I liked this movie, but i didn’t like it as much as all the other people do. I think i have to rewatch it.
Actually it’s not a real a western it’s a revolutionary film. Damiano Damiani always complained when journalists called the film a western.
I also like the film even though it’s a bit naïve.
I would use the word Romantic as describing for it, but it’s great fun to watch.
If so then all the Zapata westerns are not westerns. It’s set in Mexico in the right time so without doubt it’s a western i think. The westerns can be a political movies as well. This genre can contain elements of any other genre. I think Damiani said it’s not a western because spags were considered lesser genre by the directors back then and Damiani want to be considered ‘serious’ director.
A political movie is not a western, neither is a revolutionary film, that’s not to say that there cannot be politics or revolutionary activities involved in a western though.
Westerns deal with law enforcement in the period before civilised society, and with it in the period when the civilised society with law enforcing personnel and courtrooms to decide guilt was established.
That is what defines a western.
That is why most of them deal personal revenge and vendettas.
Because prior to the civilised society there was no law, no law enforcers, and no courtrooms to decide guilt.
You yourself had upheld the unwritten laws on your own, and you where your own law enforcer if unjust had been done to you or your family.
For that reason is “A bullet for the general” not a real western.
If so then all so-called Zapata westerns are not westerns. It’s just that boundaries of western were pushed over all the years they were made and the basic definition of the genre seems a bit outdated. Sorry I can’t agree with it but it’s only my opinion. But I got to admit that you have a point here.
We’re splitting hairs here!
“A Bullet” is included in all books on spaghettis, it’s released on DVD as a spaghetti, it’s set in the right times, it’s about “cowboys and mexicans” ;D, of course it’s a spaghettiwestern!
Ok, Damiano didn’t think it was, but it was whatever he says, he should’ve made the film in a totally different style if it wasn’t going to be regarded as a western!
I agree. Maybe Damiani defined his film primarily as a political movie but that doesn’t exclude it of being western too.
That’s like saying Nobody’s the Greatest is no western either because it’s a comedy.
[quote=“Bill san Antonio, post:27, topic:301”]I agree. Maybe Damiani defined his film primarily as a political movie but that doesn’t exclude it of being western too.
That’s like saying Nobody’s the Greatest is no western either because it’s a comedy.[/quote]
Exactly! Spags incorporated elements of many other genres and that’s one of the things that makes this genre so interesting.
[quote=“Silvanito, post:26, topic:301”]We’re splitting hairs here!
“A Bullet” is included in all books on spaghettis, it’s released on DVD as a spaghetti, it’s set in the right times, it’s about “cowboys and mexicans” ;D, of course it’s a spaghettiwestern!
Ok, Damiano didn’t think it was, but it was whatever he says, he should’ve made the film in a totally different style if it wasn’t going to be regarded as a western![/quote]
None of your arguments are valid.
It’s a revolutionary film and not a western because the key issue that the film revolves around are revolutionary matters and not law enforcing issues.
Whether the film is included in Books about westerns, released on DVD as westerns, set in the right time, and has cowboys and Mexicans in it or not has nothing to do with the films core issue.
It’s really very simple all you have to do is ask you self one question.
What is the key theme that the film revolves around?
What about other spaghettis with a political theme?
Are there no such thing as political spaghettiwesterns you think?
This has been discussed on more than one occasion before but remains an intriguing argument.
I am sure that Damiani thought that labeling his film as a Spaghetti Western diminished its value somewhat and there is certainly an argument as to whether it can be considered a western due to it’s being set in Mexico and in the 20th century. The 20th century thing is the biggest issue for me. There are loads of westerns set in Mexico which are clearly westerns. But I would usually define a western as being set in a semi mythical era that spanned the mid to late 19th century in the western part of north america. If it’s got cars in it I struggle to consider it a western.
However, in saying that, the number of films that have been set around the mexican revolution period of the early 20th century have become so established as part of the western genre that I have to now include them in my understanding of what qualifies. If we don’t accept mexican revolution films as westerns then we have to exclude The Wild Bunch, Fistful of Dynamite, Vera Cruz, and The Professionals as well as Quien sabe and whole lot more. Based on that, I have to allow the revolutionary western a place in the genre.
As for Dorado’s point about the lack of law enforcement defining the western I would have to suggest that if we accept that point then the revolutionary film fits right in to the genre perfectly. It was the lawlessness of that period more than the geography that creates so many parallels with the wild west. The conflict between the needs of the individual and the community, the corruption and untrustworthiness of officials and the struggle of men trying to cope with their savage surroundings. These are all common features of the western and the revolutionary period films.
