Most important directors of Spaghettis?


(Silvanito) #1

Which directors have made the best and most important contributions to the SW-genre?

I’m not necessarily talking about individual films more their overall input into this particular genre.

Leone and Corbucci of course, Sollima aswell I think, Baldi in my opinion also.

Who else? Damiano Damiani? He only did two SWs but of of them is A Bullet for the General, the first and one of the best political spaghettis. I think we should count him too!

Opinions? Any more directors need mentioning?


(Bill san Antonio) #2

There are lots of directors who made just one great western or few of them but just one great (Damiano for example) so I wouldn’t rate 'em among the most important western directors.

Here’s my top 5 sw directors excluding “the three Sergios”.

Tonino Valerii
Giuliano Carnimeo
Giulio Petroni
Ferdinando Baldi
Enzo Castellari


(Stanton) #3

It always surprises me that Giuseppe Colizzi is such an underrated director. Related to his craftsmanship he was even better than Sollima, although Sollima was surely the better filmmaker.


(ENNIOO) #4

[quote=“Silvanito, post:1, topic:524”]Which directors have made the best and most important contributions to the SW-genre?

I’m not necessarily talking about individual films more their overall input into this particular genre.

Leone and Corbucci of course, Sollima aswell I think, Baldi in my opinion also.

Who else? Damiano Damiani? He only did two SWs but of of them is A Bullet for the General, the first and one of the best political spaghettis. I think we should count him too!

Opinions? Any more directors need mentioning?[/quote]

Interesting that the director of A BULLET FOR THE GENERAL does not care to have this film considered a western.

He is quoted as stating, Quien Sabe? is not a western. Whenever the critics see a horse, they think they are watching a western…Quien Sabe? is a film about the Mexican Revolution set in the Mexican Revolution, and is clearly a political film and could not be otherwise."

I think this is a more correct description of the film, and of course the director of the film should know as he made the film.

Nobody Is The Greatest I feel is a poor film, overlong and pondering to Hill’s so called comic antics.


(Stanton) #5

Yes, Nobody is the Greatest is a disappointing, unfunny comedy. Producer Leone has claimed later that it was a failure to choose Damiani for directing “because he was no humorist”.

Quien sabe? could also be described as a War film, it’s not the typical SW. But Damiani has directed it too often like a western and there are too many genuine western moments in it, so that he was wrong when he said it’s not a western. It’s both, a political film and a SW.

By the way, the political cinema in 60s Italy (by Francesco Rosi for example) was far more complex than Quien sabe?.


(ENNIOO) #6

[quote=“stanton, post:5, topic:524”]Yes, Nobody is the Greatest is a disappointing, unfunny comedy. Producer Leone has claimed later that it was a failure to choose Damiani for directing “because he was no humorist”.

Quien sabe? could also be described as a War film, it’s not the typical SW. But Damiani has directed it too often like a western and there are too many genuine western moments in it, so that he was wrong when he said it’s not a western. It’s both, a political film and a SW.

By the way, the political cinema in 60s Italy (by Francesco Rosi for example) was far more complex than Quien sabe?.[/quote]

To say the person who directed the film was wrong is an incorrect thing to say, as this is the person who has directed the film and had his own particular vision when making the film.

To say otherwise is fine, but this is only your opinion.


(Stanton) #7

It’s no problem to be wrong about things youself should know better.

Maybe he was ashamed of making a western, and wanted to be regarded as a “serious” director.

Anyway, Damiani is no SW director in the first place, but he has nevertheless made with this film an important contribution to the genre.
In a genre there are always the specialists who are contributing continually and expressing themselves within a genre.
And there are the directors who came from outside the genre and try to use it for their purposes, by making 1 or 2 films which are different from the defined genre standards.
Of course this is a rough description.

The 2nd group is represented by Damiani, Questi, Lizzani, maybe also Canevari (who on the other hand is a genre director).
If these people make a pure genre film they tend to hide themselves by using pseudonyms like Lizzani for The Hills Run Red (in contrast to the more ambitious Requiescant where he used his real name) or Florestano Vanzini for Long Days of Vengeance.

To make an overall input, like Silvanito claimed above, a director should have made at least 3 SWs, to be called a genre director.
I think we should talk in this thread about these, or what do you think?


(Silvanito) #8

I think you’re very correct in what you’re saying Stanton!

Two other directors who came from outside the SW-genre, but made one very good film each, are also Robert Hossein (Cemetery without Crosses) and Tinto Brass (Yankee).

