Squonkamatic wrote:
So he was wrong about the film
No,
you are wrong. If "Death Rides a Horse" (DRAH) struck Ebert as a bad Western then to him it's a bad Western, whether you agree or not. Film viewing is a
subjective endeavor, not objective.
DEATH RIDES A HORSE must have been almost shockingly violent when it was first released and helps to set the tone for Italian westerns in general, which were made for adults.
No, they were aimed at 12-24 year-olds in light of their comic booky tone and cardboard thin non-characters. There are no human characters in these films, only crude caricatures. There are no human problems, only melodramatic devices. There are no moral conflicts, only contrived clichés of revenge.
Take Blondie (Eastwood) in "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly," often hailed as the quintessential Spaghetti Western (and one of my favorites): He's one-dimensional and amoral; all he cares about is getting the gold. Compare this to the intriguing character of Shane in 1953's "Shane" or Camanche Todd (Widmark) in 1956's "The Last Wagon." Generally speaking, the violence in Spaghetti Westerns is cartoony, rather than realistic; it's aimed at pleasing juveniles more so than adults. Mature people, on the other hand, require actual characters with realistic and complex human qualities to interest and satisfy them.
The difference between American Westerns and Spaghetti Westerns, general speaking, is an interesting study of the distortions that can take place in the course of translation from one culture and language to another. The mythology of the Spaghetti Western is a warped, simplistic,
childlike variation on the original theme; its morality is twisted beyond recognition and the character of its protagonist -- often a ruthless super-efficient killer with a cruel sense of humor -- is a lunatic's
cartoon caricature of the American Western hero, combining the super-human adolescence of American 'B' cowboys with the grubby flip cynicism of modern (at the time) anti-heroics. The motivations of these non-heroes are limited to three: revenge, greed and lechery.
Later in his paragraph Squonkamatic says that American Westerns are "less complex in their structure" than Italo Westerns. I find it hard to believe that he's serious? Ebert even pokes fun at the
simple predictability of Spaghetti Westerns in his review of DRAH:
Or you can try to unravel the puzzles of mistaken or double identity upon which the plots of spaghetti Westerns always seem to depend. The heroes of these films would save a lot of time if they'd accept one simple rule of thumb: Generally speaking, everyone they meet is either (a) the man who killed their families 15 years ago, (b) a stranger who is after the same villains for mysterious reasons of his own, or (c) their father, brother or son.
Alas, it generally takes two hours for these connections to be established.
Italo Westerns are so simplistic plot-wise that they can be condensed into the repetitions of two basic plots (generally speaking):
1. A settlement is beleaguered by a powerful bandit gang until the protagonist saves the community by butchering every last bad guy.
2. The protagonist is out to steal an enormous hoard of gold bullion, usually from the Mexican army, but first he must wipe out several ferocious rivals for the treasure.
The executions of these plots range from the mildly implausible to the wildly ludicrous, which shows that they're intended for juveniles and the juvenile-minded, not adults who appreciate realism and three-dimensional characters.
Further evidence can be observed in how the people who populate Italo Westerns rarely smile except when they express a jeering, scornful attitude toward others. They're all angry and violent. Women exist to be abused. And the bad guys are predictably stupid; when they have the chance to kill the good guys, they make excuses why they need to wait. It's a decidedly one-dimensional world.
As for Spaghetti Westerns being more violent, this is true but its typically so overdone it comes across as action in a comic book and is thus obviously intended for juveniles or the juvenile-minded. The violence in, say, "Shane" is so effective because it's realistic and doesn't take place until the characters and their situation are fleshed-out in a three-dimensional sense. Two good examples from "Shane" are when Stonewall Torrey is gunned down in the mud by the gunfighter and Shane's final stand with Ryker's bunch. Wayne's "The Alamo" from 1960 is another good example. People can lambaste this movie all they want, but the characters are well established before the third act where the action comes across as shocking and utterly savage. This effect is partly accomplished in these movies by simply contrasting the brutal violence with the mundaneness of the lives of ordinary three-dimensional people. As such, the violence is more moving and disturbing than the brutal action in, say, "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" where it indeed comes across as thrilling, but in a Road Runner cartoon kind of way.
Consider the violence in DRAH: It appears right out of the gate with the ee-vil gang killing & raping the innocent family; but that's not enough, they have to burn down their dwelling as well. The sequence is so overdone that, rather than being "shocked" (as Squonkamatic insists), I laughed, particularly when the dude turns around at the end and shoots the gas lamp, thus starting the fire. This is
comic book stuff, not mature material.
It also should be pointed out that often when a young critic is getting their start the negative reviews they write are perhaps even more important than the fawning ones and Ebert may have been itching for some defenseless film to dish it out on -- what better choice than a low budget, amoral Italian made western?
I doubt it because there are more than enough bad movies to go around, then or now. If you're familiar with Ebert's writings & reviews then you know he shares his gut feeling, whether your agree with him or not. As such, we can confidently conclude that he simply felt DRAH was a bad Italo Western. What's the big deal? Do you seriously think it's some Western masterpiece. Sure, Ennio Morricone's score is great, but what about the rest of the movie? Honestly, how does it compare to classic American Westerns like "Stagecoach," "Buffalo Bill," "Shane," "The Last Wagon," "The Horse Soldiers," "The Alamo" and "One-Eyed Jacks"?
His response is that the star rating does not always indicate that the movie isn't interesting or enjoyable,
Ebert has said that he doesn't believe in giving star ratings, but evidently
had to as a newspaper critic. As the years went by and he accumulated five decades of movie reviews he decided to stick to the original 4-Star scale for the sake of consistency (in light of his numerous volumes of critiques), but he'd be the first to tell you that whether or not someone likes a movie is a subjective matter. For instance, Roger railed against 1989's "Dead Poets Society" whereas I think it's a thoroughly inspiring masterpiece and one of my all-time favorites.
Despite my disagreements with Squonkamatic on these issues he wrote a noteworthy piece on this thread. And, for the record, I appreciate Spaghetti Westerns for what they are, including DRAH. So please don't rip me apart for criticizing them; I'm just being honest about what they are in comparison to traditional American Westerns. I like
both, actually.
My 175 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/
reply
share