Sounder SIGN UP FOR FREE
Talking Images
Talking Images

Episode 31 · 1 year ago

The Dollar Trilogy is Pretty Badass

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

The Dollar Trilogy is iconic. It broke the rules, rewrote what we consider a western to be, and is just, well, badass! But why? What is it that make these films stand out the way they do? In this episode we try to find the answer.

Join us as we talk through A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in all their badassness - and highlight just what make them special to us: from the way they move, feel and breath to the legacy they left behind.  

You are listening to talking images, the official podcast of ICM Forumcom. Welcome back everyone. I'm Chris and in this episode I'm joined by rare but their guest Adam from the York, as well as my regular cohosts mature and Saul, to talk about three of the biggest films in not just western history but film history. Of fast full of dollars, for a few dollars more and, of course, the good, the bad and the ugly, often called the dollar trilogy or the man with no name trilogy. Each of them stand in the Patlum of great cinema, each of them directed by circular own, each of them starring Clint Eastwood and each of them scored by Nyo medicorner. These are also the three films that literally put Spaghetti Westerns on the map and, in many ways invented their own esthetics. They broke all the rules of the Holywood Western, including some of the oldest ones you can imagine, such as the murderer and the wicktim not being seen in the same shot when the bull is start flying. The way the world saw these films were, in it's so many ways, revolutionary, and that's not to talk about the long takes, the wide angles, the incredible orchestral music, and that music is probably edged into all of our minds. They come to define what Westerns are too so many people. And we also have to talk about the tension these very simple tools created, especially in the stand up. I mean these two films essentially made will have been a small batch of very low budget pulpy films into a phenomena of well, okay, granted, if you look at most regetivest and still a large batch of pretty low budget pulpy films, but films a lot people were seeing. But these three films are not any other spegetive stern's. They are in almost all context considered the best, and the production values are there to prove it. For this episode will talk through each of the films one by one, including the many ways they subverted expectations and changed what Westerns could be. So let's just start with a really simple opening question. What is it that makes these three films so special to you all? This is Adam from New York. To me, which stands out about these movies? Will, there are many things that stand down and you're already highlighted some of them. The wide angle shots, for example. But which stands out to me most thematically is the a morality of the heroes and protagonists, and whether it's leave n Cleef in one movie, or Eli Wallick another, or Clinton Eastwood in all three, these are not traditional Western heroes and when we last talked about Westerns and one of our earlier podcasts, we've talked about the great silence, which is another great Spaghetti Western, and I mentioned that the traditional Western proposes a sort of central mythological narrative, and that mythological narrative is about the civilizing of the West and the passage of Pioneers and ranchers and gunmen through the West as a civilizing and beneficial force. And the gun men in that mythical narrative is always a hero of frontier justice. They provide justice where justice does not already exist. Well, in the Spaghetti Westerns, and I think this is very much due to the case that they are Italian productions or in some cases Italian Spanish productions, they're not really captive to this whole sort of American mythology. They feel free to do what they want, so they don't feel like they have to uphold a certain American narrative and as result we get these much more intriguing protagonists who don't care, or not that they don't care, but they're not primarily concerned with justice and with fairness and with protecting civilization. They're ultimately in it for themselves. They are driven by self interests and if they at some point do the right thing, it's either something that secondary cular profit motive or tangential to their profit motive, and as a result, we get heroes that are anti heroes. They are protagonists, they're the most positive characters in the story, but they don't have typical traits of heroic characters, honesty and courage and selflessness, and as a result, that's how we end up with these sort of iconic figure who's been called the man with no name, although I think that's really more marketing than anything. In each of the three movies he goes by name, perhaps a nickname, but...

...he's become the man with no name and he's become this very sort of iconic and intriguing figure of the West. So that's what stands out the most to me. Hi this is mature from funds and the good deball and the ugly in particular is a film I saw first when I was maybe thirteen or fourteen and it completely blew me away. It's it then and it has stayed a favorite since then. When I when I we watched it. And it's weird because to me a film kind of represented what a Western was for me, because I didn't watch many movies growing up, and not particularly Western's. I think I saw a few others, but anyway, that was a western to me and I discovered when I became a cinephile that really it's not that the dollar trilogy is really a special thing, even taking aside the Spaghetti Western categorization, all the other Spaghetti Western's I've seen, including you mentioned at the great silence, they don't feel exactly the same as sutural dealing his films do. They don't quite have that operatic or heart to them right, that epicness, which is of course also the result of the score, but of setial dealness direction as well. But being said, I do remember, as you mentioned, in a much more detailed manner. That's when I wish it. I was also very impressed that the good guy of the title was really not that good. It wasn't necessarily that bad, but you know, was clearly, as you said, in it for himself and I do remember laking that adults. So it's a very special film to me, and I like the other two as well, or not, because I generally really enjoy, I said, really on his stage in terms of Westerns. But yeah, it's especially the good about in the Yuggy, which is for me a special film that I hold you to my heart high and so from Australia. I think. Going back to Chris's original question, it was what stands out most to us about the trilogy, and I just have to say the moriccone schools would be the number one thing that stands out real the most. That's why I think about first when I think about those films. However, what my cohost have said, it is very accurate. They both talked about the characters being in it for themselves and in terms of how I see the films thematically, they're all about grade. So it's about grade and the times of the old West rather than, you know, the traditional heroism of the old West, which is all quite interesting because I wasn't actually the American where it's just you know, European or European landscapes. I don't know if necessarily agree that the pinnacle of Spaghetti Western making. I'd say films like the great silence and once upon a time in the West would be possibly soupire spaghetti Western's but they are definitely very high up there and it's easy to see why they've got so many fans over the years. It was interesting to hear Matthew talk about the fact that he grew up with the good, the bad and the ugly and he saw when it was thirteen or fourteen, because I only saw the good, bad and the ugly for the first time last year when I was thirty three. So yeah, I mean if we want to and get into it later on, but there's a whole do a lot of reasons behind it. Or I can talk about it now if you guys want, but you know, basically it's interesting ahead. Yeah, okayhead this. Okay, okay, so I saw your Jimbo and followed by a fist full of dollars really early on. Type I said about a journey. I would have probably been maybe fifty or sixteen when I saw those two films. For whatever reason, I didn't see the rest of the dollars trilogy. Then and then I spend my guest the better part of ten years going or I don't know if I want to see for a few dollars more and the good, the bad and the ugly without rewatching a fist full of dollars. And then those time myself. I don't really want to see a fist full of dollars again before I've watched your Jim bow again. So, you know, just like kept like a and then, oh no, for finally, I am Happy Happens Dad's you know, just serendipitously last year we had a western challenge and a Japanese challenge, or Japanese not. Well, two challenges going on the forum at the same time, which allowed me to watch your Jimbo and fist full of dollars in the same month. And once I'd got those two watches out of the way, I knew that I was ready to go and finally see the other two films in the trilogy. And we'll talk a bit more about for a few doors more later on. Yeah, I don't know, we'll talk about that later, but by definitely the good, that bad in the ugly, I'm Sol it's just such an amazing film. I can't believe I went for so long or without actually seeing it, especially coasty. How you fluential. It was so yeah, that one was not disappointment at all. Can Ask yourself about the difference between seeing, you know, fistful of dies for the first time as a teenager and then seeing the others for the first time in your s yeah, I don't know. I'm not sure the the differences were with it...

