|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 25, 2021 1:55:42 GMT
Probably a combination of both and that is probably part of the reason it is often considered so great. I just have mixed feelings about Sam Peckinpah's style. With that being said, The Wild Bunch is my second favorite Peckinpah movie. I really love Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid as one of my, if not my favourite film. I encourage you to re-evaluate it. I haven't seen that. On a related note, if re-watched every movie that someone encouraged me to re-evaluate I would have way too many movies to watch. I actually did that with Straw Dogs on my own. I hated it the first time I watched it, but I liked it a lot more on re-watch. Still doesn't entirely work for me though.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 25, 2021 1:59:27 GMT
Don't get me wrong when I say this- I love a good John Ford or Howard Hawks western- but most pre-60's Hollywood westerns feel vastly more inauthentic to me than the Spaghetti westerns ever do. Everybody's clothes always look too clean, the colors are too vibrant, they look freshly washed and shaved. It just looks phony to me. Compare this with a Spaghetti western- especially the Leone ones- where the people really do look sweaty and grimy and dust-caked. It's not a measure of quality necessarily, but they do feel more real to me, even with the dubbing. After Peckinpah, Hollywood would finally get the message, and a lot of the Hollywood westerns made post- Wild Bunch again feel a lot more authentic to the era than your average John Wayne movie. You have a point, but I like movies for being different from reality. I think the American westerns are better acted and better written and that is why I prefer them. The lack of realism with the look of the characters is secondary for me. Gregory Peck actually had to trick the studio into letting him keep his mustache for a western he was in. The lack of facial hair in 1950s westerns is the most noticeable flaw in terms of realism imo. I do like the scores for Spaghetti westerns more though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on May 25, 2021 2:02:07 GMT
Don't get me wrong when I say this- I love a good John Ford or Howard Hawks western- but most pre-60's Hollywood westerns feel vastly more inauthentic to me than the Spaghetti westerns ever do. Everybody's clothes always look too clean, the colors are too vibrant, they look freshly washed and shaved. It just looks phony to me. Compare this with a Spaghetti western- especially the Leone ones- where the people really do look sweaty and grimy and dust-caked. It's not a measure of quality necessarily, but they do feel more real to me, even with the dubbing. After Peckinpah, Hollywood would finally get the message, and a lot of the Hollywood westerns made post- Wild Bunch again feel a lot more authentic to the era than your average John Wayne movie. Monte Hellman’s westerns pre-date The Wild Bunch. You may be thinking of 50s westerns, and popular ones at that. But yeah 50s westerns often had many conventions I don’t care for. Even 40s westerns were dirtier than them. Consider this scene from My Darling Clementine (unfortunately I couldn’t get the scene prior to this which is a great scene). |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 25, 2021 2:32:09 GMT
My opinion is that what popular opinion says about westerns isn’t true. You have to judge them yourself. I don’t care for many of ones that are considered classics. Critics will praise certain ones but I don't take the critics as my guide. Especially with westerns since they are considered the big American genre.
I didn't like the Wild Bunch. Watched it a couple of the times and I don't like it.
I feel the Ryan character becoming a revolutionary is unrealistic--there's always something in most US-made westerns that takes me out of the story. I don't care about the dirt and the grime as much as the characters-their behavior.
I felt Burt Reynolds becoming the head of the rebels in 100 Rifles to be phony--and I didn't like THE PROFESSIONALS--I felt the guy who lost his wife--he didnt do anything at the end even though he had those guards-and he just let the four guys ride off--it didn't feel realistic to me--especially compared to something like the Big Gundown-which is similar--the powerful guy hires a gunman for a job and then turns his gun on him. He showed more ruthlessness and desire--and at the same time-he was mad at his son-in-law for being a sexual pervert/killer so he wasn't just a caricature of a land baron type.
I didn't like The Magnificent Seven, especially for the scene where the gunfighters serve food to the villagers. They would never have done that in real life. It's so phony. The Seven Samurai never had a scene like that.
THE SAVAGE GUNS is a proto-spaghetti----I like that one too.
Adam West did a couple of spaghetti westerns--I heard one is pretty good.
I like Hang Em High but I feel it does show a little of that phony quality that I detect--Ed Begley killing himself out of guilt? Forget that.
High Plains Drifter I like BUT it is founded on the unlikely scenario that a town would just stand by as someone is killed like that. I think it is too contrived.
Braveheart Pass I liked.
I can't remember if there was a moment where i questioned a character's nobility--maybe Richard Crenna--since Bronson was a government agent I didn't feel it was like a typical western.
