But not in the film. He may have had then his reasons to change that, maybe because he did not really want people to see Eastwood as the same guy.
And at least, as I said, in FAFDM he has a name, a typical SW name, and is is not Joe.
Of course one can interpret that in GBU it was big, bad war which fully transformed him to the character we know from the two previous films.
Only that he absolutely is already that character in the first minutes of GBU. He doesn’t change a bit, not in this one, not in the 2 before. Leone’s westerns are rarely about character development, they are not about “real” people (like Peckinpah’s).
And that is also the reason why it doesn’t bring the trilogy anything to view him as one character, it doesn’t add any depth to it.
The worst thing about the Eastwood character in Leone’s films is when he talks about buying a farm with the money in FAFDM. That’s a moment where I think Leone had at that point not really understood himself what he had achieved, or what he was going to achieve for the genre.
Aren’t they both just nicknames? Joe just being a random name the undertaker gives him, Blondie is obviously just a name that Tuco gives him and Manco being a reference to him using only one hand for the most part. I never saw any of them as real or even intended to be real.
Exactly! … and thank god they didn’t stick with the original idea of calling the film ‘Ray the Magnificent’ … no wonder so many of the first choice actors turned it down - Fonda, Coburn, Bronson etc …
Even if so, what does that change? Still 3 films, 3 names …
If Leone wanted him to be the exactly same guy, why not giving him always the same nickname?
And btw who says that in FoD Joe is just a nickname? Ain’t that only a theory of those who want him to be a no-name?
Have you actually seen these films?, … or are you just arguing for it’s own sake?
Frankly your theories/arguments are childish and tedious - Let’s move on from this ridiculous debate … and if you still feel compelled to continue ‘contributing’ to this site, at least have the maturity not to attempt contradicting every post made here?
It was hardly accidental that Leone used the name Joe for the Blondie character in the GBU script. And the transformation of the Blondie character into the character of the previous films, was clearly intentional. But I have no problem following your reasoning either.
I agree there is nothing much in terms of character development in the two first (latest) films. But I don’t know about Fistful. And if you see them as a trilogy, as some of us like to do, there is clearly a development from GBU to Fistful. Leone of course didn’t plan it that way when he made Fistful, and probably not when making FAFDM .
I know you really hate that one! But consider, if they are just three different films, and Fistful not a sequel in any way, chances are he actually did go and do just that…
Aldo, frankly said, you probably don’t understand what I’m writing. It is just a little discussion, in which people utter opinions. That’s were forums are made for.
Well apart from that I don’t hate films (nor people) FaFDM is one of my favourite Spags (even if way less fascinating than GBU)
That scene: Perfectly Eastwood should by Leone not have any motives for his greed, nor should he utter any ideas for what he wants that money.
And of all things farming? Christ, that’s such a pathetic cliche …
We already had this discussion some years ago so I have to quote myself here from film’s topic:
“I see the phrase about ranch as something he doesn’t even believe in himself. When Clint rides away in the end with the corpses you can’t imagine him retiring, gunfighter is always a gunfighter.”
It is a cliche for sure. Something we have seen in numerous westerns and other films (“one more big job” in the gangster films) but there’s this fatalistic undertone in this story.
Clearly they are not literally meant to be the same guy, yet clearly there is supposed to be an inkling of a connection. That is what Leone was all about. Did Noodles dream all of OUATIA? Is Harmonica an avenging angel? Is DYS the second part of a trilogy? Should Leone have had Eastwood, Wallach and Van Cleef play the three bad guys at the station that Harmonic shoots? Isn’t “Sam Peckinpah… a beautiful name in Navajo” ?.. etc etc…
The point is not that I can imagine something, that’s more than easy, the point is that Leone used it.
He also filmed a scene for FaFDM and for GBU in which we could have seen Clint with a woman in a bed. Another big mistake, but luckily he did not use both scenes.
Again, the point is not what I can easily imagine. But imo the films should not utter any suggestion what he could do with the money. His fixation on money should remain a completely abstract one, just money for the sake of money.
Just like not giving the slightest cue what Harmonica will do after he finished his revenge, or that he did anything else than searching revenge in the space between his brother’s death and his killing of Frank. Or to explain from what he lived in that long time span.
Giving such banal and conventional explantions destroys the pureness of Leone’s vision.
To be fair there are worse spaghetti western titles But I agree.
My simple answer to that would be because it would (at least partially) destroy the enigmatic nature of the character.
Nobody ever said it to me before I watched the movie for the first time but that’s the impression i always got and still do. Clint never tells him his name it’s just something the undertaker starts saying to address him, it’s sort of like a relative of mine who always calls people John regardless of what their real name is.
Yep … and if it were a Scottish film, he’d of referred to him as ‘Jimmy’ or in Australia, ‘Bruce’.
It’s a cultural thing … for instance, in India, any person older will be referred to as Aunty or Uncle by a stranger … it’s a mark of respect, without being overly formal, by using Sir or Madam.
Therefore, ‘Joe’ is definitely not his name, nor is ‘Manco’ or ‘Blondie’.
… and then if set around 1905, Colonel Mortimer would be in his late 80s, and Indio wouldn’t have raped the Colonel’s 60 plus younger sister, and we’d have no story!
Definitely wouldn’t have worked. It’s a neat idea though and I’m honestly astonished it was even considered. But I’m interested by the “what if” aspect. Sort of like looking at Ralph McQuarrie’s concept art for Star Wars.
No, no, no, please, you really cannot use guns to pinpoint the historical period. That would really get you into deep shit. When was dynamite taken into use in America anyway? Still I think it is intriguing to pin down the historical settings. Why is it Aldo that you think Fistful is set in the mid 1870ties?
But I agree.