...films. I guess I've got a lot more film unto my belt and I who also watched a lot more spaghetti western's before seeing those two films. That probably tamped with my expectations. I did have a very positive experience with a fistful of dolls when I really watched it. After re watching your Jimbo for a few days more, was a disappointment, I guess, because I'd seeing, you know, so many films over the years and it will be inherentented a since you know, automatic classic, which it wasn't for me. But yeah, I know the good about it. The ugly thought, you know, very fresh today, felt like really was really intense experience and it felt, yeah, just like a young film, like going go and watch it, but yeah, unfortunately, I guess I've a little bit jed and, when it came to it, for a few dollars more. Yeah, it's incredible that you put yourself in that kind of prison, especially considering that the films are direct sequels either and don't necessarily have anything to do with union bull any more. The other I supposed it is a bit of a legacy and I love how the Ford Say, I'm forum challenges are kind of informing your what shapps do, because right now that's your according the message challenge is going on. The evernese challenge is also going on alongside each other. Perhaps again second hear in a row, and I'm doing the same comball that you did, you know, really rewatching face full of dollars that you involve more or less backtoback, but the other way around. So that's that was definitely interesting to see just how similar those films are and how different they are as well. For me, going back to my opening question, and I think these films would not be what they are without the score by anybody gone. I don't think that would be possible. And these scored so many Spaghetti Westerns or like some of them really have incredible scores as well in his work is really top range, but with the kind of musical q se created here. And we must also remember that the scores were often, or think in all cases, even done before shooting started, so that they only would use to score on set to kind of know that mood he was going for. I think that that part of the filmmaking is probably a little bit unique to it and the fact that it just likes one of you mentioned earlier, it does have this incredible orchestral feeling and you take their disord orchestral energy and they put it in with these no both long takes and white takes of people doing very little, simply standing around, and then these close ups of ice and gums and boots, you really create something extremely tense. And rewatching these three films over the last week really make me realize how much the music elevated it and how much they changed it because, like my memory of these films is you know that there is dis gorgeous epic films, and and largely they are, but there's many shops in there that are just proficient and they just get the job done. But because of the this score is there everything, everything essentially feels incredible. So the music is the one thing that really grounds it and makes me feel a bit beyond that to those. So to try to say something that none of you said, and it's a minor part, but the facial expressions actually, especially those of Clint East would it's one of the main consistent things in all three films. With this carry these three different characters just watching what happens around them, reacting to it, and you get these little crews from this, the ways eyes are twitching, that it tell you so much and they have this humorous undertones as well. I mean they carried on from Yembo actually to FELM. A few did so of the exact same looks in that film. So it's nice to see that kind of small point of Lagasin continuity go through all of the films. But yeah, the facial expressions, in close ups especially, is an incredible addition to these films and one thing that doesn't get discussed enough. And it's true that we cannot, like understand the cell how important the Malecon in music is, but, as you mentioned, he made music for other Spaghetti Westerns and my bunch is not that the dollar true Janus selling better. I do like it better than other Spaghetti Westerns, but it's just different and I think again not to come to go actuate it. It's that operatic quality and it's obviously the micon. The music is part of it, that they only really brings something there, as you mentioned, these utter love characters, as mentioned, it's just shots of them just standing in the sun and he makes that like yeah, like the gods like...

...the like they do, macause it's mythological and that is something that yet there are some kind of student mythological elements in classic questions. But I think really that's that's what the only really brought that was really special to to his films, and not just those we all also obviously once going time in the West, but I guess we're not talking about that one today. I think you're completely right, Matero, and I think this larger than life quality that they only put in all of his key films is what makes them feel so epic, makes them stand up. They feel so large. They even something like a feast full of dollars, which is just contained to essentially one single town. Most of the action takes place on that street or in the houses around it and still feel so large. I mean that you're completely right. That is in large part not just to score but the filmmaking, and obviously none of the other filmmakers working with Forghetti rests time managed to create that kind of feeling that so managed to create different feelings. I think Stereo can, brutally is, though not as incredible as the only someone who's able to certainly make films up to that standard, especially, and anyone listening should go back to see our classic westers versus Spaghetti West, an episode where we compare Shane and the way silence that he he could bring incredible tension to this word and do the different way than the only dead and it does. That film just feel so different from this realigy that it's it's almost the sort of comparison episode in their own. But just the way the mastery and this the degree of Gope that they only puts into the films is doubtly a large part of what makes these three films, as well as the multiple time in the West and these all the films, stand out the way they do. I agree with you and and Chris and that Leonie's means stylistic breakthrough is the focus on closeups, not just close ups but sort of extreme close ups. There there are a few inches closer than we're used to in in most most movies. And then the contrast between close ups and panoramic shots. We see so many shocks where there's a closeup of a face or, you know, perhaps a hand on a gun, with a very wide screen panoramic shot of a landscape behind them. And and the result we get from this is drama and tension. Why is it dramatic and why is it tense? I think because Leoni became a very patient filmmaker and one of the things that I find most interesting about seeing these three movies together or, if you want to add to it, seeing adding once upon a time the west and seeing those four together, is the development of Leone in terms of his use of time and patience. The first movie is full of dollars, is an hour and forty minutes. The good, the band, the ugly is three hours. Once upon the time the West, I think, is a little longer. His scenes become longer and longer and longer, but they don't really lose anything. I think in fact they gained something by being longer. And the great example of this is the first scene from supplying the time in the West, which is physically ten minutes of three men waiting at a train station. But it's incredibly tense because he's able to use these shots, these close ups, these panoramic shots, and to add in the more the more econe score and we get that sort of operatic feeling that both of you were firmed too before. Yeah, and those extreme clossups on eyes. They've become synonymous with Westerns, like to the point that it's hard to use them in a different context, at least without evoking that, without evoking the idea of the duel right of the two people in in no position and looking out each other. It's really a signature thing and generally those films have kind of replaced, I think, for a lot of people, the classic questerns in what we think of as Western's. I think if you ask most people who aren't particularly signifies, particularly knowledgeable about Finn to say to describe to you a Western, then describe to U s atire the only West, and that they are not doing to describe John Ford Western. Maybe they mentioned John Wayne, but the statistical events till mentioned will often be things you find more in central the only West sons than than in classic questions. I think you're completely right about that material. I think that even when people are making parodies of Western's, what is they do? They show boots on the ground and close ups of ice and close ups of guns and add on heavy music. So these these films really have taken over popular culture and what people think westerns should be. So let's look at the first of these...

