What book are you reading tonight?

Was wondering if anyone else here may be interested in muscle cars… I’m working on restoring a 1966 Pontiac Tempest Custom… got a 326 V8 HO and is called the “poor man’s GTO” because it looks very similar and is often cloned into a GTO

Know nothing about cars, but restoring one of these cars sounds like a rewarding challenge to me. I like to have a go at fixing things.

Actually I am in the same boat ENNIOO :slight_smile: I didn’t know anything at all about cars when I bought it, I just decided it would be a good challenge for me one day and did it… Sometimes I like to just delve into areas I have no knowledge in and see what happens, and like you say, it can be very rewarding

Here’s a photo of the Tempest, pretty much as it looks right now

I’ve often thought that I would like to do this one day.

Its fun, although I haven’t made as much progress yet as I’d like to… and I often wonder if my car will be obsolete by the time I finish, with the way things are going in the car world

Great car, autophex! I love the old mid-60s GTO/Tempest body style. Alot of the Tempests were 6 cylinders so, if you’ve got the original V-8, you’re pretty fortunate. I am a lifelong fan of the old muscle cars.

I don’t recall at the moment! I’m sure it would have been, or it’s certainly in some of my other books. Do remember seeing a nice pic of a 1970 Superbird though! I was too busy loking at other particular models!

On a sidenote i’m pretty jealous! Then again these cars aren’t practical for the UK i guess…or certainly not where i live with all the narrow, winding roads and proliferation of red routes!

I am in the midst of reading Alex Cox’s “10,000 Ways To Die: A Director’s Take on the Spaghetti Western”.
Overall, I am enjoying the experience. I knew going into this that I would disagree with many of Cox’s opinions; but, I have been surprised to find quite a few factual errors in his text! Cox usually knows EXACTLY what he is talking about, from a historical stance; but, he has made quite a few slips in this book (and I am only about midway through it).

In one example, Cox holds forth on the difference between a “poncho” and a “serape”. He says that they are largely the same thing, but that the word “poncho” is Peruvian (and/or South American), exclusively, and that “serape” is a Mexican word and therefore it is more accurate to say that Eastwood wore a serape in the Dollars films.
This is entirely wrong. A serape is a sort of rectangular blanket, longer than it is wide. Ponchos are a larger piece of woven cloth, or blanket, with a center neckhole, so that it may be worn draped in front and back (rather than simply wrapped around the body, as with a serape). I have confirmed this information with many of my Mexican friends here in Arizona and even with some Hispanic historians.
So, Eastwood wears a poncho, but Tony Anthony in the role of the Stranger wears a serape.

Another error Cox makes is he says that Corbucci picked Burt Reynolds for NAVAJO JOE even though all that Reynolds had been known for previous to this was his appearance in PLAYGIRL magazine!! What the hell…?? NAVAJO JOE was shot in '66…Reynolds didn’t appear in PLAYGIRL until the late 1970’s (and I don’t even think the magazine existed in the 60’s!). Reynolds was, like Eastwood, an American TV actor who had appeared in many shows before going to Italy to hopefully strike it rich, like his buddy Clint.

And still another error…and a very laughable one…that Cox makes is stating that the actor who portrays General Elias in QUIEN SABE (BULLET FOR THE GENERAL) is the same actor that Peckinpah cast as Angel in THE WILD BUNCH!!! This is a riot! General Elias was portrayed by the actor, Jaime Fernández, and Angel was portrayed by Jaime Sánchez. The two guys don’t even look slightly similar!!
Cox uses this error to prove his theory that Peckinpah had seen QUIEN SABE and it had influenced him to make THE WILD BUNCH. He says that his casting the same actor is proof! ha ha! I would not be surprised, at all, that Peckinpah had seen BULLET FOR THE GENERAL (he was very much interested in the Italian Westerns, so it would be logical for him to have seen this one). I do not take exception to the theory that BFTG might have had some influence on Peckinpah’s vision of THE WILD BUNCH; but, he did not use any actors that had appeared in Damiani’s film. Yes, the two actors do share the first name of Jaime; but, Tony Anthony and Tony Franciosa have the same first name, as well…and that doesn’t make them the same guy! :smiley:
Also, Cox says Peckinpah shot THE WILD BUNCH the “following year” after BULLET FOR THE GENERAL…but, it was really three years later!

There are a few other errors, but I can’t recall any of them, right now.

But, like I said at the outset, I am enjoying the experience of reading Cox’s book. I happen to really like Alex and the way he thinks about some things, even though I often disagree with his final viewpoints! I always enjoyed his on camera “interviews” and “discussions” in regards to Spaghetti Westerns…and I have always enjoyed reading his written works.
So, the book is a good, if very flawed, read…in my estimation.

Yeah there are several errors in it.

He thinks that Peckinpah might have seen Tepepa in Mexico while shooting TWB. Tepepa was released in 69, TWB was shot in 68. (which is btw only 2 years after Quien sabe)

And there are more of these things. Like Orson Welles shooting Chimes at Midnight in 69, a film which was made in the early 60s.

Chris, is there any evidence about Peckinpah liking SWs?

I all the books I have about Peckinpah there is surprisingly absolutely nothing about SWs. Except one interview in which he mentions to have seen Fod and have liked it.

