I watched them both at least 2 times. It has for me nothing to do with the order in which I saw them. Sheriff is filled with ideas which I can enjoy, is still funny on any re-watch. The other isn’t, or only in a few scenes.
Son of Paleface I only saw as a child, and it was incredibly funny then. It would be interesting to see it again now. The Paleface I saw as an adult, and it could not live up to my expectations.
I plan on revisiting GUNFIGHTER. I recorded it on the DVR, and missed a few minutes towards the end.
I was enjoying reading the art/entertainment debate and wanted to add my two-penneth… (I did want to pick up on various quotes but I can’t seem to multiple quote for some reason.)
I disagree that if one person calls something ‘art’ then it is so - and tend to side with scherpy on this, but I found Stanton’s quote here interesting, but is something that I can’t do - mainly out of ignorance. If we are judging the art and/or enjoyment of westerns, then I can barely do within its own genre parameters - let alone the wider confines of ‘cinema’. But I’m sure Stanton can.
Joseph Beuys said “Every human being is an artist… I don’t just mean people who produce paintings and sculptures or play the piano… for me a nurse is also an artist…”
This overly-generous statement takes Duchamp’s concept of the ready-made from the sublime to the ridiculous. But, Beuys is an important artist – far more so than I. But my thoughts fall within the more widely generally accepted theories. And like them, I believe there are stricter, although fluid, boundaries that contain what can be classed as Art. History, and what’s in fashion, has shown that fluidity is necessary. High Art as represented maybe by one of the many Renaissance Madonna and Child paintings of its day did not have its primary function to be art, but to enable its patron to buy a ticket to the everlasting, and to focus devotion for its observers. It was commercial propaganda and status affection.
On the other hand, ‘Low brow’ painting– pin striping, signwriting etc. may still end up in a “The Art Of…” books because within its own canon it is acknowledged that there can be a very high level of skill at play – even comparable with the skill of the former. As Stanton says “It’s called art cause it is not easy to make.” And equally true is El Topo’s “… not the form but the concept.” It is from this combination of skill and concept that most value-judge stuff as to whether it is good or bad art. But, as with the high and low examples given, these are all commercial pieces - to a respectively lower or higher degree. None of it is “Art for Art’s sake”. And very little is. Most, (even conceptual art) has one eye on the commercial aspect and on the intellectual arbiters of worth, or as scherpy calls them “… a small group of critics and gallery holders. It’s a sort of incest.” Yes, and with them, the Art historians, the theorists, the philosophers, and an indeterminate number of charlatans, have all profited from the art-fudge that they propagate.
Although a big minority and a wealthy one, Stanton says it’s “…entertainment for a minority… too complicated to be understood by everyone.” It’s the old “I don’t know much about art, but I know what I like” syndrome. And I would agree that the majority of people judge art by its ‘entertainment’ value – prioritising an obvious skill over even a simple idea. Better yet when a concept is recognised and ‘agreed’ with. And nothing wrong with that.
When I first saw Face to Face, I had little contextual understanding of its place within history or the western genre, and cared less for its commercial value. I was just entertained - and in being so was moved emotionally – as much so as by some more traditional art that I understood more on an intellectual level. It had that measure of the sublime, for me, that they call “aura”.
That aura can be found, regardless of a conscious understanding (although the subconscious may be at play here) is art (high or low), in craft or designed artefact, or in the object d’art.
Art is usually judged good or bad in regards to the best within its own canon, but a renaissance Madonna can still be judged against a Cubist Picasso, as there are enough points of contact that we recognise to make it possible, paint, canvas, subject etc. but it would not be so easy to judge the Picasso painting with a totemic African mask (the knowledgeable here might though), or an 18th century enamelled snuff box (harder), no matter should they all be housed in the same museum. But you can recognise some ‘art’ within any of them and be moved or entertained by any one over another.
