MovieChat Forums > Ognuno per sé Discussion > Good spaghetti Western but why ...

Good spaghetti Western but why ...


I'm not a great fan of spaghetti Westerns but watched this because the cast included the dependable Van Heflin and Gilbert Roland. The former especially did well in this film, and I really felt for his tribulations and despair in the first part.

But why didn't the gang that robbed him at the river inspect the contents of the sacks?

Why did Sam pour away into the river the gold contents of some of the sacks? If he'd concealed the sacks nearby, there would've been a good chance they would not have been discovered. He can't have been too far from the town as, despite being exhausted, he was able to walk - with two bags of gold - to it, and he could have returned within a few days to retrieve the cache.

Yes, I know: in these cases there would have been no film!

And why ambush the four men at the ruined village on their outward journey - unless it was to capture Sam and make him reveal the location of his mine?

(And how did the marshal's badge end up at the mine?)

Still, a good film, well worth watching.

reply

I just saw the film last night and was wondering about some of these same questions. Here are some possibilities:

The gang must've inspected the sacks but -- not being metallurgists -- they likely thought the contents were worthless. Being without horses, the old prospector could only take so much gold from the sacks on his walk thru the desert to the town, which he barely made it to alive. As for why he dumped the additional sacks in the river, he didn't have the time/energy (being aged) to hide these extra sacks with the understanding that he knew there was way more gold at his mine.

Your speculation about the ambush at the dilapidated mission/village is likely correct.

I'm not sure about the marshal's badge.

reply