So, I got home from the screening in Stockholm a couple of hours ago. It was fantastic! Getting to see this fabulous film on a big screen in its original language was thrilling to say the least. It allowed me to fully appreciate the gorgeous cinematography and Carlo Simiās equally gorgeous scenography - but the highlight is, of course, Morricones wonderfully touching score.
But I also really like the way it makes the viewer feel āat homeā, so to speak. Where most SW:s (or even most westerns in general) just present 90 minutes of gunplay between the goodies and the baddies, Sollima and Donati take their time to depict the society of the west, and thereby create a fleshed-out world the viewer would like to explore further. The same goes for the characters; The main narrative flaw of The Great Silence, I think, is that the political allegory ties back the complexity of the characters and, by extension, the depth of the film. With The Big Gundown itās a different story. It is politically charged, yes (though less than most people claim it to be, in my opinion) but itās so well written that the characters, even the bad guys, feels like human people.
To me, thereās no doubt about it; THIS is the greatest non-Leone Spaghetti Western and it may very well be one of the finest westerns of all time. It certainly deserves more recognition than several more well-known ones. Yet a lot of people complain that itās āpoorly narratedā and ātoo preachyā. I donāt get it
I think the issue for some might be, though I canāt say for sure, is that they have never seen the uncut version. The version that was released in the U.S. is an abomination to anyone that has seen the original release as it was cut to the point that much of what makes it memorable and special was left on the cutting room floor. I have read that this was done so that it could be shown in a double feature. The distributors had no clue that they were shredding a classic.
When I first saw it on TV, it was just over 80 minutes long with several bad jump cuts - I think it was just pruned down any old how ā¦ and I was a little disappointed after knowing the fantastic music years before seeing that version - The complete version is superb and definitely and all time top 10 favourite
Glad you enjoyed it @JohnBaxter
Itās a great film but raised to a different level when seen in a cinema I believe.
The first time I ever saw the film was in a cinema in Venice and it absolutely blew me away. And yes, it was the music, or should I say the marriage of music with the visuals that really impressed. Unforgettable
I think youāre at least partially right. Even after Grindhouse released the Italian version, I know of many people who still opted to watch the 95-minute English-language cut (even after every single review of the release dubbed it the inferior oneā¦!) which not only butchers my favorite scene in the entire film (the opening scene) but is also poorly dubbed, which may have caused those who watched it to misblame some rather wooden lines on Sollimas direction. All that being said, I think it would still have qualified easily for my top 10 with the cut version (if they only had left the opening scene alone, that is.)
But the screening I attended showed a restauration of the original Italian theatrical version, and even then, I read some comments by some other people who watched it, and they still pointed out the narrative as weak. How anybody could think that is a mystery to me, especially considering all unconditional praise given to The Great Silence, which, as I wrote before, suffers from far more one-dimensional characters and logical inconsistencies in my opinion
Maybe some people disklike the episodic structure of the first half, but I personally think itās what creates the āepicā feel of the film. When Corbett and Cuchillo part ways at the end, I really feel that theyāve been trough an adventure. That, alongside the accompaniment of Ennioās score, is enough toggle me goosebumps for a good while even after the film is finished. Itās also what allows the interesting, reflective depiction of the old west society that I wrote about earlier. Besides, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is very episodic yet (rightfully) hailed as one of the greatest films ever made.
Iām late but I really liked you pointing this out - it explains greatly how this movie ended up being one of my comfort movies Itās also interesting to see you compare the movieās quality with The Great Silence and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. I agree with you that, though I love both these movies (TGS a little more), they are definitely overhyped a bit compared to The Big Gundown. About The Great Silenceās characters being one-dimensional to youā¦ can I ask if you feel the same about TGTB&TUās titular folks (excluding Tuco)? I know I felt that, lol.
Also the narrative in The Big Gundown is definitely not weak. Were they watching the same movie?
Said a decade ago, but I couldnāt agree more - this unusually well-thought-through relationship between the āRun, man, runā song and the movie is one of its best features for me too. Love her voice or hate it - I love it - Christyās clear projection of the words really welds them to the theme, so that I find canāt help but āhearā those words even when Iām hearing the theme without them. This is true even in the āsquare danceā at the wedding reception just before Brokston engineers the framing of Cuchillo: the āRun, man, runā theme recurs, recalling the songās message of freedom, brotherhood, etc., but the style is so changed that it feels like some weird auditory dream-distortion.
I think Morriconeās score matches that shift. The ābig themeā is scattered across the filmās first half and mixed with other material, but as the hunt for Cuchillo starts up in the cane fields it comes together in a vast, climactic, utterly unforgettable musical set piece .
Always wanted to put in a more detailed effort on a Spaghetti Western, but it was really the question of the ranch that got me going on this film. It seemed the most interesting of all the mini-episodes present in the film.
Actually, I donāt. Iām not sure why, but I suspect itās because the film doesnāt try to moralize the characters the way TGS does. In that film, the characters are obviously meant to serve the political allegory. The poor outlaws are really innocent victims - the bounty killers are unconditionally evil. By doing so, it takes away one of the things I like about SWs - the lack of a clear black-and-white morality. The ultimate nihilistic narrative, for me, would have been if Corbucci had left it to the viewer which side was right.
