Comparing A Fistful of Dollars with most classical Hollywood Westerns, a traditional style was to portray the heroes with honour. Obviously they had morals and values where as Joe doesn't as he is just driven by money and the intent to exploit.
Do you think he is honourable at all?
[deleted]
I think it is quite obvious that he has honour.
The man with no name without a doubt has questionable morals and values and he is most certainly driven by money. But even if his morals are ambiguous, he is not a completely bad guy. He wouldn't shoot innocent people and he wouldn't shoot an unarmed man in the back. He is positively nice compared to the Baxters and the Rojos. (Every spaghetti western works along those lines).
But the question if he has honour can only be answered with yes. He helps Marisol and her family, without getting anything in return. He could have just left her to her own devices. But he doesn't.
Jessica Rabbit
"I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."
"A traditional style (of western) was to portray the heroes with honour."
Traditional, but not realistic. When famed lawman, brothel keeper and fight fixer Wyatt Earp arrived in Tombstone he said "I'm here for the killing."
Most, but not all, Spaghetti Western protagonists are usually given more personal reasons to wipe out the villains past only money, though there are exceptions like THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY (Angel Eyes never gives Blondie any reason to kill him past money, though Tuco would have plenty of reasons to shoot the former), and ANY GUN CAN PLAY (the protagonists share the money at the end, but they are never motivated by anything else).
shareTraditional, but not realistic. When famed lawman, brothel keeper and fight fixer Wyatt Earp arrived in Tombstone he said "I'm here for the killing."
I think Earp meant a financial killing...at first.
shareHe's not driven by money. The audience is deliberately misled to think that he is. His motivation was to save Marisol and her family because they reminded him of his own childhood where no one was there to help. This is why the first thing he sees in the film is the brutal treatment of the kid. Maybe that's just my interpretation though.
shareLeone and Eastwood wanted the audience to fill in the blanks and would not have disagreed with you, necessarily.
shareexactly
I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.
Of course - he gives all his 'Blood Money' to Marisol/Maria and Julián/Joseph so they can flee (to Egypt?) and save the life of Jesus.
Maybe there are other Bible-allegories?
Honor is just the excuse people use when they decide to do something that they know, deep down, is irrational or immoral.
I don't think the Man With No Name has any honor, and he's a better person for it.
he has no Honor
shareI think when he gives Marisol the fistful of dollars to help her escape the bloodshed, that was his redeeming moment.
Granted, I think I wrote elsewhere on this board that that particular scene seemed almost tacked-on, to make Eastwood seem like more of a "good guy" than just some cool dude who snuffed people four or five at a time.