Cinema is an art form within the creative arts. And there are fluid boundaries to the genres within this… Spaghetti westerns could be described as having a discrete canon of their own (although they can still be judged within the Western canon as a whole as comparisons can be easily made by most). The Leone’s are popularly regarded as the benchmark to judge our other spags against. His films have, by popular choice, become the accepted paradigms – they have been canonised. But all films have to have some level of ‘art’ (skill/concept/creativity verses compromise) within them. They have to have - because they belong within an accepted artistic canon. Deep Throat does; And The Crows Will Dig Your Grave does, - but just not very much compared to the paradigms of their respected canons (could somebody tell me what D.T.s is please ::)).
And with my simple and underdeveloped knowledge of cinema in general I judge and score (out of five – it’s the accepted tradition here since SD left) my films by the sub-genre (or canon) of “spaghetti western”. I don’t have enough skill or knowledge to contextualise them outside these narrow boundaries. Which is why Fidani’s Dead Men Don’t Make Shadows can get 4 stars in my book and not stanton’s. He, on the other hand, has much more knowledge of cinema and can probably metaphorically judge African masks against snuffboxes if he so chooses. And that sounds like entertainment to me. 
so art is a dinamic concept that has chaged over the times.
Rev statement mde me think, while in the Renaissance the 2artist2 was a working men, he had to work (and please his patron to survive from his work), many artists today can, in a general way, be considered by the commum person as dilitants, still Jef koons is an artist in my book, as… Nick Cave is.
So in the end what we are saying in different ways is that an artitist is only an artist if his able to reach success, now or in the future.
Thanks rev great post
Today - Tremors 4: The Legend Begins (Wilson, 2004). Is this a western? Personally I’d have said no, it’s primarily a Tremors prequel, making it a horror/action/comedy that happens to be set in the old American west. Much the same way as I don’t consider, say, Carry On… Cowboy a western since its primary function is as a “Carry On” franchise comedy, one that this time takes place in the west. Or Back to the Future Part III, or Dead Birds, Exit Humanity etc. etc. But I stuck it in here anyway since it’s certainly western enough that many may well consider it a western of sorts. Anyway, it was pretty good, significantly better than either parts 2 (which wasn’t too bad, really) and 3 (which was dull, dull, dull). I won’t be rushing out to buy the Tremors films anytime soon (although if I saw the blus at an irresistable enough price, I might be tempted into an impulse buy), but they’ve proved decent enough Sunday afternoon diversions, particularly the first and last entries.
But are they art? 
[quote=“El Topo, post:11244, topic:141”]so art is a dinamic concept that has chaged over the times.
Rev statement mde me think, while in the Renaissance the 2artist2 was a working men, he had to work (and please his patron to survive from his work), many artists today can, in a general way, be considered by the commum person as dilitants, still Jef koons is an artist in my book, as… Nick Cave is.
So in the end what we are saying in different ways is that an artitist is only an artist if his able to reach success, now or in the future.
Thanks rev great post[/quote]
Yes a great post
I don’t know if it’s all about success, but yes, there has to be some kind of recognition, sooner or later. Most people write little poems when they’re young and madly in love with than unattainable girl or boy from high school, but therefore they aren’t poets. We only call a person a poet when people around the globe, who don’t know him (or her), are moved by his words.
I’ve been reading this lovely off topic ‘arty’ stuff here with great enjoyment. It’s a prime example of why this is the only forum I spend any time on. Where else will you find a disagreement about the merits of an old western transformed into a prolonged debate about the nature of art and no one accused of being a c**t. Love it.