I am not a fan of Unforgiven--the political points are just too obvious--I wish we could have at least seen him serving customers as a seller of dry goods!
RED SUN! I loved that one. Samurai vs Comanche. What a great sequence.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on May 25, 2021 2:43:46 GMT
I don’t know that The Wild Bunch was influenced by spaghetti westerns. I’ve heard it said but it’s also thought to be a homage to earlier American westerns in many ways. Yes, TWB was something of a homage, as were the spaghettis. The Italian influence can be seen by the main characters being killers, the story takes place in a Latin language country, and the extended gun battles and large body count, esp. the finale which included mowing down people with a machine gun, something that happens in more than one import. But to me, The Wild Bunch, in spite of its influences from other past and present westerns, is a unique and wholly American vision of the ending of the Old West and of the violence in American life.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 25, 2021 2:45:07 GMT
I am not a fan of westerns in general--the Valley of Gwangi is my favorite, however I have watched a lot of them in recent years. I had seen few American ones and those I had, I didn't care for them. I didn't care for SHANE or HIGH NOON (on the other hand I did watch Maverick and the Rifleman and Have Gun, Will Travel). I liked the spaghetti westerns better than the American ones because they could be kind of operatic and poetic and I liked that desert locations. They pick really rough looking people--they aren't as glamorous as the US versions. I understand someone who doesn't like them. i.e. the Leone ones. They have great style and music but they are simplistic in dialogue and someone might find that cartoonish. Very few of the ones I have seen have sympathetic characters--there are some but in general all the characters are stabbing the other in the back or treacherous. I really like FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE, DJANGO, THE BIG GUNDOWN, THE RUTHLESS FOUR, FACE TO FACE, THE BELLE STARR STORY, CEMETERY WITHOUT CROSSES. I wasn't crazy about RIO BRAVO. I don't find the character banter all that fun. I thought the deputy sidekick in EL DORADO was a lot better. I really liked STAGECOACH though. THE BIG COUNTRY, NIGHT OF THE GRIZZLY, CHUKA I liked. I did like SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL SHERIFF a lot too. That reminds me, the sequel's 50th anniversary is on my birthday. The Italian western tends to regard the Old West as a time of criminals and lawlessness and individual focus--there's no concern for the town or the overall community in them usually--depending on the film, the American ones are concentrated on the idea of pioneer virtue and perseverance. STAGECOACH is all about the idea that it took all kinds of people with different backgrounds and classes and frailties to form the West. My opinion is that what popular opinion says about westerns isn’t true. You have to judge them yourself. I don’t care for many of ones that are considered classics. Popular culture gets most things wrong anyway. Fifty years from now a retrospective of sci-fi films of the early 21st century will feature such classics as Avatar! and The Avengers! Just because you or me don't care for certain classics doesn't mean that the people who praise them are wrong, it just means we don't like what they like. I find it extremely egotistic to say movies that are considered classics that you don't like, that the people who do love them are wrong for considering them great films. Just like they can say your opinion is wrong. Just a pet peeve of mine that people come at movies like they are science or something. Movies are about personal preference and what each person takes away from what they are watching. I never use the terms overrated or underrated, because it is basically me telling the majority or minority that their opinion about art is wrong. I never speak about movies in objective terms, because I think in many cases it is a mistake to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on May 25, 2021 3:31:18 GMT
My opinion is that what popular opinion says about westerns isn’t true. You have to judge them yourself. I don’t care for many of ones that are considered classics. Popular culture gets most things wrong anyway. Fifty years from now a retrospective of sci-fi films of the early 21st century will feature such classics as Avatar! and The Avengers! Just because you or me don't care for certain classics doesn't mean that the people who praise them are wrong, it just means we don't like what they like. I find it extremely egotistic to say movies that are considered classics that you don't like, that the people who do love them are wrong for considering them great films. Just like they can say your opinion is wrong. Just a pet peeve of mine that people come at movies like they are science or something. Movies are about personal preference and what each person takes away from what they are watching. I never use the terms overrated or underrated, because it is basically me telling the majority or minority that their opinion about art is wrong. I never speak about movies in objective terms, because I think in many cases it is a mistake to do so. Film criticism is subjective. And The Last Jedi is a great film. Black Panther, the best! Oops, I’m being egotistical in my scepticism! I literally said that you have to judge them for yourself, so I leave room for subjectivity. But I don’t think that it’s incorrect to say that popular opinion can be wrong. It absolutely can be, and for many reasons. Take The Magnificent Seven. One of the reasons why I think it’s lauded is for its cast. But it’s massively overrated. In fact