What a disappointment this one comes out to be, but I guess was expecting too much from a movie that starts with the wrong premises.
Tessari tried to make a comedy western based in Corbucci Nero films and Petroni’s Tepepa but he sure missed the target. First films like Companeros, The Mercenary Tepepa, although not comedies, have indeed a comedy an absurd element in its genes, so this film for screenwriter’s actors and directors became a even more difficult project.
I guess the director was trying to do something different with this more tongue in cheek approach, back in 71 the genre was already gone full circle, the most interesting western were being made by US director’s, so you either do equal to what have been done before, no surprises but honest and more trivial works, or tried a different approach on SW, being the comic one the most successful, but in any case Tessari made the wrong choices all the way.
To be honest the film isn’t funny, it has some good laughable scenes but that’s about it, and the dramatic insert with Wallach sister, it’s totally out of context, Nero looks strange doing a character he has done before, Wallach looks tired doing himself again, and the all thing look weird from that point of view, most probably with different actors it would have worked out better, What I’m I doing in the middle of the Revolution, not a perfect movie, but works better in that aspect., the late Lynn Redgrave being a fresh face on the genre does go rather well and saves the film from being a total bore, but she was no match to her more talent sister Vanessa. This to say that the France and Wallach performance aren’t bad, just lacked soul like the film. Back in 71 La Revolution was starting to become boring, Che was dead for a long time now, May 68 was already a memory, and the world would notice that could not work without Middle East petrol.
This to say that the film is not a total flop, some cool funny scenes, (Wallach repeating that he wasn’t El Salvador, must have been a inspiration for Monty Python Life of Brian), being nicely filmed and top class actors save the day, but it’s one of those projects that does not accomplish it’s objectives, maybe if watched by someone who is not familiarized with the genre, does not watch SW much or understand and knows the films like we do, maybe for them the film is enjoyable, but not for me.
Three stars no more no less.
Scored this in cheap box set recently under the title of Long Live Your Death; looking forward to seeing it!
Wonder if it is the shorter or longer version, but enjoy anyway.
I have to say that I honestly enjoyed this film; immensely, in fact. I rode right alongside with the story, and felt for the characters and what was going on, for sure. I’ll admit that sometimes the film didn’t know which kind it wanted to be, and varied harshly between tons of violence and comedy, but overall I felt it worked, and I didn’t think the comedic elements took much away from the answers.
I didn’t really care too much for Redgrave-felt like she didn’t really want to be there-but I have to say that I felt this was an enjoyable, action-packed romp. 
The quality, as to be expected, was grainy and unfocused at times, but for the most part was decent!
I agree.
This film sets itself apart from most of the Zapata/Tortilla westerns. It was made in 1971 when the genre was shifting to comedy westerns and the (alleged) influence of those seems apparent. Yet, again, Companeros also displays plenty of this-- the banana peel, the monk-disguises, the scene with Pepito Tigrero and so forth. Perhaps Corbucci was, with the comedy, just trying to reach a wide, maybe unsophisticated, audience. Tessari’s film is a parody.
What people say is that the others, for example A Bullet for the General, are “serious and thoughtful.” I strongly dispute that. Do not confuse “serious and thoughtful” with “Communist.” The politics of the Zapata Westerns are actually very, very primitive-- kill the rich, take their property. And never a mention of what comes next…
Il mercenario stands out from that crowd for its deeply humane character, as does La resa dei conti, which I see as a film against injustice and prejudice and not a “revolutionary” film-- who could not be appalled by Brokston? (Some might say Brokston symbolizes “capitalism,” yet do you really think most businessmen are like that? Of course not. It’s a wild exaggeration.) Comparing A Bullet for the General and Il mercenario, we see El Chuncho agreeing to the execution of Don Felipe for the crime of being wealthy. In Corbucci’s film Paco Roman is offended by the demand of the peon to exchange wives and property with the “bourgeois” character and orders the peon executed instead. Striking. Unimaginable in Damiani’s film. (These scenes aren’t accidental…)
In Viva la muerte… tua I think we have an antidote to the bulk of the Zapatas. I’m thinking that Giu’ la testa is the same (I need to re-watch it), although not at all displaying the humor of Tessari’s film. That was the reason why the usual-suspect critics mercilessly attacked Leone’s film-- see the sections in Frayling about this movie and also Alex Cox’s brutal assessment in his book. Cox was so turned off that he criticized Giu’ la testa for historical inaccuracies-- in a Spaghetti Western???
No, I don’t think Viva la muerte … tua is a great film, but I find it enjoyable, and far more cynical (as a good SW should be) than the romantic Companeros. It’s no accident that I have rated them one after the other in my Top 20.
But this scene is not a celebration of Don Felipe’s execution, it’s a rather dark scene that shows the revolutionary under a rather negative light. Don Felipe doesn’t seem like such a bad person (if I remember correctly), I think the viewer is supposed to feel some sympathy for him. Stanton made some very interesting remarks about the nuances in A Bullet for the General on the film’s thread :
Hope he doesn’t mind I’m using his words to defend the film!
The sympathy of the film lies with the peones both in those scenes and at the end when we hear that they have been massacred by Federales. Is it a great crime and tragedy when murderers have been stopped?
I think we are to feel contempt for Don Felipe-- he is weak and avaricious, “nothing special,” and “wants to keep them poor.” Not worthy of a heroic death. And of course, one cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs…
I agree with Stanton about El Chuncho. I have described him elsewhere as “moronic and murderous.” Is he the Revolution’s “elemental force?” The general sitting on the divan (which gives him stature) represents the leadership which controls this fury. The vanguard of the proletariat, so to speak. The new Rulers after victory…
The joyous ending-- “Buy dynamite!”