So, for my tuppence worth on the subject I suppose I fall closer to Stanton’s more open stance on the characterisation of art without agreeing wholly. A bit surprising maybe as I tend to be more of a stickler when categorising things. (see my oft repeated and stringent view of what constitutes a proper western for example) But, for me, all art is purely about communication. Often on an emotional level but also perhaps on a more intellectual one. Stanton says ‘entertain’ but I wouldn’t go quite that far. I think that infers a diversion and simple diversion doesn’t cut it as art in my book. But when a diversion or entertainment sneaks up on me with something extra that makes me think or feel something unexpected or deeper than a bit of jollity then art has come into play and that can happen in the most surprising and commercial circumstances. Where I think mine and Stanton’s positions coincide here is the feeling that that moment of communication between the work and the consumer is mine and mine alone. Millions may share my experience or no one might but if the work (whatever it might be) speaks to me and I respond to it then we are in Artsville baby and no one else’s opinions matter a great deal at that point. Because it is not even restricted to what the artist intended now but also what I bring to it myself. As such, art can be almost anywhere just so long as there is a communication of ideas or emotions. Alongside that, there can also be a pure level of skilful craftsmanship which transcends the form and becomes a thing of wonder in itself. This perhaps sounds like mere aesthetics but I think can come closer to what the Rev called the ‘sublime’. A feeling of awe, whether in what the piece is depicting or in how it is constructed in itself.
At base though, all this is personal and, for me anyway, that is how it should be.
Today: El Puro (Mulargia, 1969). What a belter! An archetypal Spag for me, everything I look for in one. Was it a deliberate aesthetic decision by director Edoardo Mulargia to not have any other characters bar those that have a role in the story, or is it supposed to be a ghost town? I want to imagine that Mr. Mulargia just cast his eye over the town-populating extras on day one of shooting and said, “You know what? Send 'em all home.” Gives incredible focus to the story, and lends an other-worldly and dreamlike - almost supernatural, in a way - feel to proceedings, which is a feel that I think really befits the genre, bizarre as it might seem on the face of it. Slow-burn, violent, nasty, revenge-heavy, and sparsely populated (but populated as it is by hugely interesting looking characters, top to bottom), and with a magnificent score by (checks) Alessandro Alessandroni, VERY derivative of Morricone’s TG,tB&tU, but in a good way, if that makes sense. I was humming along to it immediately, even though I’d never heard it before. This movie’s got a lot going for it, if you likes your Spags up the Django Kill/Matalo end of things (not that El Puro’s as downright weird as either of those by a stretch, but it DOES possess a similarly unnerving tone). I note that it’s in the SWDB Alternative Big 20, and bloody right too. Really glad I caught this one.
Today: A Stranger in Town (Vanzi, 1966). Strange, I absolutely loved El Puro yesterday for being “slow-burn, violent, nasty… and sparsely populated”; this film trumps that one on all four counts and then some, yet I found myself far less connected to it, and even checking my watch a good 30 minutes before the end of its swift 83(ish)min runtime. So if A Stranger in Town possessed all those qualities that I respond to, only MORE so, what was the problem? I dunno. I DID like it, I remember thinking to myself in the first ten minutes, this is going to be a cracker. And in many ways, it was. It IS very sparse, very slow, very nasty and violent. There’s a lot to like here. But… well, maybe you can have too much of a good thing. For dialogue, it makes Cemetery Without Crosses look like Pulp Fiction. Huge swathes of the movie roll past with not a word spoken. Just the score, very standard and unimaginative for the most part, with one of the more monotonous and irritating main themes I’ve heard in a while underpinning it all. And… hmm; this is the second Tony Anthony film I’ve seen (I watched the okay-but-underwhelming Blindman several weeks ago) and I don’t think I’m buying into him as a lead guy.
All of that said, a film which contains so much of what I like about the Spaghetti Western simply can’t be ignored. These are my immediate, just-watched-it thoughts, and I’m already wanting to give it another crack. That’s definitely a positive.
I love Tony Anthony. Have to admit I enjoy all his spaghetti work.
He may well grow on me yet. I had a real distaste for William Berger early on on my Spag Western journey, but I’ve quite taken to him now. I’m definitely going to give A Stranger in Town another go, and soon, because I watched it on YouTube and these things don’t always stay on there for very long.
I hope you like it more with your repeated viewing.
