Blog Directory CineVerse: April 2026

Big scandal on the small screen

Wednesday, April 29, 2026

At a time when corruption, lies, public disgraces, and distrust in politicians, institutions, and the media are at an all-time high, it’s ironically somewhat comforting to revisit a more innocent time in our country’s history, when a nothingburger like a minor quiz program cheating scandal commanded the headlines and Americans began to wonder if they could trust what they saw on their television sets. Oh, how far we’ve fallen down that slippery slope.

That’s the major takeaway from director Robert Redford’s Quiz Show, originally released in 1994, which chronicles the real-life 1950s scandals surrounding the then popular television program Twenty-One. The plot concerns the moral and legal fallout after it is revealed that the high-stakes competition is rigged to favor more "marketable" contestants, leading to a Congressional investigation. At the film’s heart is the intellectual rivalry between the charismatic, waspy, Ivy League-educated reigning champion Charles Van Doren (Ralph Fiennes) and the awkward, disenfranchised former winner Herb Stempel (John Turturro), a middle-class Jew who feels betrayed by the network. As the fraud begins to unravel, they are pursued by the relentless and principled Congressional investigator Richard Goodwin (Rob Morrow), who is determined to expose the corruption of the television industry.

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of Quiz Show, conducted last week, click here.


What’s surprising about Quiz Show is that the plot is relatively simple and devoid of much action, although there’s plenty of conflict. Additionally, the movie feels appropriately cast, especially in the smallest roles, where even bit parts shine with resonance. Also, consider that most docudramas based on real-life past events change names and facts; while Quiz Show is not completely historically accurate in its retelling of the scandal, it does use the real names of the people involved, including the TV executives, the network (NBC), and even the sponsor (Geritol). Perhaps what’s most unexpected is that Quiz Show doesn’t attempt to answer every question related to this scandal, the most prominent one being: What tempted Van Doren to cheat?

Ultimately, Redford’s picture forces a fundamental moral question on its audience: What would you do if someone asked you to lie in exchange for money and fame? The filmmakers adroitly explore the dangers of being misled by tantalizing temptations, whether it be a game show contestant agreeing to cheat, TV viewers being fooled but still wanting to watch even when told the truth, or even being seduced by the trappings of a shiny new car in the showroom (depicted in the opening scene).

Quiz Show cleverly contrasts the allure and ease associated with cheating (as seen in Van Doren’s privileged lifestyle) versus the frustration and hard work of investigation (exemplified by the pavement-pounding Goodwin). And it impressively navigates the moral compromises people make, even those who claim to take the moral high ground, like Goodwin. Case in point: Why, when he vows to expose and prosecute the perpetrators, does he go easy on Van Doren? Perhaps it’s a reflection of his desire to protect someone of his own class more than an eagerness to bring down the real culprits (the TV executives).

Consider, too, how the only offender that walks away unpunished is television itself; the "fat cat" TV executives are acquitted, and even the lower-level suit gets his job back. Meanwhile, Van Doren and Stempel have to wear their badge of shame for the rest of their lives. It’s a sad reminder that, as the adage goes, the rich get richer while the "small man" is left holding the bag.

Quiz Show conveys the pessimistic point that, even decades later, we remain a gullible society of consumers who are drawn to the allure of television—a deceitful, manipulative medium that promotes celebrity culture, cosmetic beauty, immediate gratification, and disposable entertainment over truth and veracity. While it points the finger at individual perpetrators like Van Doren, Enright, and Stempel, the film reminds us that the idiot box is even more reprehensible and blameworthy. These themes are echoed in today’s vapid television choices, which reflect the seemingly irreversible transition from hard news programming to infotainment, the blurring between documentary-style realism and fabricated reality TV, and the lowering of standards related to sex and violence.

