The Seven from Texas / Antes llega la muerte (Joaquín Luis Romero Marchent, 1964)

Spaghetti Westerns
#1

SETTE DEL TEXAS 1964 Robert Hundar Gloria Milland Paul Piaget Fernando Sancho

Directed : Joaquim Romero Marchent Spain/Italy SW

Extremely influential, classic, cult SW made in 1964 by the prolific Spanish director
Joaquim Romero Marchent it is inspired by the masterful MAGNIFICENT SEVEN 1960.

A rich landowner from Texas needs to transport his desperately ill wife across a desert
and through bands of savage Indians. He hires seven men to help him and his wife.
Along the danger strewn route, death, love, passion, betrayal all make this a classic film

DISCUSS this Cult SW…

#2

Are there any SWs which are not cult westerns?

#3

NO ALL SWs are definitely CULT and GREAT :stuck_out_tongue:
This 7 FROM TEXAS 1964 is especially CULT/GREAT/INNOVATIVE.

Unless you happen to be a miserable, humourless, director fetish obsessed “inadequate”.

I am sure we dont know know anybody like that eh Stanton ? :’( :wink: ;D

#4

No, I think such a species surely has never existed on this planet. He he

#5

[quote=“SARTANA DJANGO, post:3, topic:823”]Unless you happen to be a miserable, humourless, director fetish obsessed “inadequate”.

I am sure we dont know know anybody like that eh Stanton ? :’( :wink: ;D[/quote]

Well, my sanity is in question, so maybe …

#6

JOKES and split personas apart … ;D

I have to confess that any SW that contains elements of revenge/justice and is similar to

THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN 1960

Any such Sw is very attractive and likely to be much enjoyed by myself. :smiley:

#7

[move][size=40pt]CULT[/size][/move]

#8

In a philosophical way of viewing, if everything is cult, then this is the same as nothing is cult!

#9

SW is a cult-genre = anti-mainstream

Can’t be too hard to understand Stanton?

#10

hmm, but the SW WAS a mainstream genre in the 60s. That’s tricky!

#11

You might have a point there, but the important thing is what it is today for us.

#12

No not exactly mainstream, they were low-budget genre-movies, but of course they did well financially with audiences.

On the other hand they were more looked-down on than today by critics for example, not considered to have any artistic qualities, too violent and nihilistic.

#13

Of course, NOW it is an cult genre. But that doesn’t mean that every SW is cult.

If you call every SW cult you also devalue the term cult a bit.

At least everyone has his own idea about which film is cult and which not.

#14

Lindberg you have made an excellent argument for SW being CULT and GREAT :o

Exactly as I stated earlier and I have been looking at Film Credits for Directors:

JOAQUIM and RAFAEL ROMERO MARCHENT

are 2 prolific/ outstanding/ excellent Spanish Directors who have directed CULT SWs Etc.

I have seen their names as directors of so many marvellous Westerns and SWs :smiley:

#15

[quote=“stanton, post:13, topic:823”]Of course, NOW it is an cult genre. But that doesn’t mean that every SW is cult.

If you call every SW cult you also devalue the term cult a bit.

At least everyone has his own idea about which film is cult and which not.[/quote]

I think you confuse cult with cult-following, it’s not quite the same thing.

Cult-genre is anti-mainstream genre.

But then of course there are individual films that have a big cult-following but are not genre-movies.

Clockwork Orange is considered a film with a cult-following, so is Rocky Horror Picture Show, Star Wars has a huge cult-following.

But these films don’t belong to any low-budget B-movie genre, see the difference?

#16

Now I don’t know exactly what you mean.

#17

Well, the SW-genre itself is cult (=different from the mainstream, dedicated fans) but every single SW-film is of course not so special or admired.

But every single SW-film is part of the SW-genre and therefore they are all cult.

But you are right that the SW-genre didn’t have the same cult-status back in the 60s as it has today of course.

They were popular B-movies or semi B-movies, some had higher budgets and were better made than others, as we all know.

#18

But I already had said that the SW as a whole is now a cult genre.

On the other hand I would only a few of the films describe as cult movies. And there is no clear definition which particular movie is cult and which not. You decide.

What i hadn’t understand is the difference between Cult and Cult Following. The latter is imo only another paraphrase for Cult.

#19

Yes you did, my mistake.

OUATITW I think is considered a cult-movie on it’s own, it has many different fans.

#20

Cult and cult following are both derived from the latin ‘cultus’, adoration, care. Still I have the feeling that ‘cult’ is used for (rather strong) enthusiam of a relatively homogeneous and large group of people, and of a more temporary character; another aspect of ‘cult’ seems to me that it’s related to films that are mainstream nor middle brow, so neither Peter Jackson nor Woody Allen can be called cult. And it certainly isn’t avant garde.

The chop choy movies, Bruce Lee and the likes, were cult in the early seventies; I guess there are still people devoted to them, but they have become very rare: in Holland some ten or twelve Shaw brother movies were released, and they weren’t particularly succesful, in fact they became dead stock very soon. (I saw Bruce’s The Big Boss for 2,99 € this morning).

To have a cult following, is an expression that has - to me - a less temporary, more structural meaning; the group of people worshiping the movie(s) usually is very variable (moviegoers, critics, filmmakers, reverends, philosophers) and the movie(s) can be pulp, mainstream, any kind of brow or even avant garde. Jackson, Allen, Leone, Tati, Fellini, Tarantino, they all can have a cult following.