Iām not sure about FOD, but here is what I think of FFDM
Iād like to think that Manco collects the bounty money but gives the bank money back in FFDM because it was mentioned that the returned stolen money was a requirement in order to get the bounty. I forgot who said it though.
Also I think Manco learns a little something from Mortimerās act of generosity and pays it forward somewht.
Funny you should mention the bank money from FFDM, I was just thinking about that earlier today. I agree that Manco probably gives the money back.
I thought that him leaving town in the same state he came into in FOD was a nice way to emphasize the circular nature of many of these tales. Now heās off to another town for another adventure just like this one.
But the new idea of the heroās character was that he isnāt an adventurer, but instead a greedy capitalist. Cynic and only interested in money.
Up to this point in film history the censoring always asked for a morally foundation or substructure to present immoral behaviour.
Describing him as an opportunist is more fitting I think. Capitalist enables the wrong images in my head. But greedy as hell yeah.
Letās go straight to another Fistful question. The last one, so no worries about another fistful of translating questions.
There is one scene which comes in Leoneās westerns the closest to presenting a conventional motivation behind the seemingly immoral behaviour of our hero. To change Eastwood from a calculating killer to the usual āhard shell with a soft coreā type of character.
When Eastwood gives the āholy familyā all his earned money he responds to the āWhy you are doing this?ā question: āI knew someone once, just like you, and nobody was there to helpā. Arrghh
Again if we try to see this in a positive way, we could say he is only lying to get quicker rid of them, or he lies to take away from them an uncomfortable feeling about the given money. But it is presented in a rather sentimental way. Double arrghh
Again my question Scherp: is this the same as in the Italian version?
Iāll check this later today, but I guess the problem here is caused by the origins of the No Name character, the chambara movie Yojimbo.
Kurosawaās Yojimbo is a ronin, a samurai without a master
Those ronins were usually presented as cynical, pessimistic men, who lost (nearly) all trust in the world and humanity, but they always stayed loyal to their code of honour, the bushido, which told them to help the poor and defenceless. In a sense they represented the true virtues of the Japanese soul and classic Japanese culture (as opposed to modernaty, represented in Yojimbo by the two-shot pistol of one of the villains). To a Japanese audience this scene is clear: of course the samurai helps this poor family, heās a samurai, bound to do so. But in Fisful this scene causes a problem. Why would a sonnovaā¦ like No Name do something for those people?
I ave been collecting info on these things lately for an upcoming Fistful review (or article), but thereās still some work to do. Things become even more complicated if you take Dashiell Hammetās Red Harvest into consideration. The protagonist, the nameless (!) Continental Op is again a different type of character, with a different code of honour and motivation. Film arenāt always as easy as they seem ā¦
Iāve never had a problem with this aspect of the character - heās as ruthless as they come with anybody who deserves it, so he can afford to cut the family some slack in this case. He knows he can make a lot more money anyway.
And of course, he shows compassion and understanding elsewhere in the trilogy, notably to the dying soldier in GBU.
He doesnāt have to be a one-note cynic; heās (slightly) more rounded, more complex, than that. He wouldnāt have been anywhere near so compelling a character had he been entirely soulless.
Perhaps we should factor in the actorās persona as well, to an extent, although itās unlikely that Eastwood - not yet a star - could have imposed any āsentimentalityā on the character as written.
In Italian No Nameās answer, when asked why heās doing this for the holy family, simply is that itās āa story which is too long to tellā
Hmm, so perhaps the āsofteningā of the character was more for the sensitivities of the Anglo-US marketā¦
Intriguing.
Well, itās also the fact that - IMO - being a cynic doesnāt mean that one is completely amoral. Although I find it interesting that Clint is the one who ends up preserving the unity of the family, while Ramon was the one who broke it. Itās like thatās really the point where the line between āheroā and āvillainā is drawn, rather thanā¦ well, all the rest.
By the way, when Clint rescues the family (does Marisolās husband even have a name anyway? Other than ācharacter we put there just because saying the Holy Ghost was Jesusā dad seemed a bit too muchā), does he really give them all of the money? Because in that scene I understood he gives them quite a lot, but for some reason it never occurred to me that he totally emptied his wallet, so to speak. But this might just be my memory failing me - I need a thorough rewatch 
It may be possible explanation, i remember reading somewhere that Eastwood wanted scenes like that one with a soldier or kittens in GBU.
You may be right Eastwoodās character never said that itās all of his money 
I think the point is that RÅnin, which literally means ādrifterā although is restricted to a specialized context, existed outside of the system just like Leoneās depiction of the ābounty killerā. Personally I find the comparison reasonably apt.
In English he says something like āTake this money, itās enough to last for a whileā
In Italian he says:
āTenete questi soldi, ce ne abbastanza per vivere tranquilla per un [pezzo*]ā
(* - Iām not quite sure about this last word, Poggy, this is your expertise)
Which means, if Iām not mistaken, āTake this money, itās enough to live quiet for a whileā
So he gives them a considerable amount of money, but not necessarily all of his money
Thatās correct Scherp! 8)
Typical Stanton, he always gets hang up on certain scenes or details that ruin the whole film for him
Donāt know what the problem is either this time
I think Joe gives the holy family all his money, this is how I always imagined it
The name of Marisolās husband is Julio, btw
Joe was greedy and an opportunist, but occasionally presented as not so selfish, especially towards the oppressed or poor
Exactly. A new type of hero for a new, more complicated era - that was the point. Nobody said he had to be a complete bastard to all and sundry.
Indeed, and nobody would presume RÅnin were paragons of virtue either. After becoming ādriftersā these guys were quite simply on their own and had to resort to whatever means possible.
And in the German version he says something like āI just canāt bear any injusticeā. Thatās also a conventional way of justification for his doing.
The Italian version with Joe being evasive is the best, and besides itās the original.
In the German and English version the changed dialogue turns this scene into sentimentality, which would be a minor break in style. Shows how you can change the mood of a scene (or in other cases even the meaning of a whole film) by dubbing.
And for the money ā¦
Yes, I also assumed always he gave them all his money, but right, thereās no real evidence for this assumption.
Still, in the end he seems not to be a rich man, according to his original plan, whereas in the next 2 films it was important for Leone to show Eastwood getting away with the money.
He he, completely wrong my friend
Why the āarrghhāsā? It doesnāt seem too sentimental to me. He gave the family some money and helped him escape. So what? That doesnāt make him a philantropic softy by any stretch. Heās still a nihilistic, cynical, misanthropic sonovabitch at heart. Giving some dollars to some peons isnāt going to change that.