Yep, but in GBU he got it perfectly right. It would have been completely wrong to show the bridge battle in detail, to make a spectacle out of it. He respects the point of view of our 2 protagonists, and shows it in a total just as a dumb killing of each other.
GBU is not a war film, it is imo not even an epic film (OuTW is one), but only set against an epic background, against the civil war.
And yes it is a kind of adventure film, actually most westerns are, and it is a different SW, but also in large parts the quintessential SW.
But here in Germany OuTW was and is the better known film, the more famous one, and it was the much more successful one. OuTW sold over the years over 13 mio tickets, and is in a list of all films since 1956 still in the top 10, while GBU sold only kinda disappointing 1,15 mio tickets.
GBU is not a war film, it is imo not even an epic film (OuTW is one), but only set against an epic background, agianst the civil war.
And yes it is a kind of adventure film, actually most westerns are, and it is a different SW, but also in large parts the quintessential SW.
I disagree. I think a big part of the movie is a war film, thereâs a big part set in a prison camp, big war setpieces with explosions and long drawn out military battles, which are characteristics of war movies, not westerns. A western set during the civil war without any war film elements would be The Outlaws Josey Wales (1976). A Bullet for the General (1966) is another good example of a western set in a war that doesnât share anything with war films (it does have some spy film elements tho).
Yep, but in GBU he got it perfectly right. It would have been completely wrong to show the bridge battle in detail, to make a spectacle out of it. He respects the point of view of our 2 protagonists, and shows it in a total just as a dumb killing of each other.
They did make a big spectacle out of it though, and plenty of war films are told from the protagonists perspective, especially 60s and 70s war films. Even the whole searching for gold during a war concept is also present in the Clint Eastwood war film Kellyâs Heroes (1970).
Yes, some parts of the film are war film scenes, but that does not turn the complete film in a war film. Itâs at first still a western.
Duck You Sucker is much more a war film, but still also a western.
But actually many westerns have war-film like scenes, many of the cavalry westerns are also war films, most of the films about the Indian wars resemble war films in parts.
I donât think that every film set in the civil war is also a western, but there are many westerns which are set in this war.
Such different films like Major Dundee, The Horse Soldiers, Springfield Rifle, Virginia City, Escape from Fort Bravo are westerns, but Friendly Persuasion, Gone with the Wind or Glory are no westerns. The last one is a war film. Sometimes only the style makes the difference.
I meant that the bridge battle scene is shown from the perspective of the protagonists, from the distance. It is an expensive scene, and as such of course automatically also a spectacle, but Leone shows it only from the distance, itâs not directed as an action scene, and by that he directs it less as a spectacle, but just as an absurd stupidity.
The bridge ambush and the final train battle in DYS are directed as action scenes, with the camera being in the middle of the action.
Although anyone can like or dislike anything on an individual level, there is certainly objectivity in art to reach the masses. For that, there would need to be a universal message about the human experience delivered exceptionally well with an objectively measurable set of skills in writing and filmmaking.
People can argue all day whether Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, GBU, or any other movie is better than the other, but nobody can argue that these movies arenât (or werenât at the time) in the upper echelon of filmmaking.
Although anyone can like or dislike anything on an individual level, there is certainly objectivity in art to reach the masses. For that, there would need to be a universal message about the human experience delivered exceptionally well with an objectively measurable set of skills in writing and filmmaking.
People can argue all day whether Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, GBU, or any other movie is better than the other, but nobody can argue that these movies arenât (or werenât at the time) in the upper echelon of filmmaking.
what youâre referring to is mainstream appeal, which is not inherently good nor bad, you can measure that objectively, yeah but the quality of the film is something else entirely. Personally I donât care for the mainstream opinion, The mainstream public gave better ratings to joker and fucking spider man than they did to taxi driver. Popularity and mainstream opinion has nothing to do with the quality of a film.
Yes, some parts of the film are war film scenes, but that does not turn the complete film in a war film. Itâs at first still a western.
Duck You Sucker is much more a war film, but still also a western.
But actually many westerns have war-film like scenes, many of the cavalry westerns are also war films, most of the films about the Indian wars resemble war films in parts.
I donât think that every film set in the civil war is also a western, but there are many westerns which are set in this war.
Such different films like Major Dundee, The Horse Soldiers, Springfield Rifle, Virginia City, Escape from Fort Bravo are westerns, but Friendly Persuasion, Gone with the Wind or Glory are no westerns. The last one is a war film. Sometimes only the style makes the difference.
Whether or not its a western or a war film is just semantics at the end of the day, I think it is equally both but what is certain is that it deviates a lot stylistically from most other spaghetti westerns, to the point where its appeal is different to that of most of the genre.
I meant that the bridge battle scene is shown from the perspective of the protagonists, from the distance.