And lastly, for my money a political film is not just one that plays out a political scenario from history but one which reflects political issues which are current for its contemporary audience. As such, Quien Sabe is clearly a political film. But then I would equally argue that so are Soldier Blue and Broken Arrow, both of which dealt with issues of racial politics.
At the end of the day there will always be an element of crossover in any genre but the western, because of its mythical nature is open to more blurred lines than any. I certainly can’t agree that only films dealing with matters of law enforcement can be considered westerns. Dances With Wolves is a western and doesn’t deal with law enforcement. Stagecoach has an outlaw and a sheriff in it but has far more to do with issues of social hypocrisy than law enforcement.
I guess we all have to draw our own lines. But for me, the revolutionary films sit comfortably as a sub genre of the western. Apart from anything else, there are just too many good ones for me to want to leave out.
I’m afraid I don’t know to many of those unfortunately.
Well there are SW that has more or less politic in them, that’s the case with any film in any genre.
But the key thing that defines the genre is still where the films main focus is.
[quote=“Phil H, post:31, topic:301”]I am sure that Damiani thought that labeling his film as a Spaghetti Western diminished its value somewhat[/quote]I think so too. Westerns (and especially Italian westerns) were not considered as serious films, just violent entertainment which cannot have any deep message.
Sollima has said how he appealed to critics to watch his westerns just as normal films and not as westerns because the general attitude towards westerns.
Well politic deals with every aspect that concerns humanity so in a way all films are political films.
That aside I will still hold on to my statement, the issue in westerns are law enforcement, how the law is uphold in other words.
When modern society with its law enforcers and courtrooms took over the Wild West and the western died, just like it is happening in “The man who shoot liberty wallance” and in “My name is nobody”.
That’s why those films where made, they where meant as tombstones for the western genre.
Now with modern society no one had to enforce the law on his or her own anymore.
Which was what the westerns was all about, thus the western was dead with those two films.
The film still has plenty of good action in though set to a superb score, which is what I liked about the film when I first viewed many years ago.
I also appreciate the story now, and have read about longer versions to the film in the past?
To me westerns are films that above all are set in a particular time and place, and there have been westerns of many types within the spaghettiwestern genre.
But they all take place on the american/mexican frontier within a specific timeframe.
This is my definition of a western.
In the United States, law enforcement is about the rule of law, and revolting against the government is going against the rule of law. Therefore, I would say the movie is a western revolutionary film.
Either way, it’s a great film, first. A revolutionary film, second. A great, revolutionary film set in the west where the lower classes revolt against the government, and therefore the rule of law.
Oh, and to the person that labeled Volontè “manic,” that’s dead on! I loved him this role. One of his best!
the new Koch Media DVD offers the old and the new English dub.
anyone familiar with the differences and backstory to those 2 different english dubs? the DVD doesn’t offer any explanations
The tale of the two dubbings goes something like this…
The European production house did the dubbing for the International English version which is the version that Anchor Bay released, originally, on DVD.
Around 1968, when the film was picked up for American distribution, the distributors (like myself) found the International English dubbing to be very poor, very blandly delievered, and completely unexciting. So, they called for a new English language dubbing job and they hired the same company that had done the English language versions of the Dollars films. In this second English language version (which is what I am guessing you are calling the “new” dub, Sebastian)…the great thing is that Volonte is dubbed by the same voice actor, Bernard Grant, that did his voice in the Dollars films (no, Volonte’s own voice was never used in the English language versions of Leone’s films…regardless of what stories you might have read, or heard).
The pros and cons are as follows:
The International English language version is the longer cut of the film and the US English language version is slightly shorter.
Also, in the US English version, they drop Chuncho’s use of the phrase “Quien sabe”. That sort of bugs me, slightly. But, the better line delivery on everything else more than makes up for this, in my estimation.
For me, personally, I prefer the shorter version with the better dubbing job!
This is perhaps the only time I can honestly say that I prefer a cut version of a film!
I’ve not seen the new KOCH release of this film, yet; so, I am not sure how they went about incorporating the two different soundtracks…are there two different versions of the film on it? Or, did they just revert to the International dub in the small parts that were trimmed for the US version?
I guess that’s what they are doing. I am not sure which track is which, either, because they sound VERY similar at times. I will use the last scene where he sais “quien sabe…” at the train station to find out and then compare the tracks when I find the time. I also have the Anchor Bay version and I thought that one wasn’t too bad