Redford aimed to depict the cultural moment when America lost its innocence, claiming that the 21 Questions brouhaha was that turning point. But what have we learned, and lost, in the interim? Roger Ebert summed it up well in his review of the film: “Take stock of what we have lost in the four decades since Twenty-One came crashing down. We have lost a respect for intelligence; we reward people for whatever they happen to have learned, instead of feeling they might learn more. We have forgotten that the end does not justify the means—especially when the end is a high TV rating or any other kind of popular success. And we have lost a certain innocent idealism.”

Similar works

  • Network (1976)
  • Pleasantville (1998)
  • The Truman Show (1998)
  • Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)
  • Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Other films directed by Robert Redford

  • The Milagro Beanfield War (1988)
  • A River Runs Through It (1992)
  • The Horse Whisperer (1998)
  • The Legend of Bagger Vance (2000)

Read more...

Sharing movie theater memories – the good and the bad

Tuesday, April 21, 2026

Last week, our CineVerse discussion group took a detour from its normal schedule and engaged in its second Freeform Wednesday, now a quarterly tradition. This time around, the general topic was "Moviegoing to the Extremes." This involved quick lighting rounds with polar opposite questions related to our members' memories of seeing films in a movie theater, including: First movie and last movie you ever saw in a theater; movies you walked out of vs. films you watched 2x or more in the same sitting; your all-time favorite theater vs. your all-time most hated theater; the longest you’ve ever waited in line for movie tickets vs. a time when you were the only person in the theater; a movie you thought you’d love but hated on that first watch, and a film you thought you’d hate but loved on that first watch; and a few more.

You can listen to this group discussion by clicking here.

Read more...

Cineversary podcast celebrates 60th anniversary of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Wednesday, April 15, 2026

In Cineversary podcast episode #93, host ⁠Erik J. Martin⁠ celebrates the 60th birthday of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, directed by Sergio Leone. He’s joined in this installment by Sir Christopher Frayling, a renowned UK-based historian, art critic, broadcaster, and author of Once Upon a Time in Italy: The Westerns of Sergio Leone. Together, Erik and Christopher dig up the gold on this picture and explore its evergreen qualities, immense impact on cinema and popular culture, major themes, and much more.
Christopher Frayling


To listen to this episode, click here or click the "play" button on the embedded streaming player below. Or, you can stream, download, or subscribe to Cineversary wherever you get your podcasts, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Learn more about the Cineversary podcast at www.cineversary.com and email show comments or suggestions to cineversarypodcast@gmail.com.

Read more...

Coen x 2 + yokels = yuks galore

Monday, April 13, 2026

The Coen Brothers have turned the crime-gone-wrong film into a cottage industry, as evidenced by all-time classic Coen creations like Fargo, No Country for Old Men, Blood Simple, and The Big Lebowski. But their funniest early foray into this subgenre was Raising Arizona (1987), a quirky, high-energy screwball comedy that’s become a cult classic for its stylized dialogue and frantic pacing. The story concerns "Hi" McDunnough (Nicolas Cage), a repeat convenience store robber, and Edwina (Holly Hunter), a police officer who processed his many arrests, as they fall in love, marry, and discover they are unable to conceive a child. Desperate for a family and barred from adoption due to Hi's criminal record, the couple decides to kidnap one of the quintuplet babies born to unpainted-furniture tycoon Nathan Arizona (Trey Wilson), following the loony logic that he has "more than he can handle." But their attempt at a domestic life quickly spirals into chaos as they are pursued by Hi’s escaped convict friends, Gale (John Goodman) and Evelle (William Forsythe), and a terrifying, apocalyptic biker named Leonard Smalls (Randall "Tex" Cobb in a scene-stealing villainous role).

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of Raising Arizona, conducted last week, click here.