This evening: Santana Killed Them All (Marchent, 1970). Likeable enough in an offbeat manner, but it’s all a bit of a mess, really. An episodic Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid wannabee buddy movie that tries to straddle that no-mans-land between the violent Spags of the sixties and the knockabout slapstick comedy Spags of the seventies but fails to be both, and in trying fails also to be either one thing or the other. The movie features a charming and spirited performance from Guglielmo Spoletini but a phoned-in, almost bored turn from Gianni “SANtana-not-SARtana-even-though-they’re-all-calling-me-SARtana-despite-being-nothing-like-SARtana” Garko, deciding that a vague allusion to Robert Redford in his tassled jacket will suffice. The female love interest was appropriately sexy enough though, as is often the case. Did they all decide to live as a weird trio of lovers at the end? They’ll wind up on Jeremy Kyle, mark my words.
As I said, it’s a light-hearted and easy enough sojourn, I’ll give it that. And the set-pieces, taken in isolation, are rather fun. One section featuring a badass family of nutjob brothers and their hideous crippled patriarch was probably worthy of expansion into a larger (better) movie on its own. But a lack of focus, a lack of direction kept me from truly committing to this movie.
Stranger in Town has grown on me over the years… but is one that I did not like much at all on first viewing, and had a similar reaction to last.caress
in my case i totally loved Stranger in town on first viewing
Cowboys & Aliens
-I was pleasantly surprised by this crazy film because I was basically expecting nothing.
The cast is mostly very good, I especially liked Clancy Brown and Harrison. Craig could have been better though, he obviously forgot the most important rule of acting in a western: choose your hat with care. He looks like a village idiot in is stupid looking hat.
I would re-watch Cowboys & Aliens solely for cowgirley Olivia Wilde
[quote=“Stanton, post:11257, topic:141”]I would re-watch Cowboys & Aliens solely for cowgirley Olivia Wilde[/quote]Yes, she was stunning.
A great discussion on art - as Phil said, only here could we leap from Spaghetti Westerns to invoking Marcel Duchamp…
Once of the concepts that did come up that I found intriguing was the differentiation between high and low art; Sherp said (I’m not even going to try quoting) that “I tend to overlook shortcomings in B-movies that would ruin a movie made by a Leone, Ford or Peckinpah” and compared it to football: different leagues. Yet while on one level this is true, our expectations are tempered by a variety of contextual information we know about a film, I’m not sure it’s a particularly useful delineation. Art, all art, cinema included, is all about constraint, even if only the constraint’s of the artist’s mind, and films show this exceptionally clearly. From the studio to competing artistic authorities (scriptwriter, director) etc, ect, and so a “true” B-movie is purely a product of financial constraint or considerations. Of course, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to call a (relatively) cheap Film Noir like The Big Sleep art, whereas, from the same era, who really considers Duel in the Sun as art? So is about original intention? A film like Duel in the Sun is blatantly trading on it’s audience base instincts: sex, violence, sentimentality. The Big Sleep though; Hawks’ always denied he was ever making anything more than entertainments. Is the latter simply a more accomplished version of the former (sex and violence is present in Hawks as well as sentimentality). So high/low genres perhaps don’t necessarily exist (Westerns are far more respected than biblical epics these days), only high/low fashions.
Tarantino is an interesting example because, despite having large budgets, big-name stars, his intentions are usually very similar to exploitation films of the seventies, yet we hold his films, I think, to a higher expected artistic standard than say, the original Inglorious Bastards. Why? Is it due to the overall consensus/fashion to consider his films to be of a better quality and thus change our expectations? He transgresses between the Premier League and the Second Division in terms of resources and intentions, to continue Sherp’s analogy. Art I would say is possible in all surroundings and come from even the basest intentions (to simply entertain the audience by pandering to the lowest common denominator) and so our expectations for film/art are really nothing to do with what art is/can be but societal prejudices (which is why Spaghetti Westerns were initially panned by critics; they couldn’t possibly be “authentic” Westerns as they weren’t American) which change, like fashions, and so our expectations alter over time. So to give a “free Pass” if you like, to (certain) artistic errors in an exploitation film that wouldn’t be “allowed” in a Leone/Peckinpah/Ford seems to be automatically pre-judging what that film can be. On the other hand, that raises question of how free from biases and ancillary information we can ever actually be when approaching art…
UNFORGIVEN