True, but the few i have seen over the years haven’t exactly raised my interest in the US western. It’s not that i’m dislike them, but stylistically seen they simply aren’t my cup of tea. I’d be willing to check out some recommendations but with the great volumes of available spaghetti western i’d rather dedicate my time to them at the moment. 
I’m a fan of the films of John Ford, but The Searchers is one of my all time favorites. Directly connecting his influence to that of another great who made “Westerns”, is my favorite director, Akira Kurosawa. The Seven Samurai, Hidden Fortress and Yojimbo are just as much Westerns in my eyes as the Italian ones can be considered a form of “Western”. Now, obviously, there’s a direct influence from the works of Kurosawa to that of Sergio Leone and the Spaghetti Western genre (Yojimbo = AFoD).
I don’t see why people wouldn’t be able to enjoy both. Unless you just CAN’T see a Western unless there’s one of those great Morricone, Bacalov, Nicolai-style soundtracks underneath it, or you just HAVE to see Italians getting overdubbed when you watch a Western. High Noon (with a super young Lee Van Cleef), The Magnificent Seven (another direct connection to Kurosawa), Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Unforgiven – those’re just some darn good films right there.
Maybe I’m not fanatical enough in my love of SWs, but I like both.
~Dakota
I always liked both too.
Spaghetti westerns often come first, but at the moment there is not much in it.
All I can say is Stagecoach. A Beatle took a name after it. I would think it has influeced many spaghetti westerns. And besides without the American western there would be no spaghetti. Whats your favorite american western?
I must say I do not like American Western.
I do not like the style. Most of the Western U.S. have this typical Hollywood roles. On one side of the good hero. This protects any blonde woman or other people from evil Indians or evil landowners. I lack the realism of the anti-hero who follows his own interests. Moreover, the most U.S Western have a compulsive happy ending. There is a lack of nihilism.
That is the reason why I am a SW fan. And I’m not a fan of American Westerns.
And I must say that I’ve not seen since about 4 or 5 years a US-Western. As a child (long ago ;)), I have gladly seen these films. But now, the U.S. Western go on my nerves.
But everyone has a different taste.
And you’re right, of course, Spuff vermon, without the U.S. Western, there would be no SW.
Spaghetti’s are better in my opinion. But there are some American Westerns I like. John Ford did some good stuff, I realy enjoyed the magnificent seven. But I agree with stranger the America stuff just got too much Hollywood cheese.
http://www.spaghetti-western.net/forum/index.php/topic,90.180.html
I’ve been really getting into US westerns lately, never thought I would 5 years ago… I like both pretty much equally now.
[quote=“The Stranger, post:126, topic:709”]I must say I do not like American Western.
I do not like the style. Most of the Western U.S. have this typical Hollywood roles. On one side of the good hero. This protects any blonde woman or other people from evil Indians or evil landowners. I lack the realism of the anti-hero who follows his own interests. Moreover, the most U.S Western have a compulsive happy ending.[/quote]
Strange, but it seems that’s what many SW fans think how US westerns have to be. I’m sure there are several US westerns which are made in this way, but of the many I have seen only a few belong to this species.
Funny, but many SWs are telling similar stories, only that the woman is not necessarily blonde, and of course it is always the landowner or the town chief nad not the Indians.
But of course I know that these simple type of SWs, often described as US influenced (which is btw a defamation of all the good US westerns), are not what my friend The Stranger likes in his SWs.
But these idea of an US western is even in the older Us westerns seldom to find in this simplicity. And the US westerns of the late 60s and 70 s are mostly as dirty as the Italian ones, several are even as nihilistic as the good SWs, and in the 70s there are often lots of real anti-heroes.
Funny is also that in fact in the SW the dividing between good and bad is mostly very clear, while in these days in the US westerns the frontiers between good and bad are often more indistinct.
I think fans of the SW too often underestimate the US westerns, even the pre 60s ones, while of course the fans of the US western do the same the other way round.
In the end it’s all a question of good or bad cinema.