This film has been dubbed a high-paced, frenetic live-action Road Runner or Looney Tunes cartoon for good reason: It plays fast and silly with wacky characters and nonstop action. It’s also quite postmodern in how it defies the typical conventions of storytelling, dialogue, and characterizations, drawing attention to its own artificiality and unrealistic elements. And it forces you to question how trustworthy a narrator Hi is, creating a feeling of uncertainty about the external truth of the story. The Coens made a unique confection by borrowing from identifiable cultural elements and popular film genres and fashioning a distinctive pastiche visually, narratively, and aurally. The visual style is highly subjective, characterized by kinetic, mobile camerawork and unusual POV shots. Raising Arizona frequently utilizes "in-your-face" extreme close-ups alongside impressive tracking, swooping, and panning dolly shots, often executed with a Steadicam.

The filmmakers put lofty, loquacious language in Hi’s mouth to tremendous effect, creating comic irony. Here we have a slack-jawed, inarticulate yokel who can mentally speak like a well-read poet and Biblical scholar. His voiceover narration is intentionally written as implausible and artificial because we know that, in reality, he’s not the sharpest tool in the shed. This forces you to question how reputable Hi’s account of the story is. This poetic and talky narrative style is also possibly meant to lampoon the stereotype of the conversationally articulate Southern gentleman.

In keeping with the Reagan era and the consumerist mindset of the time in which it was made, Raising Arizona is meant to underscore the fallacy of the pursuit of the American dream in the 1980s: the quest for upward mobility at all costs and defining your social value, self-worth, and happiness based on your material possessions. Consider that the impetus fueling Hi and Ed’s yearning to achieve the American dream is to produce the perfect baby, as if the child is a product. And Hi refers to Nathan Jr. as such when he says, “he’s awful damn good. I think I got the best one.” The film further espouses that material success is an illusion – that doing the right thing (returning Nathan Jr. and bearing the consequences) will bring true happiness and fulfillment. And, at its core, Raising Arizona reminds us that even the most relationship-challenged couples can compromise successfully, work out their differences, and create the harmonious foundation necessary to raise children.

Similar works

The southern literature of William Faulkner (1919-1962) and Flannery O’Connor (1946-1964) in its vernacular and characters, and the short story The Ransom of Red Chief by O. Henry (1907)
Looney Tunes (1930-1969) and Tex Avery animated shorts (1935-1955)
Screwball comedies like Bringing Up Baby (1938)
Sullivan’s Travels (1941)
Bonnie and Clyde (1967)
Badlands (1973)
The Dukes of Hazzard television show (1979-1985)
Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining (1980), which also used fluid Steadicam tracking shots
Evil Dead (1981), which employed an inventive, low-budget "Shaky Cam" (a camera bolted to a wooden plank and carried by two running crew members) to achieve its incredibly fluid tracking shots
The first three Road Warrior films (1981-1985)

OthEr films by the Coen Brothers

  • Miller's Crossing (1990)
  • Barton Fink (1991)
  • Fargo (1996)
  • The Big Lebowski (1998)
  • O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
  • No Country for Old Men (2007)
  • A Serious Man (2009)
  • True Grit (2010)
  • Inside Llewyn Davis (2013)
  • The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)

Read more...

60 years of gold: Why The Good, the Bad and the Ugly still rules the West

Tuesday, April 7, 2026


Many fans of Westerns point to The Searchers, High Noon, Shane, Red River, Unforgiven, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid as among the finest representations of the genre. But likely the most influential, impactful, and beloved Western of the last six decades remains The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (GBU), directed by Sergio Leone and starring Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, and Eli Wallach in those respective titular roles. This year actually marks the 60th anniversary of the release of GBU – a film that boasts stellar direction, an unforgettable score, and captivating power dynamics between the three main characters, which continue to make for a compelling watch that never fails to entertain.

Set during the American Civil War, we follow three cynical gunslingers – Blondie (The Good), Angel Eyes (The Bad), and Tuco (The Ugly) – who find themselves in a high-stakes race to locate a hidden fortune in Confederate gold buried in a remote cemetery. The plot is a shifting game of uneasy alliances and double-crosses, as each man possesses only a portion of the information needed to find the treasure.

