many sets are too empty
- some shots are pretty but are cheap when their point is to be NOT cheap (wild bunch shots should typically never show you the limitations of the wild bunch. They should have zoomed a little more so that you cannot see where the wild bunch stops)
- some scenes look terrible (Terrence Hill in the river, at the Begining)

[noodles_leone]

Can't we talk about how awesome Morricone's music is and forget the auteur prattle?

According to Leone, he composed the whole music himself. Morricone was playing cards with Valerii the whole time.

[stanton]

Appart from the aged zooms (see: opening shot. Why did they spoil this great crane shot with a pointless vertigo effect?), MNIN usually looks really good. But we're pretty far from Deli Colli territory:

- framing is very good
- lightening isn't
- wide shots are good
- close ups aren't
- many sets are too empty
- some shots are pretty but are cheap when their point is to be NOT cheap (wild bunch shots should typically never show you the limitations of the wild bunch. They should have zoomed a little more so that you cannot see where the wild bunch stops)
- some scenes look terrible (Terrence Hill in the river, at the Begining)

I can't follow you on this.
Well, I don't think that Delli Colli was a better DoP than Ruzzoli (but prefer both to Dallamano). But then, at the same time I think all that you describe is the director's stuff, the DoP has only the function to give the director what he wants. (Of course I know that this is only an ideal and in reality it all differs from film to film from director to director who really is responsible for the look of the images)

Empty sets? In westerns often sets are not empty enough. In SWs there are always in the towns much too much people in the streets.

The opening shot is absolutely stunning, and zooms are not aged when they are used like they were used in MNIN. Chabrols cheap looking zooms in his 70s films are maybe aged, but not here.

Also the shot of Hill in the river looks great.

There are only a few shots which don't look good (probably those directed by Valerii )

[noodles_leone]

Delli Colli is one of the 5 best DoP ever. His key role on the films he worked on cannot be downplayed. If GBU and OUATITW look so "perfect" is as much because of Leone as it is because of Delli Colli. You just don't have the same quality in DYS, MNIN and the early dollar films.

When shooting the wild bunch shots during the cemetery scene, the director probably asked the DoP to get a few long shots of the wild bunch. He probably mentionned the need for a very long focale (it's at least 300mm from what I can see and the effect is very strong) and also told "it must look like they are 1.000". It doesn't. At all. It looks like they are 50:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/name-nobody-3.jpg

The shot is very cool, but there is too much space on the right and on the left. Hence, it's a little cheap, while being one of the most expensive scene to shoot. Some directors are more precise than others when it comes to framing (Fincher). I don't think Leone was, appart from close ups and I don't think Valerii was.

Still looks better than any non Leone SW.

[noodles_leone]

Empty sets? In westerns often sets are not empty enough. In SWs there are always in the towns much too much people in the streets.

No no don't get me wrong: there is good empty and cheap empty. It's the job of the director to say there is a problem, it's the job of a set designer to make "empty" look cool and it's the job of the DoP to film it the way it will look cool. In MNIN some sets look very good (the saloon, some of the streets, the outside of the first Beauregard/Nobody dialogue, the cemetery...), mainly due to good set design, and many of the empty streets just look cheap. May be we're entering subjective territory here, but the opening of GBU doesn't look cheap at all it looks terrific to me.

This...
http://www.dvdactive.com/images/reviews/screenshot/2013/11/20131107181131707_original.jpg
... looks good but cheap because there is nothing in the street. The set design is good, but the composition of the frame is flawed: there is only nothingness at the right of the image. A single item would have made the trick. And that's the DoP's job.

This...
http://www.fistfuloflocations.com/maps/gbu/gbu02.jpg
... is probably WAY cheaper but looks more finished to me because there are stuffs here and there, and a dog, and abandoned carriages, and wind in the carriages, and some kind of grass in the foreground...

Keep in mind that the first image is really simpler to compose because of the many characters or group of characters.

Also:

Regular close up: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Q1-iNLu0v5g/UAQlPF6FYRI/AAAAAAAABw4/Yl3jBKop4ps/s1600/My+Name+Is+Nobody+-+inside.jpg
vs real magic: http://livingincinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/you-brought-two-too-many.jpg

Once again, it LOOKS good. Better than most movies of the area. Still way cheaper than Delli Colli work.

[stanton]

I can't see the first image (try to post it again), but I assume I know what you mean, and still do not agree.

The 2 close-ups of Hill and Bronson are nor meant to have the same impact, so this does not count for me.

There are a few shots which are less good looking, but there is such stuff in GBU too, but then not in OUTW, and not in Giu la testa either. For me the photography in OUTW is superior to GBU.

[noodles_leone]

OUATITW has a better photography than any movie shot before 2000.

Photography in american movies apart from noir films really became a thing in 79 with Apocalypse Now. The 90's weren't the most glorious decade for photography (over lightened sets with either 100% realistic colors or heavy red/blue filters aren't my cup of tea... hopefully Darius Konji did most of his best work in this area) but now we're getting gorgeous stuff on a regular basis.

[Dust Devil]

When shooting the wild bunch shots during the cemetery scene, the director probably asked the DoP to get a few long shots of the wild bunch. He probably mentionned the need for a very long focale (it's at least 300mm from what I can see and the effect is very strong) and also told "it must look like they are 1.000". It doesn't. At all. It looks like they are 50:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/name-nobody-3.jpg

In the first row you can even see the gunslingers Jack killed in the opening scene.

[Dust Devil]

(DD, did I really convinced you that Leone played the Fonda part? I'm a bit lost here)

He did play it. You are lost.

[stanton]

OUATITW has a better photography than any movie shot before 2000.

That's nearly as good as Irreversible being the best French film ever. But only nearly. Try again ...

[Novecento]

Photography in american movies apart from noir films really became a thing in 79 with Apocalypse Now. The 90's weren't the most glorious decade for photography (over lightened sets with either 100% realistic colors or heavy red/blue filters aren't my cup of tea... hopefully Darius Konji did most of his best work in this area) but now we're getting gorgeous stuff on a regular basis.

So are you saying that if Storaro hadn't boarded that US bound plane from Italy, the American film industry would still be languishing in some cinematographic hinterland

[noodles_leone]

Haha no they would have adapted at some point but just like they lost something they took decades to find back when cinema went from mute to talking, they lost something leaving black and white for colors.
The 70's had some great photography (Chinatown, Godfather...), even the 60's (the graduate...) but Apocalypse Now is to photography is to cinema what Leone was to camerawork: you cannot watch that movie and not notice it. Hence it's influence. Many cinematographers and filmmakers say they discovered photography with Apocalypse Now.