...films, done a feastful of dollars, which, like we discussed it, is probably the simplest. It takes place in the least the worse setting almost entirely in a town, and it's, of course a remake. Not sure if it's officially credited as such, but if you compare some really touch hmm, definitely not. There was a he was should, let only was should and like that. Must if they actually officially recognize that at this point. Yeah, probably, yeah, maybe, maybe now? Yeah, maybe now, yes, like if you go to websites, usually today it's but yes, it was a rip off at the time and the whole studios did to the only they did win. So I guess, if you will to look at it that way, it is official. It is official that this indeed I really make, and which like re watching them this this week as well. But there's even the same jokes, like in in both films he goes thin and you know, the crew of one of the gangs installed him and the bullying and he comes back later and he kills them. And when he does that, he said it tells the coffin maker, you know, prepare except of coffins, and he kills one more person than expected. In the Himbo he says, you know, prepared to coffins. Oh, never mind three. And in a feastful of dollars he says prepared tree coffins. It comes back and it's as my mistake for so little that he's literally just one up in your Humbo as well, but the one exact number. But to this, to look at the film itself, what are your key feelings and impressions of a feastful of dollars? Well, right from the beginning we see that our stensible heroes motivated by money. And yes, though it's a rip off of your Jembo fistwelve dollars is very much what is traditionally known as a town Western. This is a classic trope in Westerns in which there is a town or criminal elements are ruling the streets and a gunman hero comes to clean it up. We've seen dozens and dozens of traditional westerns that follow that plot, often with a very famous law man, a wide earth or a wild bill hiccock or someone of that type. Oh, here we have a gun man who comes to clean up the town, but he's not doing it for any moral reason. He's doing it for his own profit. And there is a scene really early in the movie which which really peaked my ear. East what is talking to the the the bar manager, and he's hearing what set up is in the town and and the bar manager, I think his name is Silvan Nito, says to him that the Baxters, the row Hoos, are selling guns and liquors, guns and liquor to Indians. And it reminded me very briefly of an old John Ford Western called my darling Clementine. And the reason reminded me of that is there's a scene in that movie where Henry Fondo, who is a law man who comes to clean up a town, finds out that someone's been selling liquor to Indians and he's morally outraged and kicks the Indian out of town and he's furious because this is a threat to order and civilization. But East what doesn't care about all any of that in this movie. Instead, what he says is, Ha, this town must be really rich, this must be a good opportunity to make money. So I thought that that was the the most thing that sort of occurred to me was most interesting about this movie. That's a great observation. I love my don in Clementine and I've never made the connection. That's funny, of fast full of dollars. I saw much later, so in my twenties, I think early twenties, and I had at that point just watched a couple of classic questerns and it was quite shocking how different it was, right, to get back to to that Leon in style, how much more bloody. Obviously, as you mentioned, how the characters are self motivated, but also he does it for his profits, but you kind of get the feeling that he kind of does it for his own amusement even there's also that elements to to this film, which is and to the three films, which is there. They're more entertaining right they're more trying to be entertaining in some sense that than some of the classic questions, which are very self serious. This is Leone Poking Fun at the myth of the American West and kind of creating a new version of it. And so this is a little less mythical because, as you mentioned, to town Western the stakes are relatively low. But we still get that no recode and music for the final showdown, which still has that that grand feeling. And one of the one of the things yets how bloody it...

...is. That's there's a sequence in it that's again after seeing, like I had just seen for the first time stage coach and well, m don inclement and he'll have and seeing like clintiest wood covered in blood going under house or something, that there's a scene that's very striking this way, that looks like almost like a it's out of the half in and you really get that talk lash like it's just a few years after your Bavo. It's you. You'll get to with that thing. You see how it was a revolution in terms of the genre. How, yeah, how different it was. So my hot take, on a fist full of dollars is, in relation to your jumbo because, as I mentioned earlier, are we watched the two of them almost are within days of each other. So where I'm coming from at the moment is I'm thinking that possibly a fist full of dollars might even be a superior film to your jumbo. They're both very good films and they do slightly different things. It's really interested to hear Matthew talk about how the Clint Eastwood Character seems to be finding amusement and what's going on, because that's the main takeaway that I got from your gym Bo with the Oh yeah thing. Yeah, it's even stronger than your Gymbo. Yeah, yeah, yeah, because, yeah, I definitely got that in your Jim Bo with it to share if you any character that he's like constantly smirking or wanted. He seems to be manipulating the towns people just for the sake of it, whereas for me in a fist full of dollars it's more about clearest wood being driven by greed. You know, he's got that line there this there's money to be made in this town. So I just feel is more of a greed during character and him all those close ups of his face is so much more emotionless compared to share him a funey in the in the Carosaur film. So for me it's more about a grade film and I think that makes it a slightly more interesting character. I mean it's a bit more complex character in your Jim boy, because he's just doing it for manipulation, but since it's all driven by grade, I guess I just find it very interesting that this is what the character basically boils down to it, because the whole thing at the end of it, if you take the title, when they consideration is, after everything that goes down in the film, was it or really worth it? For a fist full of dollars? It's like the end of Fago, sir. It's like the end of Fago. Was it really worth it's well, this would, says he and yeah, HMM, yeah, well it know, it's a deep point. It could have been even more worth it for him sure if we'RE gonna spoil the film right now, maybe we can. Actually everyone's in the Fisticul of dollars. Everyone is listening to this, as probably seen. A fistul of dollars but let's talk to the real feel a little bit more chronologically anyways, because I do actually have a similar take to Mato, which is that I think Eastwood, scare after here, is really enjoying it. It's a tone down version of him, but I mean, if we look at to you, but there's like the see in the early arm where the gangs are fighting, he's refusing to fight because they sentially double crossed him. This is sitting on top a roof laughing at them, and this working and enjoying everything. I don't think fit flos dollars took it as far, but you can see those murks and how much he enjoys just kind of sneaking around looking at things, watching them, learning things, and I think that out of all of these three films, this is the Eastwood character at his most mischievous. This is where he's the most playful and and also, in a way, at his most innocent thing. I'm good and I'm not sure if you'll disagree with this, especially use always thinks it's all about greed, but I think there's also slightly more moral dimension to East with character in this film than in the others too, because it opens up with him essentially observing and injustice. So he sees, you know, that the mistreatment of the child and then he sees the treatment of people in the town by the other gang as well. So we started saying, okay, both these gangs are pretty bad. He's riding in in notice right away. Both gangs are bad, both gangs are keeping this town down and while he can make money on it, it does seem that there is the moral dimension to him that's taking down a couple of bad gangs as well, and it makes some pretty moral decisions throughout the film that I'm not sure he necessarily would have made in the later two films. Chris, it's interesting to talk about woods characters morality because I think we've established that, you know, money is a primary motive, but it doesn't mean that sentimental or justice is absent for his moral outlook.