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, conducted last week, click here.


The casting is flawless. Eastwood’s stoic presence and rugged countenance speak for themselves, and Van Cleef, with his slanted peepers and wicked grin, was born to play Angel Eyes. But the actor with the most screen time and the most at stake is Wallach, who inhabits this role perfectly thanks to his expressive physicality and idiosyncratic approach to the part, choosing to imbue Tuco with certain tics, personality traits, and distinctive habits like crossing himself and uttering a quick prayer.

The faces are unforgettable. Leone’s famous style emphasizes extreme close-ups of the human countenance. Thanks to impeccable casting of even the smallest parts, we get up close and personal views of many distinctive visages, often tightly framed between the forehead and the chin. The faces of the three main stars were already destined to be perpetually etched in your mind, but the intimate topography of other inimitable faces and their lineaments forever stick with you, from the sweaty mug of the one-armed bounty hunter we first see to the gun store clerk biting down on his store’s “closed” sign to the wounded Southern soldier who takes a drag of Blondie’s cigarillo, and a dozen others in between.

The epic score by Ennio Morricone comprises some of the most memorable and popular pieces of film music ever composed. The innovative music serves as a character unto itself, commenting on the action and signaling a big, brassy, dramatic tension. We hear a low flute, representing the Bad (Angel Eyes), a high flute that signifies the Good (Blondie), and a wailing human voice meant to mimic a coyote call – the perfect way to musically exemplify Tuco. Leone also chooses to occasionally play sweet, serene music while scenes of torture and suffering are shown, which also reinforces the deliberately jarring and contrasting tone. Leone deemed the score so important that he collaborated with Morricone on the major musical themes well before principal photography started so that the music could influence the vibe and pace of the movie. While the main theme is the most instantly recognizable (it was nearly a #1 hit on the pop music charts), the composer’s The Ecstasy of Gold track, played when Tuco is running through the graveyard, is cherished by many as Morricone’s finest piece. Equally stirring is The Trio, which we hear during the Mexican standoff.

This could be one of the most visually impressive Civil War films ever made, utilizing hundreds of extras portraying soldiers and depicting an extravaganza battle sequence with ample cannon fire explosions, hand-to-hand combat, and the destruction of the Langstone Bridge (this is, by the way, a fictional battle). Many of the sets are impressive, including the battle across the river, the prison camp, the cannonball-cratered town, and the expansive cemetery (built exclusively for this film by a few hundred Spanish soldiers).

GBU may be one of the great anti-war films disguised as a crowd-pleasing Western. It’s also interesting that this movie remains neutral about the North vs. South, showing carnage and cruelty from both sides and using a chaotic backdrop of senseless slaughter and moral decay to send a message.

While the plot is relatively thin, there are more than enough interesting vignettes along the way that keep us focused, including the opening shootout, the scams Tuco and Blondie run as a bounty hunter and captured fugitive duo, the cruelty they inflict on each other in the desert, the visit Tuco’s brother at the mission, and several other episodes along the way. Even if these don’t advance the plot, they had crucial color, intrigue, and backstory to the narrative and our three main characters.

Ironically, for a film known more for its action than its words, GBU could also boast an embarrassment of riches in the all-time great lines department. These are among the most quoted and fan-worshipped words in any film, many of which remain downright funny:

“You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig.”
“When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.”
"See you soon, id...”/“Idiots. It's for you.”
“Such ingratitude, after all the times I've saved your life.”
“I've never seen so many men wasted so badly.”
“You never had a rope around your neck. Well, I'm going to tell you something. When that rope starts to pull tight, you can feel the Devil bite your ass.”
“Whoever has the most liquor to get the soldiers drunk and send them to be slaughtered, he's the winner.”
“But you know the pity is when I'm paid, I always follow my job through.”
“You may run the risks, my friend, but I do the cutting. We cut down my percentage…it’s liable to interfere with my aim.”


