Non-North American set Westerns

I’m not sure anymore

And, on the other hand, it can seem to have all the attributes of a duck but just turns out to be a turkey :wink:

In case of doubt:

Shoot it
Roast it
Eat it

Let’s see if the little bugger tastes

Sometimes you feel like a duck, sometimes you don’t

I used the inductive argument because it’s all about qualities we attribute to western movies, that decide whether we accept a movie as one

In order to be a western, it must (for instance) look, swim and squack like a western, and if it does, it probably is one
(Phil: mind that a bird, in other to be a duck, must swim like a duck, not just swim)

If one of the elements is : it must be set in North America, than Quickley or The Proposition are no westerns
If one of the elements is: it must be set in the Old West, than The Mercenary is no western
If one of the elements is : it must be about cowboys and indians, than most westerns are no westerns, because they’re not about cowboys, let alone indians

I have no definitive theory , so I’m not trying to settle these things once and for all, but thinking about it on this lazy sundy afternoon, I get the impression that to me a western is either about

a) the taming of the frontier

  • the problems of early settlers and the conflict between settlers and the original inhabitants of the country, be it Indians, Maori or whatever (so not necessarily the American frontier)
  • The Iron Horse, Fort Apache, Soldier Blue, Outback westerns

b) the rise of town life and subsequently the taming of the town

  • the transition from a semi-anarchic state to a democracy in the making
  • Shane, Warlock, The man who shot Liberty Valence, all Wyatt Earp movies, The Proposition

c) the dying of the Old west and the coming of Modern Times

  • they are reminiscent of the ‘taming of the town’ type movies, but more concerned with cultural clashes, ancient moral versus constitution, capitalist moral about the individual versus the rise of socialist ideas about community ‘the people’ etc.
  • The Wild Bunch and all imitations, the Zapata westerns

;D

[attachment older than 600 days, deleted by admin]

Films about the American frontier originally got the name “westerns”, you can even simply hear it in the name = west = westerns = films about the “western” frontier

Films about other frontiers such as Australia should not be considered true “westerns” I think, even if they look and feel like western movies, they need another name.

Ok, so we’re a little off topic here but who cares? Like Scherp says, its a lazy Sunday afternoon(morning, in my case.)

I somewhat agree with your categorizations Phil H and Scherpschutter but, for a film to fall into the ‘western’ or ‘duck’ genre it has to have the following criteria:

  1. All westerns are predicated in all form and fashion, time and place, by the american cowboy. He is the only true criteria. When the first cowboy rode up sometime back in the early to mid 1800’s, that sets the time-frame. So a western movie has to be set anywhere from, say, 1850 to present.

What is a cowboy: 1850?-1910 - a hat-wearin’, horse-ridin’, gunslingin’, cattle-ropin’, whiskey- drinkin’, woman-chasin’ man-o-the-west

1910-present - as my uncle used to say(or Woody Harrelson, pick one) a f**ker and a fighter and a wild bull rider

Anyway, if one of those dudes isn’t in the movie, it ain’t a western. And it could be anywhere on earth.

[quote=“Lindberg, post:27, topic:1320”]Films about the American frontier originally got the name “westerns”, you can even simply hear it in the name = west = westerns = films about the “western” frontier

Films about other frontiers such as Australia should not be considered true “westerns” I think, even if they look and feel like western movies, they need another name.[/quote]

Exactly.
High Noon is a western. Outland is science fiction. The fact that the latter is an adaptation of the former does not make it a western even though it shares similar story, themes etc.

Things aren’t always this straight forward of course as genres often overlap and some films don’t fit neatly into any particular category no matter how hard we try to attribute them to one. The western is an established genre with a long history of stories and themes. There is not a clear category for similar films set in the Australian Outback so we are tempted to lump them into one which seems closest to its type. A reasonable decision. Just not one I’m personally comfortable with.