I actually think the good, the bad, the ugly is the one where he's most moral, or at least most sentimental. Yeah, I agree with that. That to whether that comes because I have the exact opposite opinion. But the one for the other yes, in the first one there is this subplot where he sort of rescues this family the family of Mary Soul. I think the second one, and we can get that, is the more interesting because there, I think there's no moral imperative for Eastwood's character and and he's it's all great. And, by the way, you know, one of the most interesting things, and this is something that the soul is mentioned several times, that the fact that these movies are about greed is that this is more authentic to the actual history of the United States. I don't think Leonie was trying to make, you know, historically accurate movies, but the history of the American West is a history of greed and exploitation. It's not a history of civilization spreading, it's a history of taking advantage of other people. So you know, in some weird way it's along the more you know it's more historically authentic than many Americans and it's a very interesting point. Adam, I agree with that in chows of how the West was actually one compared to how it was put in films, how it was one, and it's probably is definitely more accurate, something which you feel, my course, to mention there about the fact that the cleanest will character seems to have some good attentions at the start. I think that's more they're as a deception type of thing. So it's sort of like it's he's set up as a good guy before the only pause the rug out from under our feet and we find out that he's just motivated by grade. so He seems like this her our character, but by the end it orally comes down to grade firm. So for me he's quite immoral. Throughout most of the film. It's all driven by greed, but not to same extent as in the good the bad and they are. But well, I actually this is requite strongly with that. So if he can spoil, I guess the ending decision. Now at the end of the film, he literally gives back all of the money, more or less. It literally says that they can keep the money, that they're all gang stall from the military and that, you know his friends, that they made in the town. So the bar keep and the coffin maker will just stay and they leave the money. Leave this all money back to the military. So I think that there is he's trying to do the right thing in a way which was almost ever surprising to me, you know, knowing what he'll do in soft letter film. So I think it's also a factor of your Jimbo beings. You, garriginal, actually agree? We saw I like I mean, do I not? I'm actually to show about it. I definitely like a fist full of dollars more than your Jimbo, and I think you have your course. I Wa is a humanists and Leone not so much, and I think that's also why you have these elements in in a fistful of dollars, even though your Jimbo is by far, course I was, least humanistic film. That's another day. Yeah, it. I was just going to mention also that yes, we might see some character change, maybe at the end of a fist full of dollars, but the vast majority of it is him being more divided by grade and they might be some character progression in there, but he's still starting off, as I agreed, a character you might seem who are up on the surface, but actually, at least to begin with, is purely motivated by the profit motive. I thought I would mention a very briefly a historical episode which I became aware of, which is that when a fist full of dollars was released on American TV in the s. The television stations added a prolog to the movie. They hired Monty Hellman, the late director of such movies like to lane, blacktop and the shooting, and they hired Harry Dean Stanton and they hired a stand in to take the appearance of Eastwood without ever showing his face and they filmed a for prolog. Or Harry Dean Stanton is some sort of prison warden or political figure and and eastwoods character is a prisoner and Harry Dean Stanton offers him a pardon if he goes to this town and, you know, cleans up the criminal element, which is exactly, you know, the traditional plot of the town Western whatever. Eastwoods characters mixed modems in a fistfall collars and I have to confess, I serve I'm a little sympathetic to Chris's point about his ultimate morality. Whatever his motives, they were too much for American television and this East would and they needed to make his character seem more positive. You can find this clip on Youtube, by the way. It's absolutely awful and terribly filmed for. I'll make sure to see it because I never have. Just be...

I don't think that the east within this film is a kind of wonderful Ange. I have this thing. I think he's at this most moral in this. I think it's also the one film he has the most human connection in, and he obviously makes one actually fairly close trend in it with the bar keep, and it's always relatively friendly with the coffin maker and they help each oldren unlike later films. It's not the kind of relationship where he's will turn around and, for instance, betray them or break ball till even go through trouble to save them. So I do think that he at this point, like you said, there's a element of taking on the degree after us all us, humanism, I suppose, and also, I guess, growing pains where the Western is moving away, it's becoming more grifty, more a moral but it still has some of those elements left. And one of the things that were changed, on the other hand, which I think we have to mension and which was such a big part of our discussion about the great silence as well, is that East with character. He shoots first and he shoots unknarmed people all the time, that he has no qualms about shooting and unarmed man. So I think the degree of honor that is usually presented in older westerns. In the classic Western usually have this heroic character who will never shoot first and even if is going up against the criminal, will let that criminal get a chance to either shoot first or, you know, taking down the fair duel. But East we will just go into room and start shooting, or he'll stand the street and two of the bad guys might not have a gun and he'll still shoot them down. So I think that's a really big moral shift in how a hero acts in the western. So, talking about these growing pains, I guess those were pretty much all gone by the next film and we can start to see the kind of character that he will be associated with form more closely. We can see the violence tuned up. This is put like this for a few dollars more. While it's so many ways it's a clear stylistic sequel, down to our parents, down to glimpses, there has been a lot of progression in the development there and, like we also said, in this film Eastwood is essentially all driven by greed. And, interestingly, as these films are often seen as being about bounty hunters and how common this poor the protagonist in specutivestns to beat about the hunters. This is the only one of these three films whereas with character is in fact about the hunter. So I know Saul has some powerful things to say about this because it's his least favorite and I think, the only one who doesn't think is great. So let's start off with his opinion and maybe we get the more exciting conversation and battle on our hands. Are Again. That's great. I thought I'm not going last one of for few dollars more because I like it the least, but now that's fine, so with for a few dollars more. The best part of the film for me is leaving. Cleave's character and performance absolutely dominates the screen, as as the other bounty hunter in the film. But not beyond that, and you know, the characteristically only traits with the rapid fire edits and the music. Beyond the just found, the pacing of it was nowhere near as intense as the other two films. It's a very lesurely paced film. It goes for over two hours. There's lots of scenes where there isn't a whole lot of tension building up or there isn't the sort of like what debscribe. There isn't the feeling about something about to have, that something is about to go down, and that's constantly drives the first film and then the third films just got such great shifting up how dinnotes between the characters, you know, the quite sure exactly what they're going for, and you get this third film through the second film. You get it in between these two which, yeah, it was just never as involved with it as I was with the other two films. I'm somewhat sympathetic to hear your viewpoint. So I think at a certain point in the movie Leoni loses the pacing. I think it's when they come to that that town are Guacaliente, where sort of the final third of the movie is set, and I think there's a certain point where the plot sort of loses steam. But I still I still see this, this movie as a slight advance over a fist...