While the bad dubbing is an unfortunate consequence, GBU abides as one of the most diverse multicultural cinematic creations of the 20th century, and it’s remarkable that it works as well as it does despite its disparate heredity. The film was a three-way European co-production between Italy, Spain, and West Germany. While an Italian company led the creative vision and direction, a Spanish firm provided the filming locations and military extras, and a West German studio helped provide the necessary financial backing. This international partnership allowed the production to achieve its massive scale and eventually reach a global audience through American distribution. The film also used an international cast who performed in their native languages. While the American leads were dubbed into Italian for the Rome premiere, the English release kept their original voices but dubbed the supporting actors. This mix of languages caused the noticeable lip-sync issues seen throughout the movie.

GBU today is widely regarded as the greatest Spaghetti Western, one of the best in the Western genre overall, and among the finest films in history. It currently places #10 in the IMDb top 250 list and #169 in the 2022 Sight and Sound critics’ poll, and it ranks #25 on Empire’s list of the 500 greatest films and #49 on Variety’s all-time movies list. Its enduring legacy is further reflected in a 97% fresh score on Rotten Tomatoes and a Metacritic score of 90 out of 100.

Although many prefer the theatrical version, others opt for the extended cut of GBU. Interestingly, for 35 years, only a 16-minute shorter version of the film was available in English. In 2003, an extended 177-minute cut was released, featuring a restoration where an older Eastwood and Wallach returned to redub their lines. Although the added scenes don't change the plot, they significantly enhance the film's essential mood and atmosphere, making this longer version the superior experience for many.

What makes GBU exceptional is its unique commendation of exaggerated style, epic scope, larger-than-life cartoonish characters, and an implausible world of grand gestures and comic book-styled action, which is evident from the opening title sequence featuring colorfully oversaturated stills. The pastiche design is also evident in the offbeat casting of Americans, Italians, and Spaniards, and the deliberate choice to shoot silent and later dub voices in.

The form and style of the film are quite unconventional from the traditional classic Hollywood structure. Leone rarely uses medium shots, preferring alternation between long shots and close-ups, especially extreme close-ups of characters’ faces, to visually tell the story. He often prefers to open a scene or sequence with a close-up instead of the traditionally used establishing (long) shot. He tricks us right from the opening image, which presents a classic establishing long shot, but one that is subtly infiltrated by the emergence into the frame of a large face.

The director often draws out certain sequences to exaggerated lengths to build tension and suspense, such as the Mexican standoff at the cemetery. The beginning wide shot of the showdown, where the three figures spread out, spans 37 seconds. An earlier shot where Blondie rolls down a sand dune lasts 43 seconds. Leone also uses silence and white space to build suspense and a surreal quality into his story. The fewer words spoken, the better.

Contrasting imagery of beauty and brutality, rich and poor, moral and immoral, is juxtaposed throughout the movie. The filmmakers also often prefer stark, barren compositions to imply the inherent violence and ghostly qualities lurking beneath the surface or just out of the edge of the frame.

Leone also sets a rule that the characters can only see what’s visible in the frame to us. What the camera doesn’t show, the characters usually cannot see; Leone continually surprises us with sudden entrances into the frame that often defy the physical geography of the landscape the characters inhabit. Per Roger Ebert, this rule “gives Leone the freedom to surprise us with entrances that cannot be explained by the practical geography of his shots. There is a moment, for example, when men do not notice a vast encampment of the Union Army until they stumble upon it. And a moment in a cemetery when a man materializes out of thin air, even though he should have been visible for a mile. And the way men walk down a street in full view and nobody is able to shoot them, maybe because they are not in the same frame with them.”

Unlike earlier Westerns, the morality of the characters in this film is more ambiguous and blurred. Each character is capable of inflicting merciless violence and being “ugly,” so the names (good, bad, and ugly) are not necessarily indicative of their personalities or moralities.