Quien sabe? is a “serious” film because it treats his subject seriously. And it is a “thoughtful” film because he differentiates about its content.
And the content of Quien sabe? is not the most complex in the history of cinema, but surely anything else than primitive. Primitive are maybe the politics of the people portrayed in Quien sabe?, but not the “politics” of the film itself. The “buy dynamite” ending is also a tricky end as it is shouted by a man who changes his attitudes and behaviour every minute, and who has killed the “imperialistic agent” not for the reason of understanding, but only out of a feeling. And don’t forget that Chuncho’s answer is also the title of the whole film. In connection with this title it is not a real optimistic ending.
Quien sabe? is a lot more than simple propaganda. It is still a film with flaws, but that’s another story.
Clyde, I don’t understand where you see in Long Live Your Death a parody, but I agree with you that The Mercenary is in the context of the Zapata films a very special film, and that Companeros ain’t that special anymore for being a more conventional adventure film. Only I don’t see why Tessari’s film shouldn’t be one step more in the jokey direction.
One I have not viewed many times for whatever reason. In fact before viewing the longer Wild East cut, only perhaps one more time. Nice budget and cast, with only Redgrave being a bit annoying at times. The action is fresh even though cartoon style at times, and more serious at other times. Liked the extra scenes in the uncut version. Could have easily found different footage to cut myself. For example the scene where Redgrave is pretending to seduce Fajardo goes on to long.
Finally watched it and realized that I had seen it before, in cinema, in the 70s, in heavily cut form
I recognized a couple of scenes, but otherwise the only thing I remembered about it, was that I strongly disliked it back then.
I watched the uncut version this time, and the new material seems to add a lot to the movie (or I simply have become more lenient towards these halfbaked type of spaghettis, not really dirty, not really spic & span).
Don’t turn the other cheek is very likable, although I don’t think it’s really one of the greats. There’s something missing, and I don’t think it had much to do with Tessari replacing Corbucci. Corbucci’s art was already in decline around this time, and for most part Tessari’s direction is fine. There are a few scenes that don’t work, but I had the idea this was more due to the fact that they wanted to add some Trinity elements to the movie. The genre was shifting towards comedy, and the tone of this movie (or at least some scenes of it) was probably changed in mid-production. For this reason it’s hard to determine what kind of movie it is. It’s not a comedy, but it’s not a parody either. It’s more a Corbucci black dramady (Compañeros style) with some slapstick scenes added.
The original title is quite bizarre, part Spanish (la muerte), part Italian (tua).
I can’t stand the sight of suffering cars …
http://www.spaghetti-western.net/index.php/Don't_turn_the_other_Cheek_Review
Nice Review !
One of the best Comedy westerns !! Great Film ;D
but it still is way above average, not as good as Compañeros, but better than What are we doing in the Middle of the Revolution
I wonder what I’ll think of Don’t turn the other Cheek since I’m actually liking What are we doing in the Middle of the Revolution more than Compañeros.
What I’m doing in the middle of the Revolution is in my Top 25 on place 21 !!!
You should give it a try, M.E.
I think it’s better than What are we doing … it covers similar grounds and some of the ideas are also similar (the doppelgänger motif for example), but this film has a better cast, that is: for a spaghetti western. Vittorio Gassman is an excellent actor, but he’s not really a SW actor. Nero is, and Wallach is Wallach (and forever Tuco). It also has better action scenes (if you can overlook the slapstick interludes)
All in all they are both on the same level. Both are 5/10 films.
Entertaining stuff, but not really compelling and with some big flaws.
You can post your top 20 in our big voting thread. Also anybody else who hasn’t.
They’re both flawed, yes, but I think this one could have been a Top 20 movie without these slapstick moments and a few mistakes on script level (such as the ending, but there are a few more)
I don’t think What are we doing… would have been much better without the silly humor. It’s not that bad, but it would need a different cast and a younger Corbucci to turn it into a great movie. What are we doing … totally lacks the ‘compañeros qualities’ this movie has.
Middle of the Revolution is somehow directed without any enthusiasm. It completely lacks the splendid moments of the earlier revolution films. Too bad as the story had some potential.
I’m not so sure about long Live Your Death.
There is a lot more wrong with it than the completely out of place slapstick. The character of the Sheriff is one of the examples of too much over the top ideas, which are part of the SWs becoming decadent in their increasing but hopeless attempts to top every bizarre idea of earlier film.
And the chemistry between the lead actors does not really work for me.
Somehow the film doesn’t come to life, otherwise I would have rated it much higher despite some flaws.
A good example is They Call Me Halleluja. Also a film which would be better without the slapstick (but which is better integrated in the film), also a film with a lot of flaws, but I really enjoy it. Great fun and very well directed with beautiful images, and it has an excellent score.
Nice to know there’s another fan on the forum!
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:110, topic:461”]You should give it a try, M.E.
I think it’s better than What are we doing … it covers similar grounds and some of the ideas are also similar (the doppelgänger motif for example), but this film has a better cast, that is: for a spaghetti western. Vittorio Gassman is an excellent actor, but he’s not really a SW actor. Nero is, and Wallach is Wallach (and forever Tuco). It also has better action scenes (if you can overlook the slapstick interludes)[/quote]
I’ll definitively check it out sometime, but I have a feeling that I’ll still like Corbucci’s last Zapata better, it grew on me like few films do.