One can view that so, but others think that every Dollar film has a different character, or at least that the films are not really connected by their hero.
One has a name, Monco, and he isnât called that in the other 2.
Joe, Monco, Blondie. These are names ascribed to him by others, he never gives his name - hence the man with no name. I think that if thereâs a timeline then itâs logical to use it - âBlondieâ finds the poncho at the ruined church and wears it in subsequent movies in the series. I believe that it is the same character in the three movies itâs just that his character if played very low key with the minimum of dialog. Apparently when he came to make A Fistful Of Dollars, Sergio Leone had Clintâs character doing a lot of talking and relating far more with the characters around him. Supposedly it was Eastwood who came up with the idea of going completely the other way and have a very dry and low key character. Very smart move on his part. 
1 Like
Thats always been my take on things.
Also, bounty hunting, as described in For a Few Dollars More, was largely a post war business. It became part of part of the U.S. law enforcement system in 1872.
Also, there is Eastwoodâs gun. In GBU, his post civil war 1873 Single Action Army revolver with a silver rattlesnake grip from the two first films is replaced by a pre civil war Colt 1851 Navy, also with a silver rattlesnake grip. By doing this Leone, I think, firmly places GBU as an prequel to the two first dollar films.
1 Like
But why should such a character go on hunting people for money after getting such a big treasure. That would mean he is not interested in money but at the end of AFDM he is clearly enthousiastic with collecting the bounty money. This does not make sense.
The Man with no Name was just a marketing idea used in the USA, and for that they cut out the scene in FAFDM, in which he is named Monco.
Leones first 2 westerns are set in a fantasy west, it doesnât make much sense to search for any historical correctness. In GBU Leone sets his fantasy west story suddenly against a historical background. These 2 levels correspond with each other, but still I see there a clear dividing line between the background and the characters (unlike in OUTW). But it works extremely well, and the film as a whole is an entity.
There is no continuity in the films and no connection between those. It is the same guy somehow, but on the other hand it is not the same guy, but just a variation of the former films.
In Anthony Mannâs westerns with James Stewart it is also always more or less the same hero, with often the same clothes, still it is always a different guy by name, but always a variation of the former films.
1 Like
Yes, this has always been my understanding. The gun was just the one Clint used as Rowdy Yates in Rawhide.
The poncho wasnât intended as a linking device; it wasnât even Sergioâs idea to outfit the character with a poncho, it was Clintâs and he brought it with him from America (although I think Sergio replaced that one with one he found in Spain).
The âDollarsâ trilogy of movies are, IMHO, no more connected to one another than Once Upon a Time in the West, Once Upon a Time⌠The Revolution and Once Upon a Time in America. Both trilogies are more like Chan-wook Parkâs âVengeanceâ trilogy or Edgar Wright/Simon Peggâs âCornettoâ trilogy than true segments of a larger, overarching story such as The Godfather or The Lord of the Rings.
I donât even think Manco is especially similar to Joe or Blondie, beyond the similarities inherent in many of Clint Eastwoodâs characterisations.
Iâve never perceived those three films as a trilogy in the strict sense, rather as Leoneâs Eastwood Variations. â But since everybodyâs very busy these days, feverishly preparing for this yearâs Yukon Quest, starting February 4, I guess now is not the best time to discuss this burning question.
The 'Rawhide episode - the second, from Season 1 - was called âIncident at Alabaster Plainâ, and was aired on 16th January, 1959.
In it, Clint acquires the gun from a baddie, played by the wonderful character, actor, Mark Richman.
I could be wrong, but I donât seem to remember Eastwood, as Rowdy Yates, using the gun again, until he filmed âA Fistful of Dollarsâ. Someone please correct me, if Iâm wrong.
1 Like
Sorry mate, the way Iâve worded my post implies that the gun was Rowdy Yatesâ permanent or signature firearm when Iâve no idea whether that was the case or not (Iâve seen maybe two or three episodes, ever). What I meant was simply that Clintâs âDollars Trilogyâ gun was a nod back to his Rawhide days from whence the gun originates rather than a device establishing that his character in the three movies were one and the same. To me, this further illustrates how the movies are not connected rather than how they are, if that makes sense.
No, problem, amigo. It wasnât the way you worded your initial postâŚthat was fine, as usual, and some very good points made.
I was simply wondering if Eastwood used the gun in any other episodes, apart from the second one, of Season 1. I think this was the only appearance of the legendary snake-handled revolver - until it re-surfaced in Leoneâs westerns, of course.
In fact, if âIncident at Alabaster Plainâ was the only episode to feature the gun, I wonder why Eastwood didnât decide to use it in subsequent âRawhideâ episodes? After all, itâs a very stylish gun, and Iâm sure that the character of âRowdy Yatesâ would have been only too eager to use it as often as possibleâŚ
Funnily enough, I donât remember Clint ever using the eye-catching revolver after the âDollars Trilogyâ, in any of his subsequent WesternsâŚhe probably just wanted to completely distance himself from âThe Man With No Nameâ characterâŚ
1 Like
"Nah!..not for me, fella. The character for each film are dissimilar. Same for (Gemmaâs)- âRingoâ films, dissimilar. Anyways I got to go, I have a dentist appointment this morning.
âPull the other one!â
But that doesnât answer the point @Jukin made. In the wounded solider scene at the end of GBU Leone lets Blondie put on the very poncho Joe wears at the opening of Fistful. This is hardly incidental. By doing so it seems that Leone himself used the poncho as a linking device.
As for Eastwoodâs Peacemaker, it is only natural that it was replaced for GBU by the older Navy Colt. Even if Leone was not peculiar as to the âhistorical correctnessâ of guns, he (or someone else on the production) probably thought it not appropriate to use a gun for GBU which was introduced years after the civil war was ended. And by, at that point, choosing a Navy Colt with a silver rattlesnake grip, Leone once more creates a (small) link to the first dollar films.
Otherwise I agree that [quote=âstanton, post:428, topic:307â]
There is no continuity in the films and no connection between those. It is the same guy somehow, but on the other hand it is not the same guy, but just a variation of the former films.
[/quote]
and that
But if itâs âthe same guy somehowâ, I think itâs fair enough to say that GBU was a prequel to the others, in the sense that it is a film âwhose narrative takes place before that of a preexisting work in the same seriesâ, which was the point I think @Jukin started out with.
Have you seen this analysis of the Trio scene?
1 Like
We discussed it over on the SLWB a while ago. My comments were the following:
Interesting indeed. However, Iâm not sure if I really buy the argument. There is no reason why Baragli should have spent an equal amount of time on each character - e.g. in OUATITW the length of time spent on Elam/fly, Strode/hat and Mulock/knuckles varies considerably.
Couple of other remarks:
- âTrioâ isnât really an appropriate translation for âTrielloâ. âDuelloâ is translated as âDuelâ not âDuoâ after all.
- The introductory stuff about characters appearing from the edge of the screen is not related to editing. A little nod to Kurosawa could also have been made.
Nonetheless, an interesting take on things.
2 Likes
Not just mathematical, but musical, rhythmical and emotional.
Fans of the original theatrical cut will love this
https://www.spaghetti-western.net/index.php/Buono,_il_brutto,_il_cattivo,_Il/BluRay
1 Like
Great news about the Kino Blu-ray. Iâll wait to buy this instead of the MGM release. Itâs a pity they didnât include the Italian theatrical cut with English audio instead of the extended cut.