But apart from the ones who only did one or two films, we can agree on Leone, Corbucci and Sollima being the most important SW-genre directors, followed by Baldi, Castellari and a few more.

People who made high-quality films, and at the same time tried to develop the genre, not only making routine films.

Are there any more worth mentioning? What about Enzo Barboni? His Trinity-films became extremely popular and started the trend with comedy-spaghettis in the 70s.

But maybe he is not that good after all? Personally I’m not a fan of the Trinity-films.


(Stanton) #9

Barboni is also underrated. His Films are real funny. He is good in building up funny scenes, in using running gags. And he has changed the genre, even if not to everybody’s satisfaction.
He is by far the best director of Spencer/Hill comedys in and outside the SW.

But I would set his films apart, because they are first of all genuine comedy.

On the other hand he has proved with Chuck Mool that he was also able to make good action films.

And of course he had some influence as director of Photography.


(ION BRITTON) #10

Leone, S.Corbucci, Carnimeo, Castellari, Vanzi, Petroni, Guerrieri for me


(korano) #11

When I was listing my directors above, I found I was simply listing my favorite directors. The real important directors are actually…

Sergio Leone
Sergio Sollima
Sergio Corbucci
Ferdinando Baldi
Cesare Canevari
Gianfranco Parolini
Duccio Tessari
Giulio Petroni


(Dillinger) #12

One important man is

Sergio Garrone.

He isn’t the best director and he did’t do the top movies, but I think his SWs are solid ones and he really did SWs, that looked and felt like ones.

Apart from him and the three Sergios I’d also take

Baldi
Parolini
Petroni
Carnimeo
Petroni


(Stanton) #13

[quote=“Dillinger, post:12, topic:524”]One important man is

Sergio Garrone.

He isn’t the best director and he did’t do the top movies, but I think his SWs are solid ones and he really did SWs, that looked and felt like ones.

Apart from him and the three Sergios I’d also take

Baldi
Parolini
Petroni
Carnimeo
Petroni[/quote]

Who’s the 2nd Petroni?


(Stanton) #14

Sergio L. was god.

Sergio C. could have become the negative god, but refused. At least he was god for 2 films in 68 and fell from grace soon thereafter.

The best behind them was without any doubt Guiseppe Collizi.
Never a genius, but a rather talented guy. And he seems perfect in hiding himself.

Then Sollima, even if as a director he probably wasn’t as naturally gifted as the following ones (but tried hard to compensate it, and succeeded at least for his SWs):

Romolo Guerrieri
Guiseppe Vari
Duccio Tessari
Luigi Vanzi
Enzo Barboni

They all had a certain western feeling, and some of them had always to struggle with minimal budgets.

Maybe the same category, but I’m not exactly sure, as I really disliked their films only a few years ago:

Parolini (for his Sartana,Sabata outings)
Carnimeo (I like his style meanwhile)
Mulargia (inconsistent)

That’s it, and only directors with at least 3 genre contributions.


(Dillinger) #15

His famous brother, Sergio Petroni, the fourth of the big Sergios of the spaghetti west!
Don’t you know him?
Me neither!
It was a mistake, sorry if I might have puzzled you :wink:


(Bill san Antonio) #16

[quote=“korano, post:11, topic:524”]When I was listing my directors above, I found I was simply listing my favorite directors. The real important directors are actually…

Sergio Leone
Sergio Sollima
Sergio Corbucci
Ferdinando Baldi
[font=Verdana]Cesare Canevari[/font]
Gianfranco Parolini
Duccio Tessari
Giulio Petroni[/quote]hehe, are you really sure you didn’t pick any favorites?


(Stanton) #17

[quote=“Dillinger, post:15, topic:524”]His famous brother, Sergio Petroni, the fourth of the big Sergios of the spaghetti west!
Don’t you know him?
Me neither!
It was a mistake, sorry if I might have puzzled you ;)[/quote]

And I had hoped there would be something to discover …


(Dillinger) #18

Ok, in this case it IS Sergio Petroni!


(Stanton) #19

But is he a relative of good ol’ Giulio? His little brother? Why not his sister Giulietta?

I always loved Federico Forlini, the greatest filmmaker who never realised one single film.


(korano) #20

[quote=“Bill san Antonio, post:16, topic:524”]hehe, are you really sure you didn’t pick any favorites?[/quote]I picked him because he was the one Spaghetti director I know of who experimented with the genre. Adding drug and surreal elements. But maybe he isn’t THAT important. Besides, his first spaghetti is supposed to be terrible.