I find it very formulaic and corny. Likewise, many films which are masterpieces just aren’t accessible to film critics because film criticism is populated by simpletons, even moreso in contemporary times. How often do films get re-evaluated years later to be appreciated much more than upon their release? And how often does the inverse occur, where they are thought less of? This happens for a variety of reasons, including politics and the aforementioned lack of integrity of cinematic criticism for instance. Westerns are already a misunderstood and unfairly maligned genre, American ones especially. If people are going to justify their prejudice by mentioning the same old tired titles then they are simply creating a straw argument. There were literally thousands of westerns made. At least I prefaced my opinion by stating that I hadn’t seen many spaghetti westerns. But I’d suggest that my reasoning was quite good. The dubbing and language barriers for instance negate the aural sensation that is such a significant part of the medium of cinema. Yes, spaghetti westerns could be magnificent in theory, but they discard what has been one of most wondrous facets of performance for thousands of years, so yes, they are at a disadvantage. |
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on May 25, 2021 3:41:17 GMT
My opinion is that what popular opinion says about westerns isn’t true. You have to judge them yourself. I don’t care for many of ones that are considered classics. Popular culture gets most things wrong anyway. Fifty years from now a retrospective of sci-fi films of the early 21st century will feature such classics as Avatar! and The Avengers! Just because you or me don't care for certain classics doesn't mean that the people who praise them are wrong, it just means we don't like what they like. I find it extremely egotistic to say movies that are considered classics that you don't like, that the people who do love them are wrong for considering them great films. Just like they can say your opinion is wrong. Just a pet peeve of mine that people come at movies like they are science or something. Movies are about personal preference and what each person takes away from what they are watching. I never use the terms overrated or underrated, because it is basically me telling the majority or minority that their opinion about art is wrong. I never speak about movies in objective terms, because I think in many cases it is a mistake to do so. All I’m saying is that yes, subjectivity does indeed determine a film’s worth. But not entirely. My opinion is that Chairman of the Board is not of the quality of The Exorcist. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 25, 2021 3:58:53 GMT
Just because you or me don't care for certain classics doesn't mean that the people who praise them are wrong, it just means we don't like what they like. I find it extremely egotistic to say movies that are considered classics that you don't like, that the people who do love them are wrong for considering them great films. Just like they can say your opinion is wrong. Just a pet peeve of mine that people come at movies like they are science or something. Movies are about personal preference and what each person takes away from what they are watching. I never use the terms overrated or underrated, because it is basically me telling the majority or minority that their opinion about art is wrong. I never speak about movies in objective terms, because I think in many cases it is a mistake to do so. Film criticism is subjective. And The Last Jedi is a great film. Black Panther, the best! Oops, I’m being egotistical in my scepticism! I literally said that you have to judge them for yourself, so I leave room for subjectivity. But I don’t think that it’s incorrect to say that popular opinion can be wrong. It absolutely can be, and for many reasons. Take The Magnificent Seven. One of the reasons why I think it’s lauded is for its cast. But it’s massively overrated. In fact I find it very formulaic and corny. Likewise, many films which are masterpieces just aren’t accessible to film critics because film criticism is populated by simpletons, even moreso in contemporary times. How often do films get re-evaluated years later to be appreciated much more than upon their release? And how often does the inverse occur, where they are thought less of? This happens for a variety of reasons, including politics and the aforementioned lack of integrity of cinematic criticism for instance. Westerns are already a misunderstood and unfairly maligned genre, American ones especially. If people are going to justify their prejudice by mentioning the same old tired titles then they are simply creating a straw argument. There were literally thousands of westerns made. At least I prefaced my opinion by stating that I hadn’t seen many spaghetti westerns. But I’d suggest that my reasoning was quite good. The dubbing and language barriers for instance negate the aural sensation that is such a significant part of the medium of cinema. Yes, spaghetti westerns could be magnificent in theory, but they are discarded what has been one of most wondrous facets of performance for thousands of years, so yes, they are at a disadvantage. You don't seem to understand that people use different criteria for what makes a movie good. For example your criticisms of The Magnificent Seven might be why other people like it. You also are seeing it with a different eye and mind than the people who like it. What you find corny, other people might not or they may see the corniness as a strength. Of course YOU would say and think that YOUR reasoning is good. Everybody thinks that their reasoning is good. I also don't care for The Magnificent Seven, but have you bothered to ask the people who like it