...full of dollars, maybe not so much that it feel the need to differentiate them too much. The main the main differences. I feel like we have a more complex explot whereas a fast twelve dollars is a sort of protagonist antagonist driven movie, with Easter is a protagonist and and John Maria Volunte is the antagonist here. We have eastwood in Volunte back, but we add leave Vand Cliffe and we have these two protagonists and a lot of the dramatic tension in the first half of the movie is seeing, you know, Eastwood and Leave Band Cliffe operating independently, knowing that at some point they're going to run across each other and wondering what's going to happen then. So for that alone I find it a a slightly more interesting movie. Yeah, I guess I'm quite close to you, Adam, and that I see both close right off. His full of dollars and four fields more. I like both a lot. I do prefer a fist full of dollars. So in that sense I agree with sold that for a few of those more is my least favorite. I think what you mentioned about the complexity, the relative complexity, of the plot is actually what I prefer in a fistful of dollars. I think the simplicity really suits at least that film very well, and part of the reason why the film kind of loses team at one point is maybe that complex, relative complexity of the plots. I don't know. I mean, I think it works quite well and, as you mentioned, the reason to watch this film. That what makes this film what work. Is that duel between the contests would and even cliff you and thief is is amazing, and it was. As I mentioned before, the first one I saw was the good about in the ugly, and so seeing this one much later on, it was quite striking to see the even cliffe play character. That's Ky end of sympathetic artists, basically just as sympathetic as as consist with it, and obviously that they eventually join up forces. And Yeah, that's the fun of the thing. I guess maybe the reason I like it a little less than a fat full of dollars is that's that epicness. When at operatic quality it has, it's maybe a little less. Maybe it's the music. The music is a little more lighthearted. It's great also, but I think I prefer the mycon is score for force of dollars. But yeah, to me it's that they all great reading. I guess I don't differentiate that much. They everything you're talking about, the complexity along with pacing, because during my new worships, I think the big dis change in my opinion of these films was just how much for a few dollars more fell in my estimation because it's I used to use as this grand epic film, almost on the scale of the good band ugly, and I guess in terms of teenery and variation, it does get there, and it's certainly a more complex film in terms of how many characters we have on screen. In many ways it's a poor on there for the good, bad ugly, with I would say, three leads, because Ye on me, I will want the Inn roll of indio is in many ways I call lead here, and each of these three characters get an extended, and I mean heavily extended intro with several scenes dedicated to their backstory to set them up, just as in the count band the ugly. And you have this dynamic between tree kind of protagonists that have various different relationships and power interests between them, and you don't know who is necessarily going to double cross each other. And again you have this one duo with it's very franchile and this one other character on the outside. You don't necessarily know exactly word will go and how it will play out, though I guess it's so my you also you also do, because everything my main problem with this film is that it's written in nine days and you can feel it in terms of character development. And again this goes in with complexity. It's not that strong. Essentially you have fairly generic tropes crowned together, but they're done incredibly well, which is the power of both Leone and Modicle on that. You just it's done spectacularly, but you just have you know, fairly caneric. I'm bad, I'm so bad I'm laughing a bad guy with the Ganri everlon this and indio's just literally just giving his malicious evil laughs whenever he can and doing bad things. And that really leaves just as you guys said, the core of the film and the core power of the films to be between Clip East Wood as Monko and leve and Cliffe as colonel dougless mortimer, where you have, I agree, on Cleef as more sympathetic character. I mean he is the more even tempered and a supposed slightly more, if you will, moral. Then you have Clint Eastwood Character, who is a more restrained character the last time, but still this young, slightly mistabous character who is really in it for himself and...

...out of greed, while we discover later in the film that leave on cleave's character actually has some other motivation. Of course, both are bounty hunters and pretty damned effective ones, and this is one of those others big shifts from classic Westerns where the bounty hunters can indeed be the heroes or the protagonists and lead the way. So yeah, I would saying that's the main issue I have it the film that it just feels underwritten, and this also affects, like you guys said, the pacing and a lot of how the film develops. It's a good make point you make, Chris, about above voluntees character and look, I love Jum Mary of Volunte as an actor. This are not his best roles and I don't think it's really his fault. They're just not well written roles, and that's that's perhaps one of the the crowning glories of the good band the ugly is it makes the villain so much more complex and so much more interesting in these first two movies. I mean, I suppose he's entertaining enough, he's certainly loud enough, but you know, he's a care arcut sure, and that's you know, that's something that that holds back both movies a little bit. I think Valonte is quite good actually, he's embracing the over the top nature of his character and yeah, true, true to me, he works quite word in this film. Such only his characters is not developed because it's not the point of this film. Even I guess the good uther July is the one that does the best in there. But even there, even then it's they're not count that character, that their mythic or characters. Again, so they are developed only to the extent that you know, on God is developed. So we don't need to believe them as actual human beings, because that's not what the here forhon so. So I think Volonti walks quite way. Well, Matie, I agree. They're there. They are mythical creatures, they're not real human beings. I mean they often don't have a backstory, and in the case of leaving cliffs mortimer he does. But but you know, across all three movies our villains of protagonists often don't have no narrative or thematic depth. But it just I feel Volonte's decision to go over the top, especially in the second movie, was a mistake. I don't know if maybe that was something dictated to him by Leone and if so, understandable. But I think there is a way to do a unrealistic character that's not just the sort of laughing Hyena that we see in for a few dollars more. Actually the fun, the Trivia, if the help with the little the fifth brutly tried to get them to calm, valative, but pray that minimize it to the point that he would reshoot him over and over again just to tire him out by I feel bad now because I'm bad mouthing an actor I actually really, really enjoy for the most part, with me to I love a long that I think I think the first time. I think actually I don't remember if I saw him for the first time in the face full of dollars or a few dollars more, in a fistule of dollars. It's almost forgettable because it's just part of this massive landscape, almost. I mean he's risible, but it doesn't have charisthma in this film. It does let a large part of its charisthma be shown, and they think just not being experienced him in other films really made me love watching him here. You just want the is that an incredible actor. But yeah, I really I guess maybe that's most letdowns to seeing him in so many other roles since then and I guess I expected more and it is doubtedly one of his less impressive performances. Something also that I just thought I might dad. It's probably a little bit of Tomic at the moment, but I was just checking up the dates that I watched the film's when I locked them on letther boxed, and it looks like last year I actually watched fist full of dollars and for a few dollars more, pretty much back to back, which might have not been the best way to watch them. So that's so my disappointment with the second film came from after having that breath taking experience with the first film, because there for the whole like uneasy alliance between downy hunters. Is Definitely has a lot of rich potential and there some of which I think is better developed in the third film. But still I'm wondering if they might have been better seeing a distance apart, because I then looked how much lader I saw the good, bad and the ugly, and actually waited quite a few days because also underwhelmed by for a few dollars more than I almost decided not to watch the the film is very it all saying all the second films better than the first. That I was going, no, it's not. How bad can they are? Third one be at the second ones over well, underwhelming, so much so. But you look at I did make it up to the third film, which is great because it's an excellent film. But yeah, maybe if I do decide to rewatch the trilogy, maybe I should watch them with a few more days in between each or maybe watch them out of order and see if the work better. Yeah, I mean as a don't mentioned. The notion of the trilogy is completely a marketing invention. I mean they do have obviously a a lot of connection with the connection with...

