But this scene is not a celebration of Don Felipe’s execution, it’s a rather dark scene that shows the revolutionary under a rather negative light. Don Felipe doesn’t seem like such a bad person (if I remember correctly), I think the viewer is supposed to feel some sympathy for him. Stanton made some very interesting remarks about the nuances in A Bullet for the General on the film’s thread :
Hope he doesn’t mind I’m using his words to defend the film!
The sympathy of the film lies with the peones both in those scenes and at the end when we hear that they have been massacred by Federales. Is it a great crime and tragedy when murderers have been stopped?
I think we are to feel contempt for Don Felipe-- he is weak and avaricious, “nothing special,” and “wants to keep them poor.” Not worthy of a heroic death. And of course, one cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs…
I agree with Stanton about El Chuncho. I have described him elsewhere as “moronic and murderous.” Is he the Revolution’s “elemental force?” The general sitting on the divan (which gives him stature) represents the leadership which controls this fury. The vanguard of the proletariat, so to speak. The new Rulers after victory…
The joyous ending-- “Buy dynamite!”
Quien sabe? is a “serious” film because it treats his subject seriously. And it is a “thoughtful” film because he differentiates about its content.
And the content of Quien sabe? is not the most complex in the history of cinema, but surely anything else than primitive. Primitive are maybe the politics of the people portrayed in Quien sabe?, but not the “politics” of the film itself. The “buy dynamite” ending is also a tricky end as it is shouted by a man who changes his attitudes and behaviour every minute, and who has killed the “imperialistic agent” not for the reason of understanding, but only out of a feeling. And don’t forget that Chuncho’s answer is also the title of the whole film. In connection with this title it is not a real optimistic ending.
Quien sabe? is a lot more than simple propaganda. It is still a film with flaws, but that’s another story.
Clyde, I don’t understand where you see in Long Live Your Death a parody, but I agree with you that The Mercenary is in the context of the Zapata films a very special film, and that Companeros ain’t that special anymore for being a more conventional adventure film. Only I don’t see why Tessari’s film shouldn’t be one step more in the jokey direction.
One I have not viewed many times for whatever reason. In fact before viewing the longer Wild East cut, only perhaps one more time. Nice budget and cast, with only Redgrave being a bit annoying at times. The action is fresh even though cartoon style at times, and more serious at other times. Liked the extra scenes in the uncut version. Could have easily found different footage to cut myself. For example the scene where Redgrave is pretending to seduce Fajardo goes on to long.
Finally watched it and realized that I had seen it before, in cinema, in the 70s, in heavily cut form
I recognized a couple of scenes, but otherwise the only thing I remembered about it, was that I strongly disliked it back then.
I watched the uncut version this time, and the new material seems to add a lot to the movie (or I simply have become more lenient towards these halfbaked type of spaghettis, not really dirty, not really spic & span).
Don’t turn the other cheek is very likable, although I don’t think it’s really one of the greats. There’s something missing, and I don’t think it had much to do with Tessari replacing Corbucci. Corbucci’s art was already in decline around this time, and for most part Tessari’s direction is fine. There are a few scenes that don’t work, but I had the idea this was more due to the fact that they wanted to add some Trinity elements to the movie. The genre was shifting towards comedy, and the tone of this movie (or at least some scenes of it) was probably changed in mid-production. For this reason it’s hard to determine what kind of movie it is. It’s not a comedy, but it’s not a parody either. It’s more a Corbucci black dramady (Compañeros style) with some slapstick scenes added.
The original title is quite bizarre, part Spanish (la muerte), part Italian (tua).
I can’t stand the sight of suffering cars …
http://www.spaghetti-western.net/index.php/Don't_turn_the_other_Cheek_Review
Nice Review ! 
One of the best Comedy westerns !! Great Film ;D
but it still is way above average, not as good as Compañeros, but better than What are we doing in the Middle of the Revolution
I wonder what I’ll think of Don’t turn the other Cheek since I’m actually liking What are we doing in the Middle of the Revolution more than Compañeros.