why they like it or why they love it? You have to accept that people see things differently than you. Maybe some people love it just because they enjoy it immensely and there is no deeper reason. That is sort of what you implied, but I don't think people are wrong for loving it or considering it great for that reason. I just don't see it the way they see it. Not sure why strawman is even mentioned here or where you get the idea that westerns are misunderstood. Can you explain this to me? It seems like you are raising a strawman here, not the other way around. I don't think westerns are misunderstood, I think they are just not liked by many people because of what they are or not even given a chance by many people. I use to dislike the genre, but then the genre grew on me over time. You would need to ask every individual person who doesn't care for the genre why they don't care for it, otherwise just assuming they don't like it because they misunderstand the genre is in fact a strawman. I generally don't even bother arguing about movies, because I don't care what other people think is great or what isn't and think it is silly and insulting to do so. I am arguing here because of that specific stance I take about movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 25, 2021 4:02:00 GMT
Just because you or me don't care for certain classics doesn't mean that the people who praise them are wrong, it just means we don't like what they like. I find it extremely egotistic to say movies that are considered classics that you don't like, that the people who do love them are wrong for considering them great films. Just like they can say your opinion is wrong. Just a pet peeve of mine that people come at movies like they are science or something. Movies are about personal preference and what each person takes away from what they are watching. I never use the terms overrated or underrated, because it is basically me telling the majority or minority that their opinion about art is wrong. I never speak about movies in objective terms, because I think in many cases it is a mistake to do so. All I’m saying is that yes, subjectivity does indeed determine a film’s worth. But not entirely. My opinion is that Chairman of the Board is not of the quality of The Exorcist. Sure, or course there are extreme examples that can be objective. But I doubt anyone holds the opinion that Chairman of the Board is at the quality of The Exorcist and there is a reason for this. Whether someone likes Chairman of the Board more than The Exorcist though is a different matter. They may hate the horror genre and love Chairman of the Board because it is so stupid and take enjoyment from that. Roger Ebert once answered someone asking him why he rated XXX higher than The Godfather: Part II and his reply was "because I enjoy it more." Is Con Air at the quality of Casablanca? Heck no, but I enjoy the former far more and my rating reflects my subjective like or dislike of a movie. This is a different argument though, this is about which movies I personally like more and not which is of greater artistic quality. I would never argue that Con Air is a greater movie than Casablanca, I would just explain why I like it more. The former is opinion, the latter is fact. It is an absolute fact that I like Con Air more than Casablanca.
|
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on May 25, 2021 4:34:05 GMT
Film criticism is subjective. And The Last Jedi is a great film. Black Panther, the best! Oops, I’m being egotistical in my scepticism! I literally said that you have to judge them for yourself, so I leave room for subjectivity. But I don’t think that it’s incorrect to say that popular opinion can be wrong. It absolutely can be, and for many reasons. Take The Magnificent Seven. One of the reasons why I think it’s lauded is for its cast. But it’s massively overrated. In fact I find it very formulaic and corny. Likewise, many films which are masterpieces just aren’t accessible to film critics because film criticism is populated by simpletons, even moreso in contemporary times. How often do films get re-evaluated years later to be appreciated much more than upon their release? And how often does the inverse occur, where they are thought less of? This happens for a variety of reasons, including politics and the aforementioned lack of integrity of cinematic criticism for instance. Westerns are already a misunderstood and unfairly maligned genre, American ones especially. If people are going to justify their prejudice by mentioning the same old tired titles then they are simply creating a straw argument. There were literally thousands of westerns made. At least I prefaced my opinion by stating that I hadn’t seen many spaghetti westerns. But I’d suggest that my reasoning was quite good. The dubbing and language barriers for instance negate the aural sensation that is such a significant part of the medium of cinema. Yes, spaghetti westerns could be magnificent in theory, but they are discarded what has been one of most wondrous facets of performance for thousands of years, so yes, they are at a disadvantage. You don't seem to understand that people use different criteria for what makes a movie good. For example your criticisms of The Magnificent Seven might be why other people like it. You also are seeing it with a different eye and mind than the people who like it. What you find corny, other people might not or they may see the corniness as a strength. Of course YOU would say and think that YOUR reasoning is good. Everybody thinks that their reasoning is good. I also don't care for The Magnificent Seven, but have you bothered to ask the people who like it why they like it or why they love it? You have to accept that people see things differently than you. Maybe some people