I disagree with this, the war set pieces are shown very clearly, for various cinematic angles, independent of where the protagonists are and not just from a distance, everything is very clear and itâs meant to have the same thrill as a set piece in a war film, it serves the same purpose.
Youâre talking about reaching box office. Iâm talking about reaching hearts/minds. Youâre right that box office does not necessarily mean it is a great film. Any movie can be bankrolled with enough money to get eyeballs in front of it. But the movies that reach the most hearts and minds will take objective talent. Although Taxi Driver may have taken longer to find its audience, it is now considered a classic (and didnât release with decades of beloved comics building up to it, like Spiderman and Joker).
But if you truly believe itâs all subjective, itâs like arguing which flavor of ice cream is best. Whatâs the point of that?
When the battle starts there is editing, and there are close up of firing canons, and shots of the soldiers starting to run, but that all happens nearby our 2 scoundrels, they are amidst of that, but the camera does not follow the soldiers to the bridge, the closer they get the more far away is the camera. There is one more distant shot of them running on the bridge, and another one which shows them (with a little zooming in) meeting the Confederate soldiers in the middle, but there is a certain distance to what happens on the bridge, instead Leone cuts back to Eastwood and Wallach watching and commenting. There is no further editing of that battle, no closer shots of the fighting men. This is a very unspectacular showing of a basically spectacular material. âWeâ are not amidst the action, like in the bigger battles of DYS, and in most war films which show the action.
But that does not mean that this is not typical war film like looking stuff, it is, but directed differently.
All the action which involves the main protagonists is also directed very differently, there we are always amidst of the spectacle. The torturing of Tuco is e.g. very close to his pain. In GBU Leone had perfected a lot of things from his earlier Spags, everything is better here, he has reached perfection in his own style.
In DYS Leone directs the bridge battle, actually more a massacre than a battle, pretty indifferent and undecided, he neither goes completely in, nor does he really stay away, thatâs a scene which does not work for me. Like all other bigger action scenes in FoD ans DYS, but the smaller shoot-outs are excellent. Same btw in Django. Only later in Il mercenario and Companeros Corbucci became a master of virtuosic directed bigger action scenes.
Ok, but I think the style is very much Spaghetti, and is only different for being better made than in nearly every other Spag. Different is the plot with the civil war scenes and how they became part of it. And the epic length.
But it is interesting to think how the film would be without the civil war stuff. That would be possible with not too much changes, and the basic elements which make the film so great would all be there.
The filmâs main fascination lies in the the SW stuff, not in the war stuff.
And it would be in such a version also much better than FaFDM. Or most other well regarded Spags.
Youâre talking about reaching box office. Iâm talking about reaching hearts/minds. Youâre right that box office does not necessarily mean it is a great film. Any movie can be bankrolled with enough money to get eyeballs in front of it. But the movies that reach the most hearts and minds will take objective talent. Although Taxi Driver may have taken longer to find its audience, it is now considered a classic (and didnât release with decades of beloved comics building up to it, like Spiderman and Joker).
How is the quantity of âhearts/mindsâ it reaches significant though? It just means it reaches a wide audience⌠and itâs not just box office success, people are stupid enough to rank spider-man no way home an 8.2/10 on average on IMDB, which to me is insanity. Itâs a very well regarded film, doesnât mean its an objectively good movie. Ultimately the art we enjoy is entirely subjective. There is a collective consensus shaped by our culture but that doesnât mean that consensus is the objective truth.
But if you truly believe itâs all subjective, itâs like arguing which flavor of ice cream is best. Whatâs the point of that?
You have a point. Sometimes arguments relating to film can be pointless, especially when its 2 greatly contrasting views that will never agree. I donât have a single argument in favor of film arguments and debates but I think people are just compelled to compare and contrast, share their opinion and argue about what is better.
Ok, but I think the style is very much Spaghetti, and is only different for being better made than in nearly every other Spag. Different is the plot with the civil war scenes and how they became part of it. And the epic length.
The civil war stuff is over an hour long, that is not insignificant lol.
But it is interesting to think how the film would be without the civil war stuff. That would be possible with not too much changes, and the basic elements which make the film so great would all be there.
The filmâs main fascination lies in the the SW stuff, not in the war stuff.
I partially agree but i still think Eastwood and Cleefâs characters are weaker when compared to FFDM. I found the mysterious badass bounty hunter duo much more compelling than 2 people pulling off a bounty hunting scam. El Indio is also an infinitely better villain and the whole outlaw hunting/bank heist plot was better than the searching for gold stuff. Tuco is also too cartoonishly dumb and predictable.
And it would be in such a version also much better than FaFDM. Or most other well regarded Spags.
Nah FFDM destroys it, so do FOD and TBG, TGS etc.
