He also prefers The Big Silence title over The Great Silence. Probably only one who does.
2 Likes
I have no strong opinion on Cox. I have read his book some time ago, it offers strong opinions on a number of films, some that I share, and some that I donât share. I also have listened to his commentary on The Mercenary, which made this film rise considerably in my esteem. Anyway, I object to the harassing of Cox on this and other threads.
1 Like
One thing I loved in his Introduction to Film book was where he bashed Tarantino for recycling Morricone music. Now that I agree with him on! 
1 Like
Who is harassing? Itâs opinion and analysis of his book. He sure is very liberal in stating his opinion, so why should we be shamed for sharing ours?
2 Likes
Like I said:
1 Like
In his review of Navajo Joe, Alex Cox actually laments that the entire town of Esperanza were not killed. His justification for this opinion? Theyâre âallâ racist. There is a recurring theme of Coxâ obsession with how racist the spaghetti western characters are (well, only the white anglo characters, to be realistic) throughout his book. So naturally, this entire town of white capitalists deserves to die simply based on those terms. Coxâ vein of hate runs deep and for all to see. I find it disturbing that some members found this entertaining. I am done reading this book and it will probably sit on my shelf for a very long time. I had written several other critical paragraphs but decided not to post them in interests of not âoffendingâ any more members. But on this point I had to speak.
3 Likes
I simply cannot find any members saying that at all in this discussion. What I can find is being pointed out that these movies were also made for entertainment which they are, that is, entertaining. If you donât find spaghetti westerns entertaining youâre on the wrong forum amigo 
1 Like
It goes without saying that I find them entertaining. I have spent hundreds of dollars on them. What is not entertaining to me is Coxâ opinions. But others said they see nothing wrong with the book and get really defensive about Cox and everything about him. I am just sharing my opinion. If you want me to leave the forums for that, say it plainly.
Not what Iâm saying. Just think you are reading more into stuff written than what is actually there. I have not read the book so have no opinion about it but saying that find you find it disturbing that some people get something out of it is perhaps a bit harsh.
I can understand people âgetting somethingâ out of it. Thatâs why Iâve held back my opinions so much (just ask Dean). But that one instance I was describing in his Navajo Joe review really pissed me off. Sorry it was âharsh.â I find Coxâ book âharshâ on a lot of people and things. I guess I shouldnât have commented on other membersâ tastes. I apologize for that point.
1 Like
You have no reason to apologise, and it seems clear to me that youâve been misunderstood by AvatarDK.
I welcome your comments and opinions âŠ. and I am now even more resolved not to waste time or money on this criticâs piffle.
The stupidity of the âNavajo Joeâ analysis sounds like something a 13 year old wannabe civil rights activist would spout. Of course the characters are racist, thatâs the point of the story ⊠but saying the townspeople deserve to die because of this, is the ramblings of a knit wit. Itâs a film adventure set in the west, for godâs sake!!!
The guy obviously wants to appear like a âRight Onâ dude, apologising on behalf of all white people ?
There is something seriously wrong here - these views arenât analytical - theyâre self referencing and egotistical.
For those interested, check out the audio commentary he does for âShalakoâ , not a classic but an entertaining adventure with many top actors of the period. Cox, however only wants to praise the performance of black actor, Woody Strode ⊠to the point of being sycophantic beyond belief. Strode certainly has great screen presence, but he wasnât much of an actor, and he only appears in the film briefly, and frankly the âperformanceâ is nothing to write home about, especially when you consider the rest of the cast.
3 Likes
Navajo Joe is not one of my favourites. I think some very interesting premises, two half breeds pitched against another, one has become a bounty hunter, the other a scalp hunter, the one the killer of the otherâs women, were squandered on a mediocre story and a bad script. But your comment made me take another look at it tonight, with an open mind, and, as it were, also with an open palate, so Iâll get back to you in a while, on the film and Coxâ comments both. And donât you leave the forum!