love it just because they enjoy it immensely and there is no deeper reason. That is sort of what you implied, but I don't think people are wrong for loving it or considering it great for that reason. I just don't see it the way they see it. Not sure why strawman is even mentioned here or where you get the idea that westerns are misunderstood. Can you explain this to me? It seems like you are raising a strawman here, not the other way around. I don't think westerns are misunderstood, I think they are just not liked by many people because of what they are or not even given a chance by many people. I use to dislike the genre, but then the genre grew on me over time. I generally don't even bother arguing about movies, because I don't care what other people think is great or what isn't and think it is silly and insulting to do so. I am arguing here because of that specific stance I take about movies. Our conversation started when someone else on the thread told me that they didn’t like American westerns because they didn’t like x, y and z. THAT is the strawman that I was referring to, When I say that Westerns, particularly American westerns, are misunderstood, I mean that contemporary audiences aren’t familiar with a wide variety of westerns. And the films that are cited as icons of the genre are often poor examples of the potential of the genre. You took exception to my criticism of iconic films and I say fine, you’ve said what you think. But I’ll criticise any film I choose to. And years from now someone will voice their criticism of Black Panther and someone similar to you will say that it’s ‘silly and insulting’ to arguing what ‘other people think is great or what isn't’ and I hope that the response is ‘um, this is a film board’. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 25, 2021 5:44:46 GMT
You don't seem to understand that people use different criteria for what makes a movie good. For example your criticisms of The Magnificent Seven might be why other people like it. You also are seeing it with a different eye and mind than the people who like it. What you find corny, other people might not or they may see the corniness as a strength. Of course YOU would say and think that YOUR reasoning is good. Everybody thinks that their reasoning is good. I also don't care for The Magnificent Seven, but have you bothered to ask the people who like it why they like it or why they love it? You have to accept that people see things differently than you. Maybe some people love it just because they enjoy it immensely and there is no deeper reason. That is sort of what you implied, but I don't think people are wrong for loving it or considering it great for that reason. I just don't see it the way they see it. Not sure why strawman is even mentioned here or where you get the idea that westerns are misunderstood. Can you explain this to me? It seems like you are raising a strawman here, not the other way around. I don't think westerns are misunderstood, I think they are just not liked by many people because of what they are or not even given a chance by many people. I use to dislike the genre, but then the genre grew on me over time. I generally don't even bother arguing about movies, because I don't care what other people think is great or what isn't and think it is silly and insulting to do so. I am arguing here because of that specific stance I take about movies. Our conversation started when someone else on the thread told me that they didn’t like American westerns because they didn’t like x, y and z. THAT is the strawman that I was referring to, When I say that Westerns, particularly American westerns, are misunderstood, I mean that contemporary audiences aren’t familiar with a wide variety of westerns. And the films that are cited as icons of the genre are often poor examples of the potential of the genre. You took exception to my criticism of iconic films and I say fine, you’ve said what you think. But I’ll criticise any film I choose to. And years from now someone will voice their criticism of Black Panther and someone similar to you will say that it’s ‘silly and insulting’ to arguing what ‘other people think is great or what isn't’ and I hope that the response is ‘um, this is a film board’. I don't see that as a strawman necessarily. I didn't see the actual back and forth, so I can't know for sure though. It sounds like they are saying they don't like American westerns based on what they have seen and that isn't a strawman imo. If they said they think American westerns suck as some fact because of random American westerns they have seen then I would say that person is holding a strawman position. Of course you can criticize any film you choose and I never suggested otherwise (speaking of a strawman), but you were and are criticizing people for their opinion of those movies. There is a big difference there. I also never dismiss anyone's criticisms of a movie. I didn't say their criticisms of the movie are silly and insulting. Those are their criticisms and then I would say why I disagree. That is talking about the movie, not the person. Certainly not taking on a strawman of majority opinion. That will always be a strawman and that is what you were doing. I can even point to the exact spot where you did that. "My opinion is that what popular opinion says about westerns isn’t true." What is the popular opinion about westerns exactly and where are your statistics on that? Do you know what reasons every individual person likes whatever movies you dislike actually are? This is some up your own ass shit. If you can just throw some BS comment like that out then I will just throw out that my opinion is that your opinion on the popular opinion is is a lazy garbage opinion based on a phantom generality that you can't even debate with.
