A Bullet for the General / ¿Quién sabe? (Damiano Damiani, 1966)

Yea, I might have to checkout Tepepa sometime. If simply to see Welles in it.

Mind you, Welles is not the best thing about this film. He cats tired, but it actually fits his character - he comes as someone who doesn’t give a fuck about most things. The script is brilliant in Tepepa, if you will manage to find some flaws in it, then probably there isn’t any SW script that you won’t :wink:

I saw the film yesterday and was thrilled. Gian Maria Volontè was in this SW still much better than in the dollar movies. Unfortunately there was many scenes the are not synchronized in German. This has disturbed me.

5 stars

Yea, for me it’s one of the big SWs as well. I watched it some time ago round a friend’s house. He owns a beamer, it was terrific!
There are so many big cinema scenes! I also comes up with a great story, great actors and a stunning score.

Have you got the KOCH DVD? The undubbed parts don’t bother me at all. When I have a comlpete or almost complete version I can live with this. To be honest, I got used to those scenes in the past years, so that I actually like’em. Everytime I see one I think: Yes, someone completed a nice SW for me - thank you!"

Haven’t seen much talk about the new english dub on the KOCH disc. I think the dialogue is better and everyone sounds more sincere, the deeper voice suits Volonte more than the other. I even found it inspiring at some points which I didn’t before.

I think I have to check those voices :wink:

Yeah it’s in the 2nd audio channel. It’s very similar at times but you can hear the difference if you listen to a scene with dialogue back to back on both english tracks.

This has always been a favorite of mine. Excellent film. One of the best films of its type regardless of country of origin. I discussed this movie, as well as TEPEPA (another classic film) in the third part of my SW article/series at my site. I just finally got around to watching TEPEPA a couple months back and it’s up there with BULLET FOR THE GENERAL in terms of quality.

Interesting

There are several fans of this movie (TEPEPA) active on this site, just check the FILM REVIEWS section of the database

A Bullet for the General will be reviewed next month

[quote=“scherpschutter, post:69, topic:301”]Interesting

There are several fans of this movie (TEPEPA) active on this site, just check the FILM REVIEWS section of the database

A Bullet for the General will be reviewed next month[/quote]

You’ve not seen it, Scherpshutter? If you like the revolutionary style of movies, it rides with the best of them, IMO.

I have seen it, but I haven’t written a review yet
Want to watch it again before I do

Watched this film again yesterday and enjoyed as much as I did the first time! I think you’re going to see a revival of Zapata films in the United States at some point in the very near future. More and more Americans are going to become interested in Zapata in general, so related books and films will enjoy a renaissance.

Why?

I think more people are going to move further to the left as they get frustrated with Obama’s centrist politics.

I think it’s important to emphasise what Chris C has outlined above. There are two different English versions of this film, with two different scripts. How much you rate the film may well depend on which version you’ve seen - they are very different.

In my case, I saw it for the first time in the US English version (a 35mm print at the old Scala King’s Cross in London - happy days!), and was blown away by it. I’d come with high expectations, and they were more than fulfilled. Then, a few years later, I saw it again on TV and was surprised by how crude and inept it all seemed. I couldn’t understand why I’d liked it so much the first time - until I got to see the 35mm print again, and realised that the script had changed completely.

I much prefer the ‘new dub’ version, not least because of the vocal continuity between El Indio and El Chuncho (I always assumed it was Volonte’s own voice, as Frayling thought, but it sounds like Chris has better info.) The action in both is much the same, of course, but this is the kind of film where the dialogue is as important as the shooting, and the original dub is seriously flawed in this respect.

As for the debate about whether it’s actually a western, I tend to agree that 20th century Mexican revolution films don’t feel like ‘proper’ westerns (Frayling calls them post-westerns, which sounds about right). At the same time, I wouldn’t hesitate to call The Wild Bunch a western - but maybe that’s because it’s about classic western stereotypes coming to terms with the end of the Old West, rather than what amounts to a political war film.