...contest would being the main actor in them, and it's that. It's basically the big reason to separate them from one super time in the West, which is also a little less, maybe a little more, of a serious fim. I think that's when. That's one thing you can say for for the three things that connects them together. Between the order English you watched them. It has no importance, of course, unless you want to see Lee in this progression in that sense, but for the thing themselves, not too much. You don't think that the the movie is I mean, I agree. I don't think it matters what already you watch them in. But they I think there is a very subtle indication of which is how they are chronologically arranged. I think the good, the band the ugly is the Prequel and then it goes goodn't bad, the ugly fist twelve dollars and then for a few dollars more. What in terms of when they take place? Literally, yes, but do you feel that can't? You sews character and the good band degli could become the character and the a the true fins? Well, yeah, I mean the big clue is that we see him acquire his his costume. Over the course of the good band the ugly. We see mcclub acquired the shirt and the sort of the the sheepskin vest and then the the iconic Green Poncho of the course of the good band the ugly and the that's his costume in the next two movies. Yeah, that's true. That's that's true, but in terms of character I don't think it makes that much sense. So I agree with you that treating. Yeah, the only thing I could possibly say is you might. I mean we go back to the morality of eastwoods character. I'd say in the good, the band the ugly, I feel he's at least has some sort of sentimental side to him, even if he starts off by doing, you know, very immoral things, and we see that again in a fistful of dollars. We see the morality of them. And then, for a few dollars more, there's this sort of bitterly dark ending which which I suppose is maybe the the climax of his character. He says he wants to retire and he gets all this money and so this is his happy ending, is he gets to write off with a wagon load of corpses. is so shocking in the context of most westerns. I mean, for for anything else, all three movies really show no respect for the dead. Um there is continued emphasis on desecration of human remains. So pretty more morality could see is as his his, you know, his characters journey towards a happy retirement based on completely a moral action. Yeah, and you mentioned a point that's I may not entirely agree with, and in that you said you thought that those things were perhaps more is historically accurate then the classic Westerns. I think in some sense in the in some senses they are, but in all those I do think as a questerns have some other aspects that I'm all historically accurate. But the disregard for the dead, I think is very true of the the old American West. I think that's that's actually one point that's you get so desensitized in in a place that is so violent. I think that's one key element that you you're right, is definitely present in all three fins, but especially in this one and in the good bed and the ugly, and that that to me strikes me as something that's very true life. YEA, and that brings us back to the topic of violence, which you know, I think Chris mentioned earlier, just how incredibly violent these movies are compared to most Westerns, the classic the violence in Classic Westerns is unusually clean, meaning people die but there's no blood. People get into fist fights but no one ever gets hurt. You see that over and over again in John Wayne and John Ford movies. Well, in all three movies here we have basically scenes of torture and scenes of massacre and scenes with copious blood. And yes, it is ultimately a more honest depiction of the west end of life. Yeah, question of violence is very interesting because I had found myself in this situation recently because my nephew, who is his twelve, he's going to be true soon, and he wanted to see some westerns and but his mother said to me we try to watch one of the Saturday only and she thought it was too violent. So she tasked me with choosing Westerns for him that would be more appropriate. And so we watched Vio Bravo. And is it really more appropriate just because there's no blood? I mean it is in some way. As you mentioned, torture is avoided, so that's that's good, because that can be a bad thing to watch when you're too young. But Yeah, I choosing her Bravo. It wasn't much better. What it's still showing violence, like you have especially, is is a thing that really shows violence as a good thing, basically, that really glorifies these guys who are being violent. So yeah, it's a in terms of moreamity. It's an interesting distinction to make between the classics and and the Spaghett is is interesting. You say that, Marty, because you know, my father introduced me to the Leoni Westerns and I wasn't twelve or thirteen. I think was more like seven or eight years old. But that is me. My parents...

...never restricted me from seeing any movie. And Look at you now, your psychopath. So I could know where that he's hit me. It's all ground wrong. Since then it's all for a food, dollars. More fault. Yeah, I'm not sure if I actually buy the idea that these three characters are the same. With possibility is there and you do make a pretty interesting case in terms of the development of the characters. Where DIS is ending, writing up with a writing off, with all these corpses, is his happy ending, which is the spectacular and in so many ways. But at the same time I do struggle to see it, because if you do look at the actions it take in Gdu and in Facebul of dollars, you do see him take more moral choice as well. In for food dollars more he almost seems younger in many ways. He almost seems more shady, more in it for himself, even that, which is the Rondic to say, but it does seems colder. Like you said, it could be just be that he's burnt out as perfectly possible. Still struggle to put these three characters side by side. But that's but let this is jump straight to the good, the bad and the ugly and talk a little bit about them. And I do want to start with the conversation that I teased earlier just about he's would scare act, even though it starts with these two characters well in the dynamic between them is so strong. But I do want to join the topic of this being the film where he's with is the least moral, at least for most of the film. You could perhaps say that the urge to good by the end, in a way, but this the only film where he is an actual outlaw. He makes his money as scamming people, threatening people, even killing people. This is the one film where he just kills innocent people simply for sake of money, and it is a film where he actively betrays his partners. So I do think that, in terms of morality and development, this is really the ironically, for being the good in the good, the band ugly. This is the point in this triller, shy where the character is the most immoral. I would say I get what you say, Chris, and I think the reason I said differently earliers. I just thinking of that very tender scene that he had with the dying soldier shore near the end of the movie and his general reaction to seeing the civil war battle. He has this great line where he says I never seen so many men wasted so badly. So I think maybe the term I should have used instead of moral was sentimental. I think he hasn't sentimentality in this movie and I think the movie overall all has a great deal of sentimentality that is mostly absent from the first two movies. But you make a good point about his actions. Beyond that, and especially considering we begin with his betrayal of to Co, and you know to Co is not the most savory character, but it is clearly a betrayal of trust, which which we don't see in in, you know, his other relationships in for example with Lee van cliff in for a few dollars more. Yeah, you might be right, Chris. I think it's probably the contrasts with Devon Cliff's character that make me mad, that makes me feel that contised with character is slightly more palatable, maybe more sympathetic in the good abandon the lead and the other two, because even clief is really playing like the devil in person, and you get to coy I WAAC, who's really the heart of the film, which I mean, yes, that for for character like that to be the heart of the thin quite something to say. But it's really does feel that way, right. It's he's kind of pathetic, whereas athetic in the greater sense, right, in the sense that he inspires pity, whereas the contised with character. He's barely human, right, he's just this this Demigod, and I feel that to code that's maybe a bit the big difference with the good about Inde ugly compared to the other two is that trueco is one of the man characters and he's a character that we can empathize with, even though he is really a terrible human being. That's you might you might uld be one of the worst people in the entire trilogy as well. I mean they go over his list of crimes so we can really can start off the kids. Part of his job, if you will, wit the Clinties with character is that he gets caught over at the east with Cancim in for money and then he frees him, usually while he's about to be hanged. He shoots off the rope took, rides off in the shoots off the hats people around so that no one can hurt him, and then they catch up and they share the money. That's pretty much their...

