|
Because it's all good. There's nothing bad or ugly about this film. Here is the third part of the not so three part
review series of this not so much a trilogy group of films. This is by far the most philosophical film of the three, and
yet at the same time the simplest. By this I mean that the plot is the simplest (I gave 'Dollars More' a higher score because
I believed that the characters in that film were more developed and there was more of a plot there than in the other two films)
and the main objective is simple, but the characters themselves are not as simple as they seem, nor is the actual execution
of the film simple. I know that everyone refers to these three films as a trilogy because of Mr. Eastwood and his
Man With No Name, and I can understand why this is so, but to be honest I find it hard to see them as a trilogy. For one
thing, Lee Van Cleef's two characters in the second and third films cannot be the same man, because Angel Eyes dies. Chronologically,
this third film comes before the other two, and I think that the second comes last (chronologically). The obvious clue to
this is that here Blondie gradually acquires his outfit for the other two films, and so you know he is developing as a character.
Also, in the other two films, he is more good than he is here. He is still the anti-hero, crossing and double crossing the
people he calls friends or whose side he claims to be on, but he loses some of his rough edges after this film. Here he is
after the gold and will go to any means to get it. He also puts his friend Tuco in danger in order to cheat the justice system
and claim more reward money when the escaped convict many times over is caught again. But in the other films he is more or
less a bounty hunter, only betraying those who deserve it, and are not friends. He kills for money, true, but money is not
his primary objective. It seems to be justice and peace, by any means necessary. Mr. Van Cleef's character in this film
poses confusion, I know. But I believe he is here simply because Mr. Leone thought it would be interesting to give him a
different role to play in a similar film to that of 'Dollars More' (originally he wasn't to be in the film, but the actor
Mr. Leone wanted was unavailable, so Mr. Van Cleef was called). This is really a trilogy for Mr. Eastwood's character, and
no one else. The films are not supposed to tie into together and are not to be taken as a single part, but rather three stories
of the Man With No Name, this man in three situations. First we have who he is and what he does ('Fistfull of Dollars').
Then we have him branching out and meeting his match ('Dollars More'). Finally we have how he came to be ('Good/Bad'). As
is the style with these films, we don't really know who he is, where he came from, and anything about him previous 'Good/Bad'.
Much is left to be uncovered or guessed at by the audience. It's obvious that these characters in this last film have seedy
pasts and there's more to them than meets the eye. We must decide for ourselves what we think this is. They are complex,
but not made so by what we are told, but what they do and say, how they act. We simply know this. This is one of the interesting
things about these three films; in many movies complex characters have their stories told (or part of it) and they develop
before us. We are told about them, but we also see how they behave and come to realize their complexity. Not so with Mr.
Leone here; these characters have developed themselves (and so there is little room for Blondie or whatever you choose to
call him to change in the other films). We are interested in them from the start, rather than become interested in them as
we go along the film. Depending on who you are this is good or bad; I find it fascinating. The film has obvious
religious undertones, and death is a major theme. It's hard to say if these characters are meant to be religious figures
or allegories (more Leone puzzles) but they certainly can be. The Good is goodness, grace, holyness (although that's stretching
it a bit in this film); the bad is evil, everything and everyone associated with evil (corruption, etc.); the ugly is sin.
Of course, good prevails, but the ugly is still around, being punished for what it does eventually and continuously. Death
is all around us in this film, death and judgement. Good Blondie does not run from death, and is not afraid of it, even when
he's got a noose around his neck and almost hangs, courtesy of Tuco. The film does not present any specific message, but
it's obviously stating that greed is bad and that there are better things in llife than money. Blondie always shares with
Tuco, even in the end after all that Tuco had put him through. Blondie even goes through a 'punishment' in the desert, being
forced to walk it in midday, being tempted by Tuco with water and food. His suffering is Biblical in tone and obviously draws
on Bible stories. You don't have to examine your conscious after watching this and the film doesn't ask you to. More Leone
puzzles; this film lets you take away from it what you will, and doesn't get too preachy or religious, nor does it try to
force things at you. You interpret it as you will, how you will. Mr. Leone does well in doing this. I won't say
that this is one of the greatest films ever made, but it is fantastic. It's art. All three of these films are art, but there
is something about this one which is different than the others. The way the director commands our attention and hypes suspense
is admirable. You would expect the acting, the directing, and the music (among other things) to be perfect, and they are.
It's a complex film, a little long and somewhat slow (in true Western fashion), and there's little plot, but that does not
take away from anything the film has to offer. It's hard to say which of the three I like best (clearly the second holds
more significance to me....and it has a better plot and better characters). But I think all three should be taken as they
are and not judged against one another.
Best
moment: Blondie turns Tuco in at the beginning, and Tuco has a fit. Worst moment: I can't think of one, but I don't
understand why we go ten minutes with no dialogue; not that I didn't like that or it's a bad thing, I just don't know why
it was done. Best quote: 'What's this? One bastard goes in, another comes out.' Why you should see it:
Can you give me a reason why not? Why you should choose something else: I don't see why you wouldn't, unless you
don't like Westerns.
|
