Re: Are Spaghetti Westerns Exploitation Movies?

Town Hall
61

[quote=“Stanton, post:59, topic:2085”]SWs are imo exploitation because the main interest of many was mainly to show extreme violence, a violence which was often condemned as repulsive then.

In many there isn’t much of a story in it to connect the action scenes.[/quote]

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…

62

Re Hitchcock and Bond

Wasn’t Hitchcock just regarded as a ‘thriller director’ in the beginning, before he got more recognition?

And some of his films had a fair amount of shock value, like Psycho for example

And the early Bonds like From Russia with Love was also fairly violent (and sexually daring) for it’s time, it also had a relatively low budget

It was movies that broke new ground, but you could also say they were ‘exploitation’ the way you say spaghetti westerns are :wink:

63

If you consider the fact that just about all movies could be considered exploitation, then you come to the fact that exploitation films didn’t really exsist as a genre when Hitchcock was only said to be a “thriller director” and James Bond movies were aimed at a very large market, as opposed to Spaghetti Westerns.

64

The Bond movies wasn’t quite as big in the early years as they became a few years later (in the mid-sixties), and the Dollars trilogy seems to have been about as popular as Bond among the mainstream audience, in Europe at least

The success of the Bond movies also led to a countless number of Eurospy movies in the 60s, a genre that exploded much like the spaghetti western did

I wouldn’t call these ‘exploitation’ either, just a popular b-movie genre

65

[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?

66

Films like Cut Throats Nine must have been very extreme for 1972.

67

I like to use the term ahead of their time.

68

I guess many people consider them exploitation…but in my view they are waaaay more than that…the Leone spaghettis are def NOT exploitation though

69

Calling them “exploitation” does not mean that they couldn’t be way more than that.

Leone:
I would only call FoD exploitation, the others not. In FaFDM the “exploitation” elements are still there (especially in the filming of the prison break to free El Indio), but Leone is developing his style and from now on more concentrating on the “arty” ways of telling a story.
But FoD is already also an “arty” told film, but often in an “exploitive” way. I don’t find much of Leone’s style in his 2 peplums, but FoD is 100% Leone.

70

I hope you don’t think SWs are very deep ;)…

71

Good point. While I view For a few Dollars More an exploitation film (and there is nothing wrong in calling a movie that), Leone was starting to pack more “Art” into his films. So by time he made Once Upon a Time in the West, he was making what you could call “Art Westerns”.

72

FOD could be called an Explo film I think.

73

This is pretty severe

Calling Sergio Leone and such a groundbreaking western as Fistful of Dollars mere ‘exploitation’

This is what critics said back in the 60s you know

Just because Leone’s earliest films contain some scenes of sadism and violence they’re not ‘exploitation’

This is like calling Martin Scorcese movies ‘exploitation’

Then you also say it’s nothing wrong with calling them ‘exploitation’ and that they’re ‘exploitation’ to you

Wasn’t this discussion about whether or not to place spaghetti westerns in the same category as true exploitation movies such as sex films, Naziploitation, Women In Prison or Cannibal movies?

I say you can’t

74

[quote=“Lindberg, post:73, topic:2085”]Calling Sergio Leone and such a groundbreaking western as Fistful of Dollars mere ‘exploitation’

This is what critics said back in the 60s you know[/quote]
Listen: The critics called A Fistful of Dollars exploitation to degrade it; here we all know an love A Fistful of Dollars, so what does it matter if some of us lable it exploitation? We are not trying to put it down. Just because it is exploitation does not make it any better or worse than a film like The Magnificent Seven (in fact it is better than it).

75

I think exploitation is just a problematic word. Too many different possible interpretations of what it means… the term in itself seems to be as subjective as the art itself

76

If the term “exploitation” is limited to badly made films, than of course FoD is no exploitation.

77

Explotation aren’t badly made films. Why would a Women In Prison or Naziplotation film be badly made?

78

I´ve seen dozens of WIP and Nazisploitation films and all of them are badly made, some horrible even, merely relying on shock effect, boobs, sadistisc prison guards, lesbianism and of course Nazis. That’s exploitation for ya.

79

Of course, it all depends on what exploitation sub-genre you are viewing. Naziploitation movies may be badly made on the whole, on the other hand, Westernploitation (i. e. Spaghetti Westerns) are generally well made. Just because production values are differant, it doesn’t stop two oppersit kinds of movies being in the same genre.

80

All films exploit subject matter. Therefore all films are exploitation. And if this is true, the opposite must also be true. In other words: There is no such thing as exploitation. People tend to use the term however to describe sleazy movies. So, sleaze = exploitation. The few spaghetti’s that are sleazy are therefore exploitation, the rest is not.