He was a hired killer. But that was made clear in the film. Or not?
[quote=“Stanton, post:81, topic:301”]He was a hired killer. But that was made clear in the film. Or not?[/quote]It was, but he seemed to be hanging about a bit more than you expect for someone in his position, don’t you think? Isn’t it supposed to be a “stick and move” sort of occupation, not a “hang out, make buddies and see what happens” thing? Mabey the mind games were more self gratification.
I love 'em. ABFTG; Face to Face and even A Town called Hell - they are part of my sw initiation and ingrained in my psyche.
I used to really like this one but it’s lost it’s appeal for me. I don’t really like the revolution spags anyway. I even think they should perhaps be a sub genre on their own. My problem with Bullet, and indeed the others is their heavy handedness and to be honest, especially with BFTG, their naivety. Plus Volonte’s character really gets on my nerves.
Muchos agreed.
Probably my second most favorite Spaghetti Western of all time is THE MERCENARY–and it is a Revolution Western.
I guess it is just me, but I don’t find ANY of the Italian-made Politicial/Mexican Revolution Westerns heavy-handed, at all. In fact, I think much of the time they treat the material almost too lightly (i.e. COMPANEROS, etc.). And as for them being pretentious…? Well…heh heh…I don’t think you can find a more pretentious film than ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST (and before anyone jumps on me for that…keep in mind that I absolutely love ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST!).
If you want to be frank about it…most Spaghetti Westerns do tend to lean towards pretension, just by nature of their origin. And that is precisely what makes them great, in my opinion!
And as for heavy-handedness…I don’t think you can get a much better example of that than THE GREAT SILENCE (and again that is a film I absolutely love!).
As for the naivety…
In my estimation, practically all of the Italian Westerns (political or not) are incredibly naive.
You have to remember these films are products of their time and EVERYONE was more naive in those days.
Again, I believe that is what makes them great. I, for one, hope for more naivety in films nowadays!
As for the particular film in question here…
I really like BULLET FOR THE GENERAL, too, but I prefer the “alternate” English dub that Koch Media made available on DVD (finally!). That is the version I recall seeing for the first time. The other English version, as released by Anchor Bay, is just way too flat and irritating. If I had only ever seen that particular version of this film, I wouldn’t like it much, if at all.
By the way, I don’t mean to be attacking anyone here for their opinion(s) regarding the “Zapata Westerns”. If you don’t like them…you don’t like them. Plain and simple. And I respect that, wholeheartedly! But, having been a huge fan of Italian Westerns for far more than 30 years–I always get a chuckle when someone brings up the terms “pretentious” “heavy-handed” and “naive” to describe the revolution flicks. Especially when they use all three terms! Is it really possible to be heavy-handed and naive at the same time? Perhaps…I don’t know.
Amen to that brother.
Oh, and welcome back by the way. Nice to have you around again 
I think Bullet for the General is indeed a bit naive in it’s revolution preaching
Volonte shouting you should ‘not buy bread, buy dynamite’ in the end scene for example
Many of the other Zapatas are either light-hearted or just not very deep with their political content
Left-wing people were probably rather naive and simple minded in those days, and so are these films, so nothing strange really
I think that’s what Silver means by saying they are ‘heavy handed’
On the other hand Leone’s Duck You Sucker presented a little more cynical view on revolutions and such which set it apart from the other Zapatas
I don’t think the Dollars trilogy and many other of the better spaghettis are naive though, on the contrary they were ahead of their times as far as I know with their humour and cynical world view
Maybe you mean their visual style and so on are ‘naive’ compared to later and more ‘realistic’ movies?
If so then I agree
What I think is interesting about these films, is that anybody can read something different into them. So its nice to discuss about the intentions of Bullet for a general, maybe even more interesting than to talk about the movie. Because it has too many flaws in my eyes.
I dont see it as totally pro-revolution pro-left wing. MAybe i am naive here, but it shows that “communism” is not a real solution. This is what i read out of the whole village scene, they cant make it without a leader (and we dont know if the general is a better leader, i dont think he is protrayed as very courageous or anything. It is sad that we learn so little about him, for me he just sits in his hideout and judges the others, but does not actually do anything).
It is definetively anit-capitalism and also against foreign interaction into state affairs. But for me it does not offer real solutions, a problem i myself often have with left wing fanatics. Its easy to be against something, but please bring up an alternative.
But i am sure if you are more left wing, you totally perceive the movie differently! That is what is cool about it. And some drastic scenes, like the officer on the tracks, or the shooting of the people in the beginning (btw i re-read that mussolini wanted to be shot in the chest and was not directly dead, just like the guy who says kill me come on. But he is a revolutionary not like mussolini? i know that the guy in giu la testa who is shot resembled mussolini, and leone did that intentionally. Any ideas?)
I don’t think that Quien sabe! is a naive film.
