[quote=“Lindberg, post:61, topic:2085”]A strange comment coming from a fan of this genre ???
And the majority of SWs aren’t that violent either, as we’ve discussed before
Fistful of Dollars, Django and Django Kill are some of the more violent spaghetti westerns, but they are rather the exception than the rule
And at least I see them as more than movies that just show extreme violence…[/quote]
Well, you don’t watch SWs for clever or elegant stories, complicated screenplays or deeper characterizations. In such things SW directors weren’t very interested, and I think in many cases also not very talented for.
Building a film only around violence can be quite fascinating. The question is always how is it done?
I like many SWs (not all) for what they are, they need not to be like other genre films or like US westerns (which also are often very violent but in a different way).
It’s not a contradiction to love SWs, but at the same time also naming their weak points.
I think violence is presented in SWs very different compared to all other genres of the 60s. At least very different compared to Peckinpah, Hitchcock, Bond.
From a modern point of view SWs are not that violent, but for the mid 60s they were extremely violent, not only the notorious ones. I would say this goes for most of them.
I’m never shocked by screen violence, but when I watch SWs there are always scenes popping up, even in otherwise old fashioned looking SWs, where I’m surprised about the still sadistic intensity of the violence.
Yes it was, but only in a mainstream context. But compared to Psycho it was nothing special. And Fod went far beyond the early Bond films.
Well, I don’t see a problem in calling SWs exploitation films. Isn’t it a honor to be called so?