He also prefers The Big Silence title over The Great Silence. Probably only one who does.
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 don’t 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.
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!
Who is harassing? It’s opinion and analysis of his book. He sure is very liberal in stating his opinion, so why should we be shamed for sharing ours?
Like I said:
In his review of Navajo Joe, Alex Cox actually laments that the entire town of Esperanza were not killed. His justification for this opinion? They’re “all” racist. There is a recurring theme of Cox’ 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. Cox’ 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 “offending” any more members. But on this point I had to speak.
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 don’t find spaghetti westerns entertaining you’re on the wrong forum amigo
It goes without saying that I find them entertaining. I have spent hundreds of dollars on them. What is not entertaining to me is Cox’ 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 I’m 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 “getting something” out of it. That’s why I’ve 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 “harsh.” I find Cox’ book “harsh” on a lot of people and things. I guess I shouldn’t have commented on other members’ tastes. I apologize for that point.
You have no reason to apologise, and it seems clear to me that you’ve been misunderstood by AvatarDK.
I welcome your comments and opinions …. and I am now even more resolved not to waste time or money on this critic’s piffle.
The stupidity of the ‘Navajo Joe’ analysis sounds like something a 13 year old wannabe civil rights activist would spout. Of course the characters are racist, that’s the point of the story … but saying the townspeople deserve to die because of this, is the ramblings of a knit wit. It’s a film adventure set in the west, for god’s sake!!!
The guy obviously wants to appear like a “Right On” dude, apologising on behalf of all white people ?
There is something seriously wrong here - these views aren’t analytical - they’re self referencing and egotistical.
For those interested, check out the audio commentary he does for ‘Shalako’ , 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 wasn’t much of an actor, and he only appears in the film briefly, and frankly the ‘performance’ is nothing to write home about, especially when you consider the rest of the cast.
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 other’s 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 I’ll get back to you in a while, on the film and Cox’ comments both. And don’t you leave the forum!
I think it’s a great film! Not Corbucci’s 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 townspeople’s racism. But did they deserve to die for it? Not in my opinion. The bad guys were Sambrell’s 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 doesn’t mean it’s 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 “no gringos or Indians” allowed in the pub. Or any number of other films where “gringos” are generalized and discriminated against. It was a different, mean, rough, hard time which is the setting for these films we all admire. You can’t completely judge them by today’s standards of political correctness and social justice etc. They have many flaws and didn’t have the big budgets or fancy effects of Hollywood, but they are nonetheless entertaining and thought-provoking. I think Tony Anthony’s films are great despite being riffs on Leone/Eastwood’s 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 don’t 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 would’ve 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 wasn’t prepared for just how blunt he would be in the book. I’m not going to say don’t 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.
Fell free to write everything you want to write about Cox’ book.
That opinions are discussed here does not mean that people are offended. I can’t speak for everyone of course, but I’m never offended by other people’s 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 else’s), than can’t this be a reason to say nothing. Otherwise no discussion would be possible.
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. I’m not saying that line has been crossed here, just that it is worth keeping in mind.
For my part, I don’t agree with all of Cox’s opinions in this book or other writings but I don’t 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 don’t particularly stand by now. The difference is most of it is largely anonymous and most people don’t 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 don’t let that cloud your opinion of him as a person. My experience of him in that regard has always been 100% positive.
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 Cox’ 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. I’ll try not to do it again.
I will still hold back some things because members have remarked that I’d been “too harsh.”
Don’t worry mate. As I said, I don’t think that line had been crossed.
@Ghost_of_Sartana Are you going to leave an Amazon review for the book?
I didn’t buy the book from Amazon, I bought it from Bookdepository.com from the UK. I think they only let you review on if you’ve bought it from Amazon. But I guess I could look into it…
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 we’d just need to add in Tony Lawson as editor, and boom… a masterpiece of cinema…