Does CLint really shoot people in the back?

[uncknown]

There is a new book out about Eastwood's westerns by James Nieibaur.

He repeats a claim that I have read before; TMWNN was the first anti-hero because he "shot people in the back", something John Wayne would never do.
Now, he did kill bad guys for dubious reasons e.g. the three members of Indio's gang ("Too bad you have to die"). You would not have seen that kind of violence in previous westerns from the "hero". He would have tied them up or turned them in to the law.

But, "in the back"? In any of Clint's westerns?
Bruce Marshall

[stanton]

There is a new book out about Eastwood's westerns by James Nieibaur.

He repeats a claim that I have read before; TMWNN was the first anti-hero because he "shot people in the back", something John Wayne would never do.

Actually he did sometimes, e.g. in Rio Bravo.

You would not have seen that kind of violence in previous westerns from the "hero". He would have tied them up or turned them in to the law.

E.g. the hero of The Last Wagon kills his enemys without mercy and without giving them a chance. And they are funnily all lawmen (corrupt ones though).

Just check the first scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdyPgFVQpXc

There are of course enough other examples.


It's often funny what people think (and write) about westerns before Leone. They must never have watched one. Or only the ones with Roy Rogers and co.

[cigar joe]

TMWNN was the first anti-hero because he "shot people in the back", something John Wayne would never do.

Wayne also shot Liberty Valence from cover.

[uncknown]

 No one has answered my question:
When, if ever, did an Eastwood character in a  western shoot someone in the back?

[uncknown]

It's often funny what people think (and write) about westerns before Leone. They must never have watched one. Or only the ones with Roy Rogers and co.
[/quote]

 

[stanton]

No one has answered my question:
When, if ever, did an Eastwood character in a  western shoot someone in the back?

Probably really none, probably cause Leone wanted Eastwood not to become a Wayne clon , but Eastwood kills some without giving them a chance. But of course always those who deserved it. That's because he's our hero, not an anti-hero.

[drinkanddestroy]

I do not think TMWNN shoots anyone in the back. In another Eastwood western, maybe. I can't recall.

IMO, that statement probably comes from an incident  that happened on the set of THE SHOOTIST, with John Wayne and Don Siegel.
It seems that the script called for Wayne's character to shoot someone in the back during the  final shootout. Wayne objected to this and had an argument with Siegel about it. Wayne said  that he doesn't shoot people in the back. Siegel retorted: Clint Eastwood would!

This incident illustrates the tension between the (supposed) values of the older Westerns vs. the revisionist ones. Whether or not an Eastwood character ever actually did shoot someone in the back, I don't know. But it's a funny story with Siegel and Wayne, and I am guessing that's the source.

Or, just the fact that TMWNN would shoot people for money, without any real values, the bad-good guy, may have led to people saying that Eastwood plays the TYPE OF CHARACTER who Would shoot people in the back. But I don't recall him ever actually doing so.

[titoli]

The story has been told in an interview by Eastwood whose video was posted here twice. It was not the script but the original source which required the shooting on the back. Which makes me wonder how much of it is true as I doubt that Wayne didn-t raise objections before filming started.

[uncknown]

I do not think TMWNN shoots anyone in the back. In another Eastwood western, maybe. I can't recall.


Or, just the fact that TMWNN would shoot people for money, without any real values, the bad-good guy, may have led to people saying that Eastwood plays the TYPE OF CHARACTER who Would shoot people in the back. But I don't recall him ever actually doing so.

It always bothers me when TMWNN is labeled as completely cynical or all bad.
One of the reasons this character is so loved is precisely  because he does, on occasion, act altruistically or compassionately.
In other words , he is a cool cat who doesn't conform to Hollywood's childish Production Code morality
bruce marshall

[stanton]

It always bothers me when TMWNN is labeled as completely cynical or all bad.
One of the reasons this character is so loved is precisely  because he does, on occasion, act altruistically or compassionately.
In other words , he is a cool cat who doesn't conform to Hollywood's childish Production Code morality

But many protagonists of 50s westerns did not do this either, and that developed in the 60s before the Spagies could have had any influence on the US westerns.

Eastwood is of course not bad, but he sure does often act in a cynical way. Leaving back Tuco in the desert with his hands tied on the back and without water and a gun is not exactly the behaviour of a philanthropist.

[uncknown]

Eastwood is of course not bad, but he sure does often act in a cynical way. Leaving back Tuco in the desert with his hands tied on the back and without water and a gun is not exactly the behaviour of a philanthropist.

yeah, no many how many times I try to justify that one , I just can't come up with a reason that is justifiable.

Bad, bad, move, Blondie!

[drinkanddestroy]

Indeed, that's (one of the things) the title THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY is about: playing with our usual definitions of the words. Morally, "the good" in this movie is not very good; and "the ugly" is often a lovable character. Frayling discusses this in the BRD commentary, during the scene where Blondie walks in on Tuco in the bath in the bombed-out hotel.

[noodles_leone]

Indeed, that's (one of the things) the title THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY is about: playing with our usual definitions of the words. Morally, "the good" in this movie is not very good; and "the ugly" is often a lovable character. Frayling discusses this in the BRD commentary, during the scene where Blondie walks in on Tuco in the bath in the bombed-out hotel.

Of course. And of course, that's what Leone said several times. But in the end the movie is moral and not amoral. It's even too moral for its own good: you cannot run aroudn telling everybody how cynical and amoral the film is, how it plays with the definition of "good", and then in the end your "good but actually bad" character has learned to be actually 100% as good as the nicest John Wayne character.

[dave jenkins]

yeah, no many how many times I try to justify that one , I just can't come up with a reason that is justifiable.

Bad, bad, move, Blondie!

If you mean it was foolish to cross Tuco and leave him alive, I agree. Tuco even says as much. But Blondie was right to act against Tuco before Tuco thought to act against him. It was only a matter of time before Tuco decided to kill Blondie for ALL the bounty money (I presume Blondie wasn't stashing his winnings in a bank). But leaving Tuco in the desert to die instead of killing him outright? Bad, bad move, Blondie!

[uncknown]

Am I the only one who believes Blondie returns his half of the stolen money to the Army?

Reason one: he will get a reward for the $125k which would be substantial and he would not have to worry about being caught.
reason two: he developed great sympathy for the plight of the soldiers and would want them to get their deserved pay

reason three: he was broke at the start of FOD

bruce marshall