True dat! ;D
I disagree
The Searchers, I don’t really care for Ford but he has his hits. But out of all of the directors someday in the future little kids will watch his movies in school to learn a simi correct verion of early America.
What’s does the word simi correct mean? A typo? Semi correct?
Well, Ford is great, his films have a soul, and he had talent, and he had a vision.
But his westerns are for my taste often too traditional, are too often mixing a very primitive humour in the stories. I wish I could make customer’s cuts out of them.
[quote=“Stanton, post:129, topic:709”]Strange, but it seems that’s what many SW fans think how US westerns have to be. I’m sure there are several US westerns which are made in this way, but of the many I have seen only a few belong to this species.
Funny, but many SWs are telling similar stories, only that the woman is not necessarily blonde, and of course it is always the landowner or the town chief nad not the Indians.
But of course I know that these simple type of SWs, often described as US influenced (which is btw a defamation of all the good US westerns), are not what my friend The Stranger likes in his SWs.
But these idea of an US western is even in the older Us westerns seldom to find in this simplicity. And the US westerns of the late 60s and 70 s are mostly as dirty as the Italian ones, several are even as nihilistic as the good SWs, and in the 70s there are often lots of real anti-heroes.
Funny is also that in fact in the SW the dividing between good and bad is mostly very clear, while in these days in the US westerns the frontiers between good and bad are often more indistinct.
I think fans of the SW too often underestimate the US westerns, even the pre 60s ones, while of course the fans of the US western do the same the other way round.[/quote]
Excellent post, Stanton.
Not sure if I agree with that. Is the dividing line between good and bad in the man with no name, the stranger, django, sartana films so clear? Or in BLACK JACK and YANKEE? Or in $10.000 BLOOD MONEY? I wouldn’t say that.
I never had the slightest doubt who is good and who is the bad in all these films of the characters you have named, except Black Jack of course. Black Jack is one of those SWs who pushes the SW boundaries.
Most of the SWs prefer an antagonistic constellation between good and bad. The heroes may have their bad sides too, but as compensation the baddies became extremely violent and mean in an often irrational way. There is seldom much of a differentiation in their characterisations.
Are we talking about ‘who is good and who is bad’ here or ‘who is supposed to be the good guy and who the bad guy’? On the first case, I certainly think that the dividing line is not very clear in SWs.
Both.
The SW created a new type of the good, a more modern hero, a hero who can himself be a bit mean, who is allowed to be brutish himself, who is allowed to be selfish and so on, but still this hero had to represent the positive identification figure of the films.
This also means that for the necessary delimitation towards the bad, to fulfill the good/bad expectations of the audience, the baddies had to become absolutely bad now.
I think everyone can understand that for example Django is the good guy in the s/t film, but how many can say that he is a good guy too?
Good guys are flawed in SWs, sometimes quite heavily, while the bad guys sometimes have positive elements in their character, especially as far as the ‘code of honour’ is concerned. Having said that, SWs are IMO more realistic in their characterizations. The good guys are not angels and the bad guys are not totally bad either. We see that in real life more often, don’t we?
1 Like
I don’t think that many of the baddies in SWs have good sides too.
And frankly said most SWs don’t have any kind of characterizations (but that’s not a problem for the films, there ain’t anything missing).
You may say that heroes who have their bad sides are more realistic, but in general SW are not born out of the real life, but out of other films, which already were not really based on the real world (or the world from which we think that it is the real world).
SWs are only seldom character driven films.
But you can find also in older US western heroes who have their violent sides too.
John Wayne shoots in Rio Bravo a rider who tries to get away from a long distance in the back. In Coroner Creek Randolp Scott breaks an unconscious man his arm. In The Man with the Gun Robert Mitchum can’t control his violent impulses and burns down as a Sheriff without a real justification the Saloon of a man who is a concurrent for his ex-wife. There are more examples.
Not too speak of the 60s / 70s stuff.
The western was always a violent genre. And a problem of modern westerns is maybe that their violence is not longer a level setting violence.