It’s not the most complex film compared to other “political” films of these days (Godard, Rocha, Rosi), it’s a more commercial one with more action and less reflection. It can be criticised for being not consequent, but naive it ain’t.
A leftist film which shows the revolutionaries executing captives (which are only average soldiers), or which contains the complex scene with the weak landowner and his strong wife (and the shooting of Guapo) does not make itself too much illusions about the difference between ideas and what they become in reality. The only person in the film who really seems to believe in the revolution is a stupid fanatic (Kinski). Chuncho is a fool whose main interest is money and his moment of illumination is an emotional one not a rational one. We don’t get much information about the leader who seems to be a integer man, but in the few scenes we see him he is associated with a couch, which is a pretty decadent symbol in a western about an uprising of the starving peasants.
No, this ain’t a naive film, nor are the other 2 Zapatas (Tepepa, Mercernary) which can be called “serious” in dealing with leftist ideas.
And generally I also don’t think that the majority of SWs are naive. Many are primitive, but naive are mainly the early ones.
I have no problems with enjoying naive films, but the greatest pleasure lies in the end in complex films. Film for body and mind. And “mind” is more about structure than messages, generally I don’t appreciate message films.
And Quien sabe! is much more than a good meaning simple message film.
Yes the Zapatas are probably deep and complex enough in the context of a western
Of course they’re meant to be pro-left wing, if they might seem a little ‘heavy handed’ today then so be it
And I always thought it was the old-fashioned westerns that were ‘naive’ not the spaghetti westerns ?
It’s more likely Phil and Chris Casey who are naive, not these movies 
That is of course possible. Maybe even probable but in my defense I should say that I was responding to Chris’ statement that he wishes there were more naivety in modern films and I think I know what he means. There was a simplicity to films back in these times which gave them a certain charm that many modern films lack. TV is the same and I wish we could have some of it back.
Sorry for my not reacting sooner.
I just returned from Nogales, Sonora, Mexico where I highly enjoyed the Dia de Los Muertos celebrations!
Phil did a good job of defending me, too.
When I used the term “naive” I really should have used “simplistic”. And I really wish cinema would get back to that. I don’t necessarily mean simplistic, or naive, in content or structure.
I think it is very possible for cinema, and cinema audiences, to become overly sophisticated – to a point where they can destroy the “magic” (and pure enjoyment) of film. That is just how I feel about it, personally.
As for the Revolution films being possibly naive in content, I would just like to point out that many of those who fought during the actual revolutions in Mexico were incredibly naive, or fiercely idealistic (idealists are often cast aside as being too naive), themselves. They truly believed in what they were doing, and why they were doing it. They did not have the luxury of seeing into the future, thus they were saved from realizing that their sturggle(s) would achieve little, or nothing. It is easy for us to look back and call these folks naive, misled, or the like–considering what we know, now.
So, in that respect, I think the possible naivety in some of the Zapata Westerns is, in many ways, highly appropriate.
As for QUIEN SABE?/BULLET FOR THE GENERAL…
When it comes right down to it…I pretty much agree with and enjoyed what Stanton has stated.
had to edit this because of many typing errors on my part!
Chuncho starts out as a bandit only interested in making money out of the revolution, like many other bandits in political SWs btw, so this is a common theme actually
The same goes for Paco in The Mercenary, General Mongo in Companeros, and General Hugo in Django for example
Some of them transforms into ‘good guys’ during the course of the film, while others don’t, so this would be the moral of the story in these films
I noticed that this movie still hasn’t got a review in the DB… Phil or Scherp maybe?
It’s funny you should say that. I’ve been thinking about writing something on this film for a while. Guess I’ll have to get to it. A naive review maybe? 
I planned to do it about a year ago, but I guess it was one of those ‘What happened is that it didn’t happen’ things
No you’ll do better than that
[quote=“Lindberg, post:94, topic:301”]Chuncho starts out as a bandit only interested in making money out of the revolution, like many other bandits in political SWs btw, so this is a common theme actually
The same goes for Paco in The Mercenary, General Mongo in Companeros, and General Hugo in Django for example[/quote]
Paco is never interested in money for himself. He’s a naive idealist from the beginning on. Kowalski is the one only interested in making his share.
Mongo is only a bandit disguised as revolutionist. Hugo is maybe both.
They’re all bandits of some sort and the theme is similar for all these films
You can’t deny this Stanton
Chuncho and Paco become true revolutionaries in the end, the others don’t
At the end of Companeros even the Penguin sides with the revolutionaries, having at first only been interested in the treasure in the safe
Well, his idealism develops as he goes along. I think he has self-enrichment in mind at the beginning.
I’ve never been totally convinced of the Penguin’s motives at the end - I don’t think he has little option but to return to the revolutionaries, since he would probably be captured or killed by the federales if he keeps riding the same way. He’s such a calculating character, it’s difficult to accept him acting rashly.