Okay, interesting remarks. Here's the full dialogue:
Jonathan: Professionisti per un massacro/Red Blood, Yellow Gold means to be an exaggeration of the SW world while Vado, l'ammazzo e torno/Any Gun Can Play - as evidenced by the final scene - already borders on parody.
Scherpschutter: Might all be true, but I still think Any Gun can Play is better constructed. It evolves from a tongue-in-cheek, but still violence-oriented (but not too violent) spaghetti western into a light-hearted comedy, with fist-fights that gradually turn into circus acts. It’s not the greatest of spaghetti westerns, but I like this idea of development towards parody. Parody, or more in general comedy, was of course part of the formula from the very beginning. The first Ringo alternates strong violence with parodist elements and light-herated moments. Like the first Ringo, Any Gun can Play feels right: I can sit back and relax. It works for me, while on the whole Professionisti per un Massacro feels uneasy and only occasionally works. This is, of course, all personal, and it’s not always possible to rationalize one’s preferences.
Jonathan: This unnecessary and/or exceedingly silly brawl problem is common to quite a lot of films, just to give a few examples I lunghi giorni della vendetta/Long Days of Vengeance, Amico stammi lontano almeno un palmo/Ben and Charlie, La collina degli stivali/Boot Hill; in E per tetto un cielo di stelle/A Sky Full of Stars for a Roof - which by the way I really appreciate - the director makes the mistake of starting the film in this way, quite disorienting the viewer after the sad, dramatic opening credits sequence.
Scherpschutter: in my opinion things are a bit different in the separate movies. In Long Days of Violence, this silly saloon brawl is in complete contrast with the rest of the movie, which is serious, dark and violent. It’s a serious flaw, of course, but it’s an isolated incident, and I can overlook it. Other movies have the same problem, one I immediately think of is Pistoleros (Ballata per un Pistolero). It’s a dark western with even some religious overtones, and then, all of a sudden, there’s this completely silly saloon brawl. Ben & Charlie is different, a bit comparable to Any Gun can Play: it evolves from one mood to another, only in this occasion it starts in a more gentle mood, and gradually develops into a darker picture. It has its flaws too, but I think it works quite well. And for a Roof a sky full of Stars is one of those movies that veer from one mood to another an back (several times). Similar movies may work – and I think this one works marvellously – but it’s a risky premise, very often they mainly work confusing (or not at all). I didn’t really like And for a Roof when I saw it for the first time. Quite disorienting, indeed. But I loved it when I watched it for a second and third time. These shifts in tone still are disorienting, but I somehow managed to overlook them, and discovered how good the film actually is. Boot Hill is different from all the rest: it’s a Stanton movie.