Re-watched this weekend and still stands as a favourite. Wrote some lines about the movie and available DVD in Portugal in my blog (Portuguese only, sorry):

Alright, i try to write something about this highly regarded movie.
First of all I have to say, that i really have mixed feelings about this one. It has a great cast and some intriguing scenes. But there is a lot of stuff that i dislike. For info, I saw the Koch DVD new english dub (with the quien sabe dialogue).
I think the movie is too long. The whole train scene is an example for that. The idea with the stopping of the train via “blocking” the tracks is good (well they could go backwards but hey). But the shooting scenes in the field are just plain ridiculous, when they are riding around etc.

The other problem i have with the pic, is to grasp what it wants to say. Is it pro communism, as can be easily red by some indications. Or critizes it the outcome of revolutions, as can be seen when the town has to elect a leader, and the people are just not educated enough to do so.
Surely it critisizes capitalism that is represented by nino, and he gets killed. But that is not really symbolic for overthrowing the system, is it.
I also dislike the character of the general. He sits in his secure area and collects guns, but he didnt help the people neither. But he judges chuncho based on that. He is not portrayed as an action taker.

Another problem I have, is that chuncho protects nino so much, and that he so easily controls the gang. I mean nino is portrayed as charming, but it never really convinced me.

An aspect that I found very interesting is the character nino itself. With the knowledge we have now, i would say it is a reference to alleged CIA killings of heads of state, but i am pretty sure that was not known at the time the film was made. It would have been interesting to know more background about him. Is he working for the united states also, is he a free-lance killer?

SO it brings up more questions for me, and it has many scenes that seem redundant and repetitive to me. I somewhat still enjoy seeing it, because some scenes and symbols are great, examples being the beginning shot with the execution, the shot showing the killed landlord in the village, or Santo freeing the prisoners and sending the military guys into the “prison”. But i cant really grasp the motivation behind the film, think most action scenes are not done so well and have problem believing the characters.

The conception of the bigger action scenes is the weakest point of the film. Less would have been more. and yes they are not too well directed.

But most likely action wasn’t Damiani’s main interest in the stuff.

Apart from that it’s mostly a great film.

As far as I remember it was interpreted from the beginning on as a comment about illegal CIA activities in South America.

[quote=“Stanton, post:76, topic:301”]The conception of the bigger action scenes is the weakest point of the film. Less would have been more. and yes they are not too well directed.

But most likely action wasn’t Damiani’s main interest in the stuff.

Apart from that it’s mostly a great film.

As far as I remember it was interpreted from the beginning on as a comment about illegal CIA activities in South America.[/quote]
I dont get the big action scenes, the slower shorter portrayals of violence work so much better. Big scene that works is kinski throwing the grenades.

And the comment about illegal CIA acitivities is what i thought too. But i checke wiki (i know maybe not the best source, but a beginning) and their it looke to me like most illegal activities were only discovered in the 80´s. MAybe they were an open secret or he just wanted to make them public.

And that is the only aspect where the film works for me. maybe i have to identify nino more as a Spy/agent, that makes his playing with the minds of the people more believable.

But the overall comment on communism vs capitalism and revolution in general is not very identifiable ,to me at least. I think some of the dark sites of revolution were shown, but it seem the films is positive about revolution and giving the people their land. But it is hard to grasp the real standing it has on these issues.

I’m not too keen on the revolution spaghettis. I find the treatment far too heavy-handed & often pretentious.

I agree.

[quote=“Ming, post:78, topic:301”]I’m not too keen on the revolution spaghettis. I find the treatment far too heavy-handed & often pretentious.[/quote]Although I enjoyed this movie I felt it was a bit pretentious. The “Dragnet” commentary voice at the begining of the film was a bit much. It was almost like a 1967 version of our modern “mockumentaries”. Was Nino a spy? A hired international killer? I would have liked a little more on his story.