What I’m doing in the middle of the Revolution is in my Top 25 on place 21 !!!
You should give it a try, M.E.
I think it’s better than What are we doing … it covers similar grounds and some of the ideas are also similar (the doppelgänger motif for example), but this film has a better cast, that is: for a spaghetti western. Vittorio Gassman is an excellent actor, but he’s not really a SW actor. Nero is, and Wallach is Wallach (and forever Tuco). It also has better action scenes (if you can overlook the slapstick interludes)
All in all they are both on the same level. Both are 5/10 films.
Entertaining stuff, but not really compelling and with some big flaws.
You can post your top 20 in our big voting thread. Also anybody else who hasn’t.
They’re both flawed, yes, but I think this one could have been a Top 20 movie without these slapstick moments and a few mistakes on script level (such as the ending, but there are a few more)
I don’t think What are we doing… would have been much better without the silly humor. It’s not that bad, but it would need a different cast and a younger Corbucci to turn it into a great movie. What are we doing … totally lacks the ‘compañeros qualities’ this movie has.
Middle of the Revolution is somehow directed without any enthusiasm. It completely lacks the splendid moments of the earlier revolution films. Too bad as the story had some potential.
I’m not so sure about long Live Your Death.
There is a lot more wrong with it than the completely out of place slapstick. The character of the Sheriff is one of the examples of too much over the top ideas, which are part of the SWs becoming decadent in their increasing but hopeless attempts to top every bizarre idea of earlier film.
And the chemistry between the lead actors does not really work for me.
Somehow the film doesn’t come to life, otherwise I would have rated it much higher despite some flaws.
A good example is They Call Me Halleluja. Also a film which would be better without the slapstick (but which is better integrated in the film), also a film with a lot of flaws, but I really enjoy it. Great fun and very well directed with beautiful images, and it has an excellent score.
Nice to know there’s another fan on the forum!
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:110, topic:461”]You should give it a try, M.E.
I think it’s better than What are we doing … it covers similar grounds and some of the ideas are also similar (the doppelgänger motif for example), but this film has a better cast, that is: for a spaghetti western. Vittorio Gassman is an excellent actor, but he’s not really a SW actor. Nero is, and Wallach is Wallach (and forever Tuco). It also has better action scenes (if you can overlook the slapstick interludes)[/quote]
I’ll definitively check it out sometime, but I have a feeling that I’ll still like Corbucci’s last Zapata better, it grew on me like few films do.
I’ve always found this to be one of the more entertaining spaghetti westerns
But of course it lacks the serious aspects of the milestones from the 1960s
This is a 1970s spaghetti western, more light-hearted and with some elements of parody
It even has a “Russian” musical pocket watch ;D
It has some sombre moments too and I see you find they don’t fit together
On the other hand even Leone’s FAFDM and GBU had a fair amount of comedy, so maybe it’s not a huge difference after all?
To me the cast of Franco Nero, ‘Tuco’ Wallach, Lynn Redgrave and Eduardo Fajardo is really nice
I don’t think any of them is misplaced
What are we doing in the Middle of the Revolution is one I find liking more after each viewing, and I am not a big revolution western fan.
Humor had been an ingredient of SWs from the beginning. The first Ringo, the MacGregor movies, they had a strong dose of humor. But in these early movies and the masterpieces from the glory days, the humor was better integrated and it hardly ever was silly, at least not in the sense it became silly after Sabata, Sartana and especially the Trinities had done their job. Those post westerns like Giù la testa and this one, also showed some preference for tasteless jokes. In this movie it’s this repeated talk about Mexicans and their asses. I don’t like those things. But that’s the path the genre took, and I think this one of the more enjoyable movies from the latter days.
I don’t mind the sheriff in this movie. Okay, the character is ill-defined, but after all it’s basically a cameo. And I thought this turtle joke was quite funny.
big trash!! :o
Thank you very much 