[quote=âautephex, post:39, topic:509â]Also the Synopsis in the DB appears completely wrong to me.
Fajardo is the one that continues fighting despite the war being over, not Shango. Fajardo is in a place of power and wants to keep it, keeping the townsfolk in the dark so they think the war is still going and Fajardo keeps his power. Shango is a ranger that comes to town and is taken prisoner. He escapes and tries to take down Fajardo and his men, and gets the townsfolk behind him with the knowledge that the war is over, etc.
Fajardo simply snaps at the end, because heâs already nuts and its the final breaking point- he has a breakdown and loses it completely
There are plotholes, but the story is much more coherent than many spaghettis, and many of the ones considered genre greats like the Sartana filmsâŚ[/quote]
The ranger, Shango, is hung in a cage by the major, because he knows the war is ended. The major don´t play that shit, as he is indeed on a power trip. However Shango is then set free by the major to serve as a scapegoat, for the death of a telegraph operator who knew too much (and had the ability to fix the telegraph) and the disappearance of the gold. The major plans for Shango to get shot right away, but it doesnât work out. He then has numerous occasions to put a bullet between Shangoâs eyes but he doesnât.
Shango is a naive guy. One wonders how he got to be ranger in the first place. Oh wait, I know. Because he has the skill to shoot hundreds of bullets out of a six shooter. Moreover, he can kill 5 guys in 3 seconds. Shango probably kills 100 people in this film.
The major is an idiot. Was there ever any gold? Why do the soldiers follow this moron. They donât have to, the war is over. And thereâs no gold.
The townsfolk suck. Theyâre a bunch of cowards used to abuse. The poor schmuck of a hero who tries to save them, Shango, is even ratted out.
In the end thereâs a nice little party, but the major doesnât like parties and has an acid flashback. Good news for Shango, who can now shoot this bad guy.
So, really. Is this a good story? What is so coherent about it? The actions of basically every character make no sense whatsoever.
Its coherent because it all connects. Iâm not saying that the actions of the characters make sense in ârealityâ, but this is far from reality. Each segment of the story and actions of the characters connects with the next segment, regardless of if you think it would play that way in real life. Simple coherence⌠I donât find anything to be confusing about the progression of this film from one event to the next
Its a simple vehicle for lots of good spaghettiness, and I could care less if it resonates with real lifeâŚ
Again we could dissect any spaghetti like this and most of them would come out looking just as bad, including the top ones⌠so I donât really understand this basis for tearing the film down.
Iâm not saying itâs a confusing film. You donât have to be a genius to get it. However, this doesnât make it a well developed film. I think the story, as well as the characters, are badly written. Therefore making it incoherent, as in: There is no cohesion. Itâs just a bunch of loose ideas thrown together, which are only loosely connected. There is no cement to hold it all together. Besides, it all made very little sense to me.
Itâs not badly directed though, even if the repetitive action scenes miss all crediblity. Far from the worst Iâve seen, but still not good enough.
Fair enough. I generally donât have any problems with badly written spaghs, so this isnât much of an issue for me. I tend to look at the directing and whatâs on screen more than the writing
Typical Steffen fare for me. But I tend to agree with BL that the threads of what stand as a plot are erratic, undeveloped and seem a bit thrown together. The âhidden Yankee goldâ McGuffin being the most obvious case in point.
But at the end of the day I just accepted this as a Steffen vehicle which is designed to give him maximum âRoll and Shootâ opportunities. This it certainly achieves. Possibly a record amount of diving about from Tony which is saying something in itself. Overall though, these type of Steffen pictures are not my favourites. I prefer the ones where there is a little more care taken with the story and the characters or which have a particularly effective atmosphere. Killer Kid and Strangerâs Gundown still probably top that list. This one sits around with W Django much lower down.
[quote author=Phil H link=topic=577.msg81140#msg81140 date=1261126826]
But at the end of the day I just accepted this as a Steffen vehicle which is designed to give him maximum âRoll and Shootâ opportunities.
[quote author=Phil H link=topic=577.msg81140#msg81140 date=1261126826]
LOL
Watching a Steffen movie to me is like watching a Ric Flair wrestling match, if I donât see Ric flopping face first on the mat I feel cheated somehow. Same with Anthony, if he doesnât roll and shoot in a film Iâd say I wasted my time watching it.
I do agree with you that the steffen movies where more care is taken with plot are the better ones. Thats why I like Stranger at Paso Bravo and Two Pistols and a Coward so much. Both have more drawn out characterizations than normal.
When it comes to rolling and shooting, I think Carly Simon puts it best:
Plot?? In a Spaghetti Western?? Iâm sure that iâve seen at least 50, and I canât remember the plot of 95% of them!, as they vary between unbelievable and downright silly. But thatâs part of their charm. The last thing, and I mean the LAST thing that I concern myself with is the plot, as some of the best SWs have totally unrealistic stories and situations. What I like is the cool heroes, outlandish villains, stylized and extreme violence and nifty costumes.
For all of the above reasons âShangoâ is one of my favorite SWs.
The only thing beyond what iâve already mentioned that will put any SW at the top of my list is that the hero give a believable performance no matter how unbelievable the plot is. Steffen does it for me in every one of the 5 or so westerns that Iâve seen him in. So if you already like Steffenâs flicks you wonât want to miss this one.
Yes the actual scripts are not the main focus of spaghetti westerns, itâs more about certain themes⌠life & death, revenge, bounty hunting, gold treasures, political struggle, etc⌠and of course all the other stuff that make a spaghetti western
I saw Shango just a couple of days ago for the first time, the Franco Cleef fandub
To me an average SW, nothing special about it, and therefore I didnât follow the story very closely ;D
Maybe it made less sense than usual, but I really didnât care :o
Anyway, I think my favorite Steffen SWs so far are Coffin for the Sheriff and 7 Dollars on the Red
I havenât seen all his films, and I still have some in my collection I havenât watched yet
But I really like Anthony Steffen, I think heâs a great SW actor
BL is right about the plot. Shango simply fails to tell us what it is all about, and also fails to intensify the unclear relationship between the Mexicans and the Confederates, and why they are hiding in this little town, and why the Major doesnât want the war to be over, and why thatâs a problem for his Mexican allies, and what this talk about the gold is about.
Shango has a great beginning and a good ending, but in between we have only a lot of unsatisfying shoot-outs in which Steffen endlessly tricks and fools and shoots his enemies by the dozen. The action is also wrongly directed, not badly directed, but it feels wrong for a film like Shango. In this middle part the film should have done something with all the characters, build the tension between them, but instead the screentime is wasted with not working action.
Itâs a pity as visually Mulargia shows mostly what a fine western director he could have been, despite the cheap budget and the limited sets and landscape. The framing and staging of the pictures is mostly done very well. 3/5
