It was scherpschutter who translated the line
And that is so much better. God to know (again).
And it would have been even better to have no answer at all.
And letās immediately check the Italian lines for the even worse dialogue in FAFDM where he tells LvC that he wants to buy a ranch (ā¦ gulp ā¦) from the bounty-money. Aaargh, thatās the all time low in any Leone film ā¦
This time the dialogue is essentially the same. But that is verbal swordplay, it might not be that literal.
I donāt think itās a bad scene. Audience wonāt buy it but even Man with no Name says it in a way he doesnāt believe it himself.
1 Like
I disagree.
Leone used here a typical cliche, without realising how wrong this was for his kind of western. I donāt see any kind of irony in that scene.
The Eastwood character shouldnāt have any other motivation than bare greed without appearing greedy.
It was also completely wrong to show him with women, and Leone shot such scenes twice.
If it was an important, repeatedly stressed element Iād agree with you, but this, however you look at it, is only a peripheral thing.
No land-ownership, no womenā¦ are there better ways of spending that money? 
[quote=āJonathanCorbett, post:146, topic:125, full:trueā]
If it was an important, repeatedly stressed element Iād agree with you, but this, however you look at it, is only a peripheral thing. [/quote]
Yeah, but it is still so wrong that I canāt believe Leone shot it, and even more did not cut it out.
There are a few things which make me believe Leone himself has not really understood what he created.
In real life, yes, but Eastwood should remain a pure cinematic character, a completely unreal superman with no real human needs, and with no psychological explanations for his doings.
1 Like
In A Fistful of Dollars thereās of course the problem that the scene with the Holy Family is taken from Yojimbo, where the context or cultural background is different. Yojimbo is a ronin, a wandering samurai without a master, but he still feels a desire to uphold his bushido, the code of the samurai, which tells him he must defend the defenseless. In that sense Yojimbo is closer to the traditional western hero, who is supposed to do what a man is gotta do (also a personal code of honor), but that was exactly the kind of hero Leone want to leave behind. I think the solution in the Italian dialogue is more convincing: No Name felt the urge to help the poor family, and doesnāt understand exactly why. We all have those experiences: we do something, not for a special reason, but because we feel we should do them.
The line in For a few Dollars More is not particularly strong, but it doesnāt bother me. I can imagine a person like No Name saying this without really meaning it. What are you planning to do with this money? Buy a ranch maybe, who knows? He looks more to me like a man whoās doing things without analysing the exact reasons for them, but when asked, he feels he must come up with an answer.
Point is he shouldnāt have had another reason than freeing them as part of his deceiving game. Actually he did it cause he wanted the Rojos to blame the Baxters and attack them for it.
Giving also a sentimental and superfluous explanation is stupid.
I canāt imaging him saying such Hollywood drivel. Again, it is a completely superfluous dialogue.
Not Eastwoodās Man with No Aim, but Leone it seems had the urge to utter such boring explanations.
But that would make him a nihilist character, one without human feelings (except greed maybe) and i donāt think that was the point. I never saw Leoneās movies as nihilistic. They were violent yes, but thereās always a human edge to them.
No not nihilism. Thatās also more explanation than the character needs. 
Is Eastwood really a human being in Leoneās films? Not really.
He is motivated by greed, but this should remain abstract. Not a greed with a purpose, like to get money to spend it for something, but simply greed without any explanation. Greed for the sake of greed, but still a character who does not appear as greedy.
An abstract character, not a human being.
He can give a dying soldier a cigar, but he never will buy a ranch.
1 Like
You miss the point. If a character is presented as a person who saves the lives of three people, simply as part of a game, and no other reason at all, then we should interprete this action as nihililistic. The character would be devoid of human feelings, and I donāt think that Leone ever wanted to do that. He - Leone - felt that No Name needed some kind of motivation, but he couldnāt come up with Yojimboās bushido, or any Wild west equivalent of it (that wouldnāt work in relation to No Name), so he came up with something ambiguous, as if No Name couldnāt explain himself why he did it.
And then thereās of course the family thing. No Name is conceived by Italians, he acts within an Italian context (like Yojimbo woks within a Japanese context) and within that context the family is important. In this case the āholy familyā stands for real love and purity versus the animal lust and wickedness of Ramon (who doesnāt respect the purity of Marisolās love: he craves for her, so he forces her to sleep with him). It also helps distinguishing No Name from Ramon: there are certain things No name would never do, and therefore cannot accept, like forcing - by brute force - a married woman to an adulterous relationship
2 Likes
Youāre right about Sanjuro in āYojimboā, though his mercenary actions and fairly slovenly attitude would arguably be seen as unbecoming of a samurai.
I really love that line ā¦
1 Like
The way I see it is itās proof the āman with no nameā has motivations other then greed. Weather or not that was Sergioās intention im not sure.
Exactly
Well, he shouldnāt.
The defining scene should be the one at the beginning, when he sees the woman and her kid treated badly, and he just watches. Thatās the new kind of hero of the SW.
This other stuff is only sentimental meandering.
Stanton, I think you are taking this anti-hero thing too literally. Isnāt the idea not to have someone who is amoral, but rather to have someone who is less traditionally heroic?
I do?
At first, I donāt think that SW heroes are anti heroes, they are instead a modernized kind of hero, despite all their doubtful characteristics still the classical hero.
So what you say correlates with my opinion, a hero who lacks several of the traditional motivations, but still the hero.
But I assume Eastwood just watching not helping in this early scene, is what Leone did on purpose. This kind of hero does not need some lame explanations for his doings, and he certainly shouldnāt utter middle class prospects for his future.
Such things destroy the pureness of Leoneās vision. They add an extremely superficial psychological explanation the films do not need. Also without them it is clear that the Eastwood hero is not completely amoral.
Hm, seems you have given this some thought, I havenāt. Need to considerā¦