Itâs a movie thatâs massively overrated. People are just blinded by the pop culture significance and popularity of the movie. Not to mention nostalgia. People also seem to like the scale of the film and how war set piece heavy it is.
Maybe, I never measured it, but it is still only a background, a contrast for the SW plot. This is also very different to the revolution in DYS.
For that I totally disagree, for Eastwood and LvC itâs the other way round, and Tuco is fantastic in every moment.
FoD and FaFDM feature also some excellent stuff, but everything in GBU is equally well made or better, or even a lot better.
Nah, not for me.
Itâs simply more fascinating than all those you mentioned (of which TGS is easily the best), it has absolutely nothing to do with the things you assume. I began to love it at a time when the film was far away from the fame and the reputation is now has earned.
Leone in numbers:
FoD 8,5/10
FaFDM 8,5
GBU 11
OuTW 12
DYS 8
MNiN 9
The Mercenary is a 10 btw and TGS also. And TBG is a 7,5.
The ratings show the entertainment value, and are of course absolutely subjective âŚ
To keep making more movies of quality. If Scorcese doesnât reach enough hearts and minds with Taxi Driver, he perhaps doesnât end up making his next and if he keeps failing we ultimately donât get Goodfellas. You cannot entirely separate the business end from the art. And there are undoubtedly going to be good movies that slip through the cracks.
Comparing Taxi Driver and Spiderman is tough⌠two very different genres and audiences. If youâre a fan of the superhero genre, the newer Spidermanâs are definitely among the best that genre has to offer.
Depends on what you mean by the word truth. Iâm talking about objective storytelling and filmmaking techniques that can connect with people. Storytelling and filmmaking courses exist to teach these techniques, just like advertisers use psychology to try and target consumers. But for the movies that connect the most, there will be some underlying truth we do connect with. Superheroes may be better at targeting those who feel powerless in their life (which is a feeling most people can relate to - some more than others).
To each his own man, personally in terms of entertainment value, FFDM and FOD are at the top, and that hasnât changed since forever. I think TBG is way too low at a 7.5, on my first watch I would have agreed, itâs a very simple movie but itâs incredibly well made. I enjoy it more with every rewatch. I give it a 9/10.
To keep making more movies of quality. If Scorcese doesnât reach enough hearts and minds with Taxi Driver, he perhaps doesnât end up making his next and if he keeps failing we ultimately donât get Goodfellas. You cannot entirely separate the business end from the art. And there are undoubtedly going to be good movies that slip through the cracks.
I agree but the business aspect of things works against film as an art form. This is why we have Hollywood dominance today. Italian filmmaking is dead because of the financial side of things.
Depends on what you mean by the word truth. Iâm talking about objective storytelling and filmmaking techniques that can connect with people. Storytelling and filmmaking courses exist to teach these techniques, just like advertisers use psychology to try and target consumers.
I donât think thereâs anything objective in filmmaking, thatâs not what art is, itâs not just a product to appeal to the masses. Film school tries to create an objective structure around film and most filmmakers that come out of film school are absolute crap as a result since they are groomed into making conventional derivative dramas instead of creative material. Keep in mind that both the American and northern Italian film establishment hated spaghetti westerns because they went against the conventions and status quo, and that is what makes them great. They are pure art not some corporate slop. Leone was a law school dropout and Sergio corbucci was a journalist with an economics degree. The directors didnât care about conforming to what everyone else is doing, corporate approval or commercial success (or at least it was not of primary concern), they just wanted to make a good movie, and the movie THEY want to make, not the one the mainstream public thinks is good. The mainstream public just happened to like their films, independent of their creative vision. Itâs one of the rare instances in film history where the creative filmmaker also found widespread commerical success. These days some generic conventional slop like Oppenheimer (and the rest of Christopher Nolan filmography really) is what sells. Yuck.
I like Sollimaâs films, but they are not on the same level as Leone and Corbucciâs best. Actually not GBU is too long, but TBG, which has that overlong and imo superfluous ranch scene, which is for me a big flaw. So that and not GBU is an overrated film, at least among SW buffs.
But thatâs ok, Iâm here to read about differing views on films.
You keep saying there is nothing objective, but then keep talking as if there are qualities that make one movie better than another (âincredibly well madeâ). By your own definition, everything is on the same level. Therefore, Spiderman is just as good as Taxi Driver, the Care Bears movie is just as good as FFDM, and a child smashing piano keys is the same as Mozart. When you set up the rules that all art is subjective, you have no valid complaints to the contrary. So, there is nothing that you can state to argue one is more âcreativeâ or âconventionalâ or âcrapâ than another.
This also makes any complaints you have about GBU completely moot. There is no âoverratedâ on subjectivity island. So, maybe just enjoy the movies you like and ignore the ones you donât, because complaining is where objectivity begins. To pretend there is âgoodâ and âbadâ without any measurements for good or bad is incoherent.
