|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on Aug 16, 2023 6:29:20 GMT
When the one person in the film is on a train... and he's chained to the guard.
And then he says he has to go pee. And then he escapes by throwing him off the train.
That whole sequence is the most unrealistic thing in that film. For one thing if he was gonna keep the prisonor on a chain he would have chained it to something. Other than himself.
Secondly, if that person said he was gonna take a pee. The guard wouldn't walk and stand on the edge of the train while the other guy was taking a pee. For fear of him throwing him off of the train, which he did.
|
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Aug 17, 2023 3:28:37 GMT
When the one person in the film is on a train... and he's chained to the guard.
And then he says he has to go pee. And then he escapes by throwing him off the train.
That whole sequence is the most unrealistic thing in that film. For one thing if he was gonna keep the prisonor on a chain he would have chained it to something. Other than himself.
Secondly, if that person said he was gonna take a pee. The guard wouldn't walk and stand on the edge of the train while the other guy was taking a pee. For fear of him throwing him off of the train, which he did.
I think that the point is that the prison guard ("Wallace," played by the Italian actor Mario Brega, who also played a vividly villainous character role in the previous Sergio Leone-Clint Eastwood Western, For a Few Dollars More) is not too bright. Moreover, his hefty, husky physique suggests a slovenly attitude, which would help explain why he is less than vigilant in this situation. "Wallace" also may have imagined that his prisoner, "Tuco" (Eli Wallach, "the Ugly"), would not risk jumping off the train, while chained, because of the danger involved. So I would not say that the scene is unfathomable, especially given that "Wallace," like "Angel Eyes" (Lee Van Cleef, "the Bad") is a violent swindler and not exactly a professional officer. Nor is sheer realism the point, given the satirically stylized nature of this radically revisionist Western and its two predecessors ( A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More). Rather, the point is the dark irony and animalistic violence that one man is willing to inflict upon another. Thus, like most any scene in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, I would say that this one works exceedingly well. Certainly, it proves memorable. |
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Aug 17, 2023 8:16:21 GMT
When the one person in the film is on a train... and he's chained to the guard.
And then he says he has to go pee. And then he escapes by throwing him off the train.
That whole sequence is the most unrealistic thing in that film. For one thing if he was gonna keep the prisonor on a chain he would have chained it to something. Other than himself.
Secondly, if that person said he was gonna take a pee. The guard wouldn't walk and stand on the edge of the train while the other guy was taking a pee. For fear of him throwing him off of the train, which he did.
Just to add to my earlier comments ... Wallace had already chained Tuco to himself prior to entering the train. At least within the context of the film, that was probably the mode of operation. Since Tuco was chained to Wallace, Wallace had to walk with Tuco. When Tuco then says, "I can't while you're watching me," Wallace turns away and thus inadvertently grants Tuco his opportunity. Indeed, returning to one of my points in my prior post, "realism" is not an especially useful prism for understanding The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, but "naturalism" is indeed instructive. This film, along with its predecessors and the other Italian Westerns now proliferating in the midst of the Leone-Eastwood collaborations, brought a level of naturalism—sweaty, gritty, grubby, dirty naturalism—that had been foreign to American Westerns. For instance, when Tuco tells Wallace that he needs to take a piss, the latter replies, "You smell like a pig already. Let's try not to make things any worse." And when Tuco says, "I can't while you're watching me," Wallace naturally complies—after all, what man (especially what straight man) wants to look too closely at another man while he is urinating? So Wallace's naturalistic, visceral impulses regarding smell and bodily functions (and even the fear of homoeroticism) help explain his choices in this scene. These types of visceral impulses had been essentially omitted in American Westerns (and Hollywood films in general) up until this time (1966), but The Good, the Bad and the Ugly brought all these sensory urges and instincts and revulsions to the screen. |
|
|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on Aug 17, 2023 23:56:51 GMT
One other thing, this film is full of things that are unrealistic. I don't have a problem with them. Except for the thing I mentioned.
For example here's another thing about it. If he was actually going to walk with him so that he could pee off the train...
The guard would have stood, behind him anyway. For one thing, that way he wouldn't actually risk seeing him pee. He don't wanna risk seeing his junk for one thing.
Because nobody wants to see that. He wouldn't.
Besides that, standing behind him would be more safe, for his sake.
|
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Aug 18, 2023 4:59:25 GMT
One other thing, this film is full of things that are unrealistic. I don't have a problem with them. Except for the thing I mentioned. For example here's another thing about it. If he was actually going to walk with him so that he could pee off the train... The guard would have stood, behind him anyway. For one thing, that way he wouldn't actually risk seeing him pee. He don't wanna risk seeing his junk for one thing. Because nobody wants to see that. He wouldn't. Besides that, standing behind him would be more safe, for his sake. There is the possibility that the length and flexibility of the chain would not quite have allowed for such an angle, at least to the point where Tuco could urinate properly (i.e. fully out of the train car). Mainly, though, the factors that I cited earlier would explain matters: Wallace is not, of course, a professional prison guard, nor is he the type that would pay much attention to detail or protocol. He is undisciplined and prone to laxity, and Tuco seemed to understand that. |
|
|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on Aug 25, 2023 22:43:43 GMT
One other thing, this film is full of things that are unrealistic. I don't have a problem with them. Except for the thing I mentioned. For example here's another thing about it. If he was actually going to walk with him so that he could pee off the train... The guard would have stood, behind him anyway. For one thing, that way he wouldn't actually risk seeing him pee. He don't wanna risk seeing his junk for one thing. Because nobody wants to see that. He wouldn't. Besides that, standing behind him would be more safe, for his sake. There is the possibility that the length and flexibility of the chain would not quite have allowed for such an angle, at least to the point where Tuco could urinate properly (i.e. fully out of the train car). Mainly, though, the factors that I cited earlier would explain matters: Wallace is not, of course, a professional prison guard, nor is he the type that would pay much attention to detail or protocol. He is undisciplined and prone to laxity, and Tuco seemed to understand that. I just think they needed him to escape prison for the rest of the film to happen. So , they tried to find the most believable way for him to escape or what not. Doesn't quite work for me.
But i guess the acting makes up for it. Maybe.
|
|