...whole job. There too, hustlers and comment and when they read that list of crimes, that too goes down. I mean there's I'm pretty sure there's murder on there, there's certainly rape on there. There's PA much every single crime under the sun and she's like the likable character, if you like. He's the character that most people go away from that film as having some kind of sentimentality for it. That I think that's a pretty damn impressive job by Eli Mullache as well. I don't think the sin is soft on him, like I think it's pretty clear like that that he is a bad person. It's just in the context of this opposition he's just so much more than than the other two absolutely truduce the comic relief characters with just instant to build up a little bit for sympathy for him, because in a way he's the one they get screwed over first as well. He's the one we kind of see the first injustice. Don't too of the main characters, and he's just trying to re know way correct that he's so squirmy. It's just so cheeky and it's so fun that he just deals to show when almost every single scene he is in, I'm probably agree with to co being a comic relief character. In terms of whether he's sympathetic, whether the Clint Eastwood One is, I'm not sure. I guess what I what really drives the film for me is just the mutual distrust between the two and they're the sort of like an easy friendship, but it's not quite a friendship. They might both be using each other at different points and they never able to fully trust each other and I sort of wonder if that's going to be a metaphor for what it was like in the old West and being ruthless to get ahead. But I sort of feel that neither them yeah really trust each other or really feel comfortable totally with one another, and really pulls the whole plottle on because they have to sort of rely on each other when they may or may not have certain information, and just makes for yeah, very fascinating and very intense ride. I think that the relationship between blondie or can just would and took what like. It's really one of gamesmanship. Right. It's not quite a friendship, but it is playful and genuinely Spaghetti Westerns in general and the Schedil the only Westerns have that playful quality, which is also another thing that they added compared to most older western and that's shore manly. You think that was happening in the S S A cases. Just so much more playful approach to siner. But the reason that the Toko character, I think, is a maybe a little more some athetic is one is that he's very funny, but but the other is he has this this very interesting scene with his brother in the monastery which provides him some sort of complexity, in some depth, and I think it's a touchstone of the entire movie. Is that this is a huge leap forward for Leoni over the previous two. I think it's a much longer movie and it's we see that it's not just a western but it's also a historical epic. It is explicitly tied into actual history in a way that the previous two movies where this one is set in, you know, I think, one thousand eight hundred and sixty four, in the New Mexico campaign of the American civil war. So it has that historical grounding. It has more of a narrative complexity and it also has more character complexity and in characters like to go and also, I just think, in in the way that it dwells on suffering in a way that the first two movies don't. You know, it dwells on the suffering, especially if the civil war soldiers in the prison camp. We had this very heartrending scene where to Co is being tortured and the Union soldiers are forcing the confederate prisoners to play music as some sort of anthem for the torture. And then we have all this scene with with dying soldiers in the battle at the bridge. So sorry, I've sort of gone off on a digression, but these are all reasons that I myre this movie so greatly and so much more than the previous two, even though I very much like the previous two. I definitely agree with you, Adam. I think it's also the one that has that's really lays vision of humanity, that is of course, a very semestic what not men. Maybe that pessimistic as the right word, but kind of miss and forpic right. Oh, the world is so awful and so violence and at peace it is in this moment, which is the civil war, I wish is, you know, the particularly brutal war. At the time it was seen as as unprecedented and in some, some, some senses it was in terms of the number of people involved in the battles and number of deaths in very little time. And so I do think that the only really lays this this version of the world, where the world is is so oppressively terrible that it creates these these guys, right, these three guys, the good, the bad and the ugly, who are all affected by this incredible violence in different ways. It's just overall, a grander film than the other two. I'm going to fall the last time in this podcast say the world operatic and going to stop repeated after that. But it's really in terms of the scope of the film, the length, as you mentioned, historical context is the one that really makes the most of that.

That took it's perfect vessel for Leoni's style and Molly coons musing. Yeah, I also really loved the American civil war back drop and how it came into it. We're originally like came up at first came up and you see the soldiers on our house. Is Strange plot deflection. I don't want to like this too much, but I was really great the historical background the end and all the tactic to EA. Didn't realize that we're using like getting soldiers drunk to make him seem less scared. It was more of an ensigns the American civil war that I was expecting to get when I sat down to watch the film. I also even need to talk about how well many of those scenes are shot and just how much it affects it, because bombs going off, shooting in Afar, dead soldiers everywhere like this is a constant motif throughout the entire film and it is truly an epic. You even get an epic pool arm battle scene at that bridge which you know, with have fit perfectly into almost any wartime epic. It's there's so many extrastes, so much going on and it just really builds up this incredible feeling of a largeness of this again epic, epic film that there's other ways that the film does that are less obvious, but I really noticed this time around, including all of these small but memorable tide characters which all can just got their own mini set up. Obviously you have to goose brother, but you have scenes like in the in the camp with the commander there or with, obviously, the commander in the trenches. There's the all these little side characters are get once in a true or three scenes that just feels like you're part of that film and are memorable in their own way. And there's because of the three hour run times, it really covers a much. We get to do and see so much. It's a large part of why it is the best of the three films and why it is the memorable. It's just that it's truely if it just is incredible, incredible, epic. I know I said that word so many times now, but it's all the best ways of describing this film and I think you know the the epicness, I'm not sure that's a word, but the epicness of the movie is capped by this this final standoff, which I mean it's become maybe one of the most favorite scenes in cinema history. I've certainly re watched it so many times that that final gun battle, and this goes back to what Matt you said about operatic we're far beyond realism here. You know. We have three men standing in a plaza in the middle of a cemetery. I've never heard of a plause in the middle of a cemetery's that itself is really then you just stand there for for five minutes straight in and do nothing, but the camera cuts frantically and frantically and the score rises. And of course that that only follows two cos, you know, five minute runs through the cemetery, which itself is just an excuse for quick cuts and more and more cone score. It's one of my favorite sequences in any movie that I've ever seen. Yeah, it's transcendental. It's exists outside of time, just amazing Psychlo so beautifully arranged, with all these these great lines that the Eastwood has about. You know, there are only two men, types of men in this world. All these these one liners and to those insults, or just a small detail of how I love how Eastwood Kills Angel Eyes and then shoots his corpse into an open grade and then shoots his grave to join him. So it's very funny while also being very dramatic. I think that scene and that kind of dramatic tension is one of the key components of what makes Sarah Gr Leone suck a strong director, what makes these field stand out, because up until this point and who would shoot a five minute scene about people the standing around waiting to shoot? So I think it's just the incredible how much tension he's able to again, it's just the score and close ups, and the reason why the angotial stupid to just those components over and over and over again, getting closer and closer to the face is nice and that's enough to really keep anyone's attension for that long, when it's really just three people standing completely still. And one of the interesting things is the scene is essentially a repeat of the ending scene in for a few dollars more. The only difference is it's longer and it's more complex. In for a few dollars more. It's two gun men here it's three gun men. And this this is something that's common to the entire series, which is very unusual, which is that Leoni repeats plot elements, repeats characters. We've all seen this happens throughout movie history when someone has a successful movie and they try to...