[quote=“Chris_Casey, post:205, topic:1204”]I am in the midst of reading Alex Cox’s “10,000 Ways To Die: A Director’s Take on the Spaghetti Western”.
Overall, I am enjoying the experience. I knew going into this that I would disagree with many of Cox’s opinions; but, I have been surprised to find quite a few factual errors in his text! Cox usually knows EXACTLY what he is talking about, from a historical stance; but, he has made quite a few slips in this book (and I am only about midway through it).[/quote]

There are definitely errors in the book. Aren’t there always? But on the whole these are more than made up for by the enthusiasm I think. And at least they are honest errors. Unlike our friend Weisser. :wink:

Yeah, it’s not really a problem for me. Nothing which makes it a less enjoyable reading.

But he should have checked a few facts before speculating.
He says e.g. that The Great Silence is from 67 because Hughes said also so, and then another one says it because Cox had said …

He he, he should have given the manuscript for proofreading to some of us fans.

I’m not sure if we can recommend the data base at the moment, cause there are still enough errors, even if a lot of them thanks to Carlos (who does a great job there with checking different sources) and others have been corrected in the last year.

Excellent review Chris… My thoughts exactly about the book. Enjoyable, even if I didn’t always agree with his opinions (The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and the anti-Clint Eastwood thing for example).

Come on, Phil! You know you are just saying this because you are mentioned by name in the book! ;D
Now, seriously…you are absolutely right and like you said to me elsewhere, Alex’s heart is in the right place!
I love this book.

I am not sure about there being any evidence in book form; but, during one of my many conversations with my friend, LQ Jones, he told me that Sam was very interested in Leone’s films and saw them all (he particularly seemed to like the first two, FOD and FAFDM). As a matter of fact, LQ says that he accompanied Sam and Warren Oates to see FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE. LQ has also said that Sam tried to see as many Italian Westerns from other directors as he could as he found “the ideas in them interesting”–but, I am guessing that he didn’t go out of his way to track down prints of anything not widely distributed in US theaters. That is why I said it might be plausible that Peckinpah saw BULLET FOR THE GENERAL as it had fairly good distribution in the USA. But, frankly, I don’t think he saw it.
Thanks for the correction on the shooting date for THE WILD BUNCH, by the way–I was merely thinking of the film’s release date when I wrote that.

I certainly don’t agree with Alex in regards to Clint Eastwood; but, I honestly have to say that I do agree with him regarding THE GOOD, THE BAD & THE UGLY. I am only a marginal fan of this film. I like it and understand why others think it is so great; but, I also happen to think it is one of Leone’s weaker films and that the shorter version (the only one that was available on DVD before the 2-disc special edition) is much, much better. I actually sold off my 2-disc set and kept the older MGM DVD of GBU!

At any rate, Cox’s book really is a lot of fun and I recommend it!

Is he? Which page is his name on?

I don’t know… I think if you’re going to write a book on a factual subject you should really do your research properly. Not read this updated version but i do have the old one on file somewhere. This kind of reminds me on a book on Hammer films i once bought that was written by a supposed lifelong fan and it was littered with mistakes…some of them really bad ones. The old book was fun but still, you’d think an update might correct stuff. OK it’s nowhere near as bad as the Weisser book but what is!

BTW…what’s this thing about Eastwood? I read that old downloaded book years ago and can’t remember much of what was written about him. That said, for me Eastwood is an OK actor but nothing special to me and when i watch the Dollars films it’s more for the supporting characters really.

I agree 100 %.

Will not be making a purchase, so at least it saves me some cash :slight_smile: . I do like enthusiasm for Spaghetti westerns of course and that is why I visit this forum on a daily basis.

Fair point about errors. But to be honest, I think the value of the book is for the opinions not the facts. Giusti or Bruckner are better for that. (although it seems even they make mistakes too despite their thorough approach).

I would say Alex’s book is of interest to the fan rather than the novice. It shouldn’t be seen as a ‘definitive’ work on the subject. Rather a personal discussion on it. On those terms it is excellent and always interesting. Like Chris, I don’t agree with everything he suggests but, to me, that makes it more interesting.

Not sure what Alex’s opinion is of Eastwood in truth but he certainly gives him a bit of a hard time in the book and I suspect he doesn’t rate him that highly as a director. He is also pretty unforgiving on Leone and his films although he still admits to admiring the films greatly. I know that one of his ideas for the book was to look at those other names who are often ignored by those unfamiliar with the genre which is why Corbucci actually gets centre stage for the most part. Maybe he thought that Eastwood and Leone both get enough praise and felt like offering some criticism for a change.

Well, he bashes Corbucci enough. More than I had expected.

My thoughts also. For the fan. And a good addition to the ones I already have. (Frayling and Hughes from the English language ones)

[quote=“Chris_Casey, post:211, topic:1204”]Come on, Phil! You know you are just saying this because you are mentioned by name in the book! ;D
Now, seriously…you are absolutely right and like you said to me elsewhere, Alex’s heart is in the right place!
I love this book.[/quote]

I must be honest and say I was quite chuffed to get a mention. 8)
But I do genuinely think the book is worth having for any fan. Faults and all.