I’m glad there’s someone who shares that point of view. I don’t think are that badly made, i can think of some really terrbile gore scenes, much, much worse than those [“Torso” for example], but they do feel exploitative. And they harmed the movie, because it’s mostly remebered because of them.
[quote=“Mrs Angel Eyes, post:36, topic:363”]I don’t mean to go off-topic… but can any of these SWs be more violent than Korean director Chan Wook Park’s OldBoy, Sympathy for Mr Vengeance, etc. or Chinese director Chang Cheh’s The Heroic Ones, Vengeance!, The Blood Brothers?? I couldn’t take those. But most of the violence in SW compared to what I’ve seen (and still squirm at) is pretty mild. These films, as did SWs, of course influenced Tarantino a great deal which of course so many “homages” were paid in the Kill Bill series.
The SW violence is hardcore in its heyday (I guess, not being alive then), but now the violence is somewhat routine compared to today’s standards.[/quote]
I remember that I saw Sympathy for Mr Vengeance at 7 years (or was it 8?) and I thougt it was violent as hell!
UNA PISTOLA PER CENTO BARE
A Gun for One Hundred Graves
El sabor del odio (Spain)
Pistol for a Hundred Coffins (USA)
-I’m sure bad guys slashing their way though a small town would qualify…lots of random acts of violence. After CU THROATS,this Lenzi flick is among the most violent SW I’ve seen.
It is? There’s these mad guys (with Fajaro in the lead) vandalizing the town but you don’t get to see anything.
Sure it is.
The atmosphere of pure dread is quite creepy.
I really do not think something horrific NEEDS TO BE explicitly SHOWN to necessarily make some movie really violent (TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE-I know it is not a SW, but bear with me-, anyone?)
Agree.
I agree with you silence, i seen it but never saw the axes being used.
some days ago i got the spaghetti heros book that comes with vengeance and the lenzi flick, hope i can see the gore that i hear about.
That’s the X Rated DVD, no gore there either. I think what Sitedecinema meant is that he found the mood violent.
I don’t remember any gore either, but the environment its quite violent.
As in every Western worth the name.
Indeed, without that it wouldn’t be the same.
Though it isn’t the most violent, I think a certain sequence in ‘Blindman’ has the most shocking violence, at least to my mind. I won’t give away what happens but I think many will know which sequence I mean.
I usually have nothing against some good ol’ ultra violence in movies. However, I find violence in many westerns of the Zapata/Pancho Villa type disturbing. Films like Giu la testa, Il mercenario, A Bullet for the General are full of executions and they’re not even made to look dramatic (that’s one of the things I hate about Una pistola per Ringo and Blindman). I mean, when watching a SW I don’t usually expect Schindler’s list.
I think a lot of SW were very violent. There was an element of style of these films. Therefore, there was often criticism.
However, if I see today’s films, then the spaghetti western is not very violent.
I also think that the hardness is that there is no morality in SW. There are only selfishness and self-interest. And the hero is no hero more. But he is just not as bad as the real villains.
I found Blindman to be pretty violant (the gunning down of the brides), but of course, other non-Spaghetti Westerns are much more brutal and cruel.
Blindman is pretty violent. Hard question this tho as I hardly find any SW I’ve seen yet violent (I’ve been staying away from Cut-Throats Nine).
Well it isn’t a Spaghetti Western, but if I would choose it would probably be El Topo. Even if it’s a Mexican film.
I have to disagree. I’d say, morality is what shows who is the hero in SW (unlike many other films, where you’ve just been told “This is the good guy.”) It’s just that we see this morality shown in an immoral atmosphere where the good guy has to be a lil dirty in order to be realistic. However, SWs have their white princes, e.g. Navajo Joe, Ringo in The Return, Gary O’Hara in One Silver Dollar and even Keoma.
The moral basis of SWs is IMO best shown in Cemetery Without Crosses (the beautiful end, more precisely).
[quote=“beteigeuse, post:57, topic:363”]I have to disagree. I’d say, morality is what shows who is the hero in SW (unlike many other films, where you’ve just been told “This is the good guy.”) It’s just that we see this morality shown in an immoral atmosphere where the good guy has to be a lil dirty in order to be realistic. However, SWs have their white princes, e.g. Navajo Joe, Ringo in The Return, Gary O’Hara in One Silver Dollar and even Keoma.
The moral basis of SWs is IMO best shown in Cemetery Without Crosses (the beautiful end, more precisely).[/quote]
I think not. I have a different opinion.
Ok, Gary O’Hara in One Silver dollar has moral. But is this a typical spaghetti western? Not for me. It is an Italian production. But a Western according to American style.
Navajo Joe is not on moral principles. He wants revenge for his murdered family. And Keoma and Ringo have certain moral principles. Nothing more.
Cemetery Without Crosses is a typical example of a selfish way of thinking.
All characters have their own interests. To achieve this, they stop at nothing. Manuel kills people at the beginning of the film, to enter the bonds of Rogers. Maria just wants revenge for her dead husband.
She has no problem that a woman is raped. On the contrary she gives the order. Even if she get doubts.
The Brothers Caine is the revenge for her dead brother regardless. They just want a lot of money over the border.
And in the end only one survived. The daughter of Cain. And she also has no morals. She kills Manuel. Why ? In order to take revenge.
[quote=“The Stranger, post:58, topic:363”]I think not. I have a different opinion.
Ok, Gary O’Hara in One Silver dollar has moral. But is this a typical spaghetti western? Not for me. It is an Italian production. But a Western according to American style.
Navajo Joe is not on moral principles. He wants revenge for his murdered family. And Keoma and Ringo have certain moral principles. Nothing more.
Cemetery Without Crosses is a typical example of a selfish way of thinking.
All characters have their own interests. To achieve this, they stop at nothing. Manuel kills people at the beginning of the film, to enter the bonds of Rogers. Maria just wants revenge for her dead husband.
She has no problem that a woman is raped. On the contrary she gives the order. Even if she get doubts.
The Brothers Caine is the revenge for her dead brother regardless. They just want a lot of money over the border.
And in the end only one survived. The daughter of Cain. And she also has no morals. She kills Manuel. Why ? In order to take revenge.[/quote]
For me, the endless cycle of revenge is at the very heart of this wonderful film’s moral position. The characters are all flawed for sure, but the piece itself has a very strong moral theme on the futility of an eye for an eye mentality.
That’s my reading of it anyway.
[quote=“Phil H, post:59, topic:363”]For me, the endless cycle of revenge is at the very heart of this wonderful film’s moral position. The characters are all flawed for sure, but the piece itself has a very strong moral theme on the futility of an eye for an eye mentality.
That’s my reading of it anyway.[/quote]
I agree with you.
All figures to pay the price for the lack of morality.
One could speak of a hidden moral. 