...make a sequel or another movie with the same cast and crew and it always ends up bad because they're trying to rehash tired material and it all seems familiar. Leoni's great achievement here is he does that each movie is sort of a retread of the previous movie, but it still feels fresh and exciting and new. And the funny thing is often the problem with sequels is they try to do the same thing but bigger. It doesn't work, and that's exactly what he does through that. That's all the main things I was thinking about. Well, watching these films too, especially with with this ending, with they literally standing in a big circle. They just in a circle in sending of both of these two films, but it really pays off like somehow just these components stretched out with some variation in characters, some relations in scope, each one again, they said, being so much bigger than the previous and it works. And I think one of the reasons it works is the one we've been saying over and over again, and since you're not going to say it anymore, but y'll say it for you. Operating that's it's it's just the fact that these films aren't really about the plot. And well, you can say to do the band ugly in the way. It's a little bit more about the characters. Do Do have this large character elements? There aren't really even about the characters. Like you said, it would really like Gods. A large part of why they work is because they're about the style, they're about the music, you're about the filter, about the threat and the feeling, and that's what growlsy film and you're improving all the then there's expanding on that. A lot of the problems when you just have a standup plotter, Pete that over and over again. This completely goes the way. You're exactly right, Chris. We spend a lot of times of our talking about characters, talking about narratives. The reason people love these movies is because of style, because of Leone's camera work, because of the music and because, I guess, the characters themselves have this sort of, you know, stylistic element to them. I mean we ask why do we like the man with no name? It's because he's cool. Why is he cool? Because he's Sardonic, because he's good with a gun because he has his devil make care attitude, and all this is underscored by the style, by the way the movies are shot and also, you know, in a weird way, by the production design, which we haven't mentioned yet and I think it's kind of easy to gloss over, but it's what one of the things that really stood out to me while rewatching these movies is is the production design, the way the sets are designed, the way the costumes are designed, even the makeup. This is a rough and dirty western. Everything looks kind of ramshackle and I wonder, to an importance certain extent, is that just the low budget of the movies, especially the first two movies, or if it's purposeful? I think it's a bit of both. This is a movie. These, all three movies, are movies that are sort of obsessed with texture, the texture of walls, the texture of the dirt, the texture of people's faces, and that sort of adds to the whole stylistic package, which lay only delivers. I thought it was really interesting to hear guys talk a few minutes ago about how funny the ending is and how much humor, intended or not, there is with that stand up towards the end, where's the film? Of course, ends on a joke. You know, he says a blondie you and then they have the Wawa from the music which takes over his line. So the whole trilogy actually ends off on a joke. So yeah, it's just a very interesting ways like wrap things up. We have that very intense first film, I guess we have the second film, which is a bit more lasily paced, and third film. Yes, it's very intense but actually ends off with, yes, maybe of a darkly humors standoff and a final joke with the morricone score at the end. And one thing I would they would add about the Mok on his skull is how innovative they are in terms of the instruments they use. Of course it's all iconic now, so it's kind of hard to think about how you these things down. But if you look at Orchestra's performing the scores from Animal Econe, which DAB, if you go on Youtube, does the dunch because of course the over popular pieces, it's kind of striking to see the strange instruments that that boy could they used, and I think that's that's also one element you mentioned, Adam that's the man with the name. Is Cool and what's makes something cool is one of the great mysteries to me of art in general, but especially cinema, and how you can reach that. It's just impossible to understand from me and my cone and the only and things would or great at it. And Yeah, it kind of a mix of innovation white also we using elements that everyone knows. It's how to design. Really, I guess we've been talking for about for an hour and I said don't really know why. In some sense it works. So we if you're trying to make a synthesis out of this,...

I guess I guess it. The realiest is all the components. Were talking about this, the actual simplicity of these films coupled with the shot and the music and this atmosphere. And like you said that the essence of cool is usually just not taking yourself that seriously. And going back to all the first things I said about this trilogy, is just the way Clint Eastwood Looks, the facial expressions he makes, see he's not taking this that seriously. He's finding amusement in them, he's enjoying them, and just these films and these characters, especially eastwoods characters, just being in these situations, playing with them, enjoying them and just taking them further and further towards their extreme with all the styalization around them. I think that's really just to try to diagnal school. That is cool and that is what makes this relogy stand out over fifty years later and I think what build make them keep standing out for fifty, two, hundred and even hundreds of years to come, because they have this timeless quality, the improve in their timeless quality. And Yeah, I think must people would say it does pretty bad us and this is something they are Badass. This is something you know that that not you is mentioned earlier. Is How you know this. These movies released, this style has become almost anonymous with with what people think westerns are. Now it's very difficult to overstate the influence of these movies. You know, certainly they launched a number of extraordinary careers. You know, Clint Eastwood, it was a minor TV player on raw hid before he came across these movies. By the time they were done he was a major star and he's gone onto, you know, fifty fantastically productive years as a similar legend I gave us. You know, Sergey Leone was this minor Italian figure. Now he's this major cinema legend. He made three more magnificent movies, perhaps the best of their type. And then Anyo Marconi became the most acclaimed film composer in cinema history. And beyond that, the cultural influences is so wide ranging and so profound. I mean the the entire career of Quentin Tarantino. In a certain way, is is just an elaboration of Spaghetti Western themes, you know. And then beyond that, if nothing else. So you know, these movies gave us an eastwards appearance at the two thousand and twelve Republican National Convention, which was its own sort of cultrocity. I suppose not that many chairs in the in the doudage virgin. I think that's what was missing, maybe to say you should just remake the trilogy, just add a fort film so that Clintieft with can finally have his shares. You know, it's it's interesting, is that Clint Eastwood, you know, kind of brought the character back, didn't he? I mean in high planes, drifter, and we know, I know we're getting into other territory here, but high plane character, which is one of his early directorial efforts. I think it's the second movie he directed. He is once again playing a character, a man with no name, and it is once again a very dark and humorous western. And then again in Pale writer, which is really a shame remake, he again plays a character who has no name. So in some ways he carried on the legacy. Yeah, and then, unforgiven, he buried it. I think that as the the Guydea yeah, or that of the frocal idea. And the one thing we didn't mention is that, through you, little n actually broke off his deal with the producers, off a fist full of dollars, which is why he made for a food dollars more with a new character, and they got sued and the they lost. The producers lost because even though it's was wearing the same clothes, the court found that it was, that this type of character was just public domain, and I suppose this works in these would say a favor as well. I mean, he can't he could keep playing similar characters in western should it, just carry on that tradition in his own way. And of course, Sir Gulonna even though we didn't make that many more films. He carried on the tradition as well, leading, of course, too, once upon a time in the West, which I think most of us agrees even stronger than they get the band dougally. So I think that. No, no, I don't agree with that, not at all. That's right, that's good's it's very well then, to be the party sequel. Right. Well, that once one time in the US. Let's do it. Yeah, it's good. So we can do them once upon the time trilogy, which is even more diver shall we say, going from this kind of action calmedy style of Duc U Sucker, a feastful of dynamite, and then on to, you know, once upon time in America, which is not even a Western so if you guys are up for that weekend, schedule that in for the future. Yeah, and that your sucker is named once sever...

...time in the revolution in in front. So it does fit in that imaginary trilogy exactly. So yeah, that's that's that's plan. We're gonna do it. So thank you all for listening and join us again soon. You have been listening to talking images, official PODCAST OF ICM FORUMCOM.

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (58)