1 Like
I think itâs a great film! Not Corbucciâs best but still a solid stand-out in the genre. Aldo Sambrell is great as the villain. Burt Reynolds, although he hated making it, is very cool as Joe. He is very right to point out the townspeopleâs racism. But did they deserve to die for it? Not in my opinion. The bad guys were Sambrellâs character and their sadistic gang terrorizing both the Native Americans and the townsfolk. The casual racism and ignorance of the townspeople was just an unfortunate and common aspect of their daily life in the wild west. It doesnât mean itâs right, it was just a different time in history. I see racism all through spaghetti westerns, but not just coming from one group of people. Take The Return of Ringo for example. Paco Fuentes and his Mexican gang have a sign saying âno gringos or Indiansâ allowed in the pub. Or any number of other films where âgringosâ are generalized and discriminated against. It was a different, mean, rough, hard time which is the setting for these films we all admire. You canât completely judge them by todayâs standards of political correctness and social justice etc. They have many flaws and didnât have the big budgets or fancy effects of Hollywood, but they are nonetheless entertaining and thought-provoking. I think Tony Anthonyâs films are great despite being riffs on Leone/Eastwoodâs work. I think The Mercenary and Compañeros are great Corbucci films despite the humourous overtones. Comedy is not a bad word in SW in my opinion. The Trinity films I also donât dismiss and enjoy. I guess perhaps Cox comes from a university or film school background where he was taught to be very critical and selective of what he deems to be good? But, back to Navajo Joe, I have the Kino blu-ray and to be honest I wouldâve preferred a Cox commentary over the corporate executive one that they had for that, even if I disagree with Cox. He is at least interesting to listen to. But I wasnât prepared for just how blunt he would be in the book. Iâm not going to say donât read it. Many people obviously do enjoy the book and good for them. It was just too much for me, though. I prefer Hughes and Frayling.
3 Likes
Fell free to write everything you want to write about Coxâ book.
That opinions are discussed here does not mean that people are offended. I canât speak for everyone of course, but Iâm never offended by other peopleâs opinions even when they are extremely contrary to what I think. I find diverging opinions entertaining.
And even if someone has trouble with others opinions (mine, yours, someone elseâs), than canât this be a reason to say nothing. Otherwise no discussion would be possible.
1 Like
Exactly.
Opinions will always differ and discussion depends on this. My only caveat is that disagreement on opinion is to be welcomed, bashing particular people because of opinions they have expressed is not. Iâm not saying that line has been crossed here, just that it is worth keeping in mind.
For my part, I donât agree with all of Coxâs opinions in this book or other writings but I donât judge him by that. The fact he has enough fame to get a book published on the subject means that any opinion he has at the time is captured forever and is viewable by everyone. I am pretty sure I have spouted some stuff over the years on here that I donât particularly stand by now. The difference is most of it is largely anonymous and most people donât care anyway.
Cox is plenty thick skinned enough to not worry but I would still say, say what you like about his book or his opinions but donât let that cloud your opinion of him as a person. My experience of him in that regard has always been 100% positive.
2 Likes
I realized where I had gone wrong when I criticized other members for what I saw as agreeing with him on some points (but this is never to be assumed even if they say they liked the entire book and I was way out in left field with that comment and apologized a couple times). At the time I was taking the book too seriously and letting myself be pissed off by Coxâ opinions.
I am glad to hear that. His books and videos and commentaries are all I have to go by. But I believe you.
Again, I apologize. Iâll try not to do it again.
I will still hold back some things because members have remarked that Iâd been âtoo harsh.â
Donât worry mate. As I said, I donât think that line had been crossed.
2 Likes
I didnât buy the book from Amazon, I bought it from Bookdepository.com from the UK. I think they only let you review on if youâve bought it from Amazon. But I guess I could look into itâŠ
I would love to see Alex Cox and Roger Deakins pair up again. The visual creativity that results would be outstanding - Cox would provide the touch of zaniness while Deakins would ensure that it looks awesome on film. Then weâd just need to add in Tony Lawson as editor, and boom⊠a masterpiece of cinemaâŠ