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is different. Thereās no clear good-evil conflict - instead, itās basically a character study of the three protagonists during their journey trough the madness of the American Civil War. I canāt point out a single scene which adds depth to Clint and LVC:s characters, but I feel like thereās some subtile details throughout the whole film that still makes me feel that theyāre real people with emotions even though they feel rather flat at first sight. The best scene example of that is probably when Blondie secretly witnesses Tucoās fight with his brother. He doesnāt intervene, but you can tell from his face that heās genuinely saddened by the brothersā dysfunctional relationship, and afterwards, he gently plays along with Tucos attempt to convince him (and himself) that he and his brother are on the best of terms. And thereās of course the scene where he comforts the dying Confederate soldier. For Van Cleef, I think heās made much more round in the extended cut (hence why I, contrary to most others, prefer that cut). Thereās the scene where he visits the war camp and is visibly gripped by the miserable situation. All these are small gestures, but with this subtlety (a thing that TGS would have benefitted from having more of) Leone makes us care for these three people, and letās face it: You donāt want Angel Eyes to die at the end, even though heās an utterly unpleasant human being.
From one thing to another, even though it doesnāt appear like there are any existing copies of it, in case it even ever existed, it would be interesting to view the rumored 135-minute version of TBG. The film is wonderful as it is, but a 135-minute version mightāve been able to elaborate the story further - which might finally please those people who complained that itās not well narrated, even in the 110-minute cut. But I guess they would start complain about the length instead - some people are never satisfied.
I actually never read that TBG is poorly narrated (who wrote such?), but I think that the long ranch scene is a narrative problem. It is surely in accordance with the filmās themes, but it just goes on too long, with it the cat and mouse game between Corbett and Cuchillo also goes on too long, and the film needs too long to come back to the characters and the story of the beginning. And for me the shoot-out at the ranch is a bit poorly directed.
Overall this long scene damages the film for me. It is a good Spag, but even without that scene not in the class of Leone or the best Corbuccis.
But on the other hand way better than Death Rides a Horse.
But The Great Silence is one of the genres most original films, and shows to what the genre was able, thematically and stylistically.
I swear I hated it! Angel Eyes ended up being my favorite character. I guess thatās why Iām now wishing that some of the depth Tuco got wouldāve gone to him now, and (imo) it makes for an interesting story to get to know why an evil character is evil - because none of us are born that wayā¦ but you can risk convolution and it mightāve been counter-intuitive for the movieās established tone, so yeah that one scene at the war camp is enough. Anyway, I do agree with you: TGTB&TU comes off a lot less preachy than TGS. The former and the latter are almost like on a big olā scale between nihilism and preachiness while TBGās perfectly in the middle.
But āoriginalā doesnāt necessarily mean āgoodā. I donāt get why loads and loads of people keep praising the ending of TGS as A-grade cinema. Itās basically a regular western ending done the other way round. As someone else, apparently one of my very few opinion pals on the issue, wrote; āThe ending falls into the just-because-we-can category. Most people seem to think āunpredictableā is automatically good, but anyone could be unpredictable. No talent neededā.
Couldnāt have put it better myself. Itās supposed to be devastating, but instead comes off as annoying - and not in the way Corbucci intended. Moreover, the film leaves several logical issues unresolved - Why would Tigrero and c:o expect to get their bounties when their āemployerā was dead, when heād been arrested for attempted murder and - most prominently - killed a lawman? Why didnāt the governor of Utah ban bounty killing immediately? None of this makes any sense to me, but they could have been avoided - or, even better, resolved - if there hadnāt been for the films obsession to be a āChe Guevara allegoryā.
The Big Gundown, on the other hand, has a much more downplayed political message (even though most people seem to consider it the more political of the two) and thus also works simply as an entertaining western. The allegory is more in the background, even though Divyās excellent essay proves that itās definitely recognizable (heck, Iām not even sure If Sollima himself noticed all of the symbols pointed out in the essay), so the characters donāt feel limited to their symbolic purpose. Brockston, for example, is the villain of the film and represents the unscrupulous capitalist, but he still has other personality traits. Even though he is very keen on keeping the unhappy marriage between Chet and his daughter for economic reasons, thereās no question that he still loves her (I disagree with Divyās essay on this point). His attempt to frame Cuchillo for the crime is in no small part to protect his interests, but first and foremost it still appears like he did it to protect his family from the scandal ("I did it for my daughter. I did it because I donāt want anyone to know that my daughter married a rapist and murderer!) Walter Barnesā surprisingly adept acting performance - the best in the film after Van Cleef - certainly helps. But Luigi Pistilli was also a great actor, and yet Pollicut feels much flatter than Brockston (and even more flat in comparison to Morton, for that matter).
Anyway, you havenāt heard of people who crack down on the filmās structure? Iāve read numerous reviews both on IMDB and other sites which does. One commenter went as far as calling it āworthless, except for the soundtrackā (he mightāve seen the 90-minute cut, though) Even several reviews/comments which are overall favorable has complaints like āPity the narrative is so sloppy at timesā.
Donāt get me wrong on TGS, I think it has some great moments and the snow setting was a brilliant idea, but as much as Iād like to be one in the big warm community of SW fans who adore it in general and the ending in particular, I canāt. But Iām still a newcomer to the genre, so it might improve if I rewatch it. I donāt have any immediate desire to do so, though. Itās one of those movies you should watch when youāre a little too happy and need to feel bad for some time (I didnāt find it as depressing as itās hyped up to be, though. I guess I wasnāt drawn in enough).
(Iāve been known to steer threads off-topic before, so if you want to reply on my thoughts on TGS, I think itās best to switch to itās own topic)
I mean Iāll almost certainly be making this purchase but I have to say itāll have to be something very special to top the Grindhouse Releasing version.
Itās also interesting to see you compare the movieās quality with The Great Silence and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. I agree with you that, though I love both these movies (TGS a little more), they are definitely overhyped a bit compared to The Big Gundown. About The Great Silenceās characters being one-dimensional to youā¦ can I ask if you feel the same about TGTB&TUās titular folks (excluding Tuco)? I know I felt that, lol.