|
|
mgmarshall
Junior Member
@mgmarshall
Posts: 2,174
Likes: 3,395
|
Post by mgmarshall on May 25, 2021 5:59:05 GMT
Don't get me wrong when I say this- I love a good John Ford or Howard Hawks western- but most pre-60's Hollywood westerns feel vastly more inauthentic to me than the Spaghetti westerns ever do. Everybody's clothes always look too clean, the colors are too vibrant, they look freshly washed and shaved. It just looks phony to me. Compare this with a Spaghetti western- especially the Leone ones- where the people really do look sweaty and grimy and dust-caked. It's not a measure of quality necessarily, but they do feel more real to me, even with the dubbing. After Peckinpah, Hollywood would finally get the message, and a lot of the Hollywood westerns made post- Wild Bunch again feel a lot more authentic to the era than your average John Wayne movie. Monte Hellman’s westerns pre-date The Wild Bunch. You may be thinking of 50s westerns, and popular ones at that. But yeah 50s westerns often had many conventions I don’t care for. Even 40s westerns were dirtier than them. Consider this scene from My Darling Clementine (unfortunately I couldn’t get the scene prior to this which is a great scene). Good call on Monte Hellman. He was definitely picking up the Spaghetti/Acid Western vibe before anybody else in Hollywood did. Yeah, My Darling Clementine looks pretty good. Honestly, the earlier John Ford stuff works better for me. I think the black and white photography helps mask some of the things I was complaining about. Maybe Technicolor just doesn't work for Westerns to my eyes. Although, granted, The Searchers is incredibly gorgeous to look at. I have no complaints about that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mulder and Scully on May 25, 2021 11:07:58 GMT
The reasons you mentioned are exactly why I like Spaghetti westerns. It gave them their distinctive quality. I would like to add that Spaghetti westerns were grittier than American westerns.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on May 25, 2021 14:52:19 GMT
Aside from the handful of westerns that Sergio Leone made, are there any Spaghetti Westerns that are well-regarded by critics?
|
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on May 25, 2021 14:59:18 GMT
I wish they'd call them Italian westerns I guess it did influence the terms sauerkraut westerns, goulash westerns, gibanica westerns, curry westerns, meat pie westerns (yes these are recognised terms) en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_(genre) |
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on May 25, 2021 21:22:08 GMT
I wish they'd call them Italian westerns I guess it did influence the terms sauerkraut westerns, goulash westerns, gibanica westerns, curry westerns, meat pie westerns (yes these are recognised terms) en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_(genre)Yes, not a fan of any of those terms personally. Just use the country.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 25, 2021 21:48:40 GMT
Aside from the handful of westerns that Sergio Leone made, are there any Spaghetti Westerns that are well-regarded by critics?
DJANGO and THE GREAT SILENCE.
The films of the three Sergios: Leone, Sollima, Corbucci.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 26, 2021 19:36:01 GMT
I'm not a fan of spaghetti westerns either. I love the old gladiator films made in Italy and many of those directors went on to doing the spaghetti westerns but something was lost in their transition to a different type of film. Most of the gladiator films have a solid, typically non-ambivalent hero and a diabolical bad guy (or woman). The "hero" of the spaghetti westerns was definitely not that type of character. I guess lots of folks liked that, especially during the latter half of the 1960s and early 1970s. There's a difference between Italian peplum films and their westerns as you mentioned. Maybe the pirate films are the closest to the western -- since it usually focused on an outlaw pirate--but I think many of those ended with a pirate being redeemed or working for a kingdom by the end of it. Usually there was an obvious happy ending. I saw one 1964ish western they did where there's a strong man cowboy--Alan Steel--it's a crazy movie because he rescues an old Indian from being abused at the beginning-and yet at the end of the story he's helping to destroy a lost Aztec-style civilization! But it is very similar to the roaming Hercules or Maciste storyline. I assume that they felt since the mythological hero was closer to home turf they weren't going to do a story about a selfish or ruthless Hercules--he had to be treated like a national hero.
But with the western--there's no attachment and I guess they see them as barbarians. The western cowboy...
Sergio Leone supposedly said that he thought of gunfighters as 1920s gangsters in the US (and many of the most prominent ones in popular culture were Italian ironically enough).
Likewise with their war movies--the WW 2 movies do not have the same outlook as Hollywood ones--the ones I have seen, they usually do not comment much on the politics of the sides. It's an individualistic story where war is awful whoever wins or loses. And with their eurocrime films--often there's a good guy cop in the story so it is more like a traditional American western--the sheriff and the outlaw. I am thinking of one those Dirty Harry clones they did --Maurizio Merli films. He was usually a cop driven to the edge of legality because of the crime.
They are much more explicit in violence and sexual violence than the spaghetti westerns.
|
|