Of course, I’m as guilty of such pragmatism as anyone else when you consider how my ‘no cars’ rule gets chucked out the window when confronted with a whole bunch of Mexican Revolution pictures I can’t bring myself to exclude. :smiley:

[quote=“AceHigh, post:28, topic:1320”]I somewhat agree with your categorizations Phil H and Scherpschutter but, for a film to fall into the ‘western’ or ‘duck’ genre it has to have the following criteria:

  1. All westerns are predicated in all form and fashion, time and place, by the american cowboy. He is the only true criteria. When the first cowboy rode up sometime back in the early to mid 1800’s, that sets the time-frame. So a western movie has to be set anywhere from, say, 1850 to present.

What is a cowboy: 1850?-1910 - a hat-wearin’, horse-ridin’, gunslingin’, cattle-ropin’, whiskey- drinkin’, woman-chasin’ man-o-the-west

1910-present - as my uncle used to say(or Woody Harrelson, pick one) a fucker and a fighter and a wild bull rider

Anyway, if one of those dudes isn’t in the movie, it ain’t a western. And it could be anywhere on earth.[/quote]

Well said, Ace, if the protagonist wears a hat (like the protagonist of a western wears his hat), rides a horse (like he should), slings his gun, cattles his rope, drinks his women and swings his Woody, he probably is a western and the film probably a cowboy, like Dick Harrelson used to say

Joking apart, the point is of course that these things easily become self-fulling prophecies or circular arguments: we attribute qualities to a genre and to check if a movie belongs to the genre, we start looking for the qualities we’ve attributed to the genre etc.

[quote=“scherpschutter, post:30, topic:1320”]Well said, Ace, if the protagonist wears a hat (like the protagonist of a western wears his hat), rides a horse (like he should), slings his gun, cattles his rope, drinks his women and swings his Woody, he probably is a western and the film probably a cowboy, like Dick Harrelson used to say

Joking apart, the point is of course that these things easily become self-fulling prophecies or circular arguments: we attribute qualities to a genre and to check if a movie belongs to the genre, we start looking for the qualities we’ve attributed to the genre etc.[/quote]

Amen; to you Scherp and all my cowboy brethren across the pond.

Is this than the total western:

Spara gringo spara

Everything is there: Cowboy, horse, North America, ca 1880, hat, gun, gunfights, duck

They’re more closely related than anything else though

Besides we don’t call them westerns, we call them Zapata spaghettis :smiley:

[quote=“Lindberg, post:33, topic:1320”]They’re more closely related than anything else though

Besides we don’t call them westerns, we call them Zapata spaghettis :D[/quote]

Yes and one of them is even called Duck you sucker!

Ha ha, so it needed 35 years to reveal that Leone was right to insist on this title against all these know-it-alls.
He understood the true mechanisms of a western better than anybody else.
Also the real marxist western, only genuine with a duck.

When I was posting all the Euro-westerns on the SWWB I included many European based gilms. Some were even post WWII and set in Europe. They are called Red-westerns as many were made behind the Iron Curtain. A western is like any other genre film. It depends on the viewers point of view and how he sees and feels what he is watching. I’ve seen Sci-Fi westerns, Mexican Revolution westerns, Alaska Gold Rush westerns etc. Even modern day dramas and rodeo films set in the west can be considered westerns. Do we really have to put parameters on films? Just enjoy what little there is in some of the films that border on being called westerns. There aren’t that many made anymore.

Not according to Stanton though :stuck_out_tongue:

[quote=“stanton, post:90, topic:1281”]But the real original title for the uncut hardcore version was in fact:

Suck You Ducker

Leone got it all mixed up, and after some heavy censoring, film and american title became like we know them now.

A true story[/quote]

Are you sure about this ???

Aren’t “Red-westerns” the East-German and Russian westerns that were made in Yugoslavia, but still set in the wild west?

Name a “western” set in Europe post WW2, I’m curious :o

Yes we can’t get peace of mind if we don’t :smiley:

We were having a bit of fun, Tom

That’s another way of saying that those definitions lead to circular reasoning; in the end all definitions are: the theory of the survival of the fittest implies that those who survive are the fittest.

Yes. As i’vesaidin many other posts, I believe the west is a theme and atmosphere. If it has the theme ofa western with bandits, anti heroes, frontiers ETC… Then it is a western. Such as Man Pride and Vengeance and the Proposition.