GBU is also imbued with a postmodern hyperbolic sense of humor that can border on the absurd in its comedic undertones to make a point. The film functions as a parody of the western genre in that it takes many tropes and conventions of the classic movie western and exaggerates them for dramatic and comic effect. It’s what helps make GBU one of the most unique of 20th-century westerns: it’s as funny as it is unnervingly violent.

Consider how Leone’s masterpiece fundamentally altered the cinematic landscape, inspiring later works like The Wild Bunch (1969), expanding the use of graphic violence and moral ambiguity; The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976), mirroring the Man with No Name archetype in a Civil War setting; Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977), influencing the "lived-in" aesthetic and Han Solo’s mercenary persona (consider that the scene where the bathing Tuco outshoots his long-winded ambusher must have influenced the cantina sequence in Star Wars, where Solo fires first on Greedo); Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981), adopting the silent, drifting hero, sparse dialogue, and desolate atmosphere; Pale Rider (1985), utilizing Leone’s signature extreme close-ups, religious symbolism, and mythological framing; Reservoir Dogs (1992), echoing the iconic three-way Mexican standoff finale; Desperado (1995), also featuring stylized action and leaning into the kinetic energy of the Spaghetti Western; Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003), utilizing Morricone-inspired music cues and extreme close-ups; The Good, the Bad, the Weird (2008), providing an explicit South Korean homage to the original film’s structure); Django Unchained (2012), incorporating the cynical humor and operatic violence of the genre; and The Hateful Eight (2015), utilizing the widescreen Ultra Panavision format to capture Leone-esque tension and claustrophobic ensemble dynamics. Quentin Tarantino, in fact, named GBU the best directed film ever made.

The pop culture reach of GBU extends widely across many different media, inspiring both direct parodies and stylistic homages in film, television, video games, and music. Movies like Three Amigos, Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls, and Shrek 2 playfully reinterpret the Mexican standoff dynamics and Western tropes. TV series, from Breaking Bad and Community to The Simpsons and SpongeBob SquarePants, riff on many of its tropes, and videogame titles like Red Dead Redemption, Red Dead Redemption 2, and Fallout: New Vegas adapt its lone-gunslinger archetype and cinematic framing into interactive form. Let’s also not forget that the international success of the trilogy, especially this film, paved the path to major stardom, and eventually a directorial career, for Eastwood.

When it comes to predecessors, Leone drew from older storytelling styles where characters are a bit rough around the edges, sometimes selfish or crafty, and the narrative follows their misadventures – similar to what you’d see in classic European tales like Deux Amis by Guy de Maupassant, or in the exaggerated, mask-like characters of Italian comedic theater known as commedia dell’arte. Consider, too, that GBU doesn’t rely much on deep dialogue or backstory to explain people; instead, in a style influenced by French writer Antonin Artaud, you understand who the characters are by what they do, how they behave under pressure, and how they clash with each other. The director was also inspired by vintage Civil War photographs shot by Mathew Brady and Alexander Gardner. Several earlier films may have also motivated Leone and company. These include Buster Keaton’s The General (1926), particularly its spectacular bridge blow-up sequence and inventive visual storytelling; Chaplin’s Monsieur Verdoux (1947); the politically charged Viva Zapata! (1952); the sweeping landscapes and mythic scope of Ford’s The Searchers (1956); the war-infused Italian comedy-drama La Grande Guerra (1959); the tense male standoffs and stripped-down storytelling of Hawks’ Rio Bravo (1959); and the wandering, opportunistic antihero of Kurosawa’s Yojimbo (1961).

GBU is far from a disposable piece of entertainment made to simply please the masses. The film conjures food for thought on several thematic fronts, serving first and foremost as a thesis on the senseless horrors of war. Time and again, we are shown the violent consequences and soul-crushing futility of armed combat: from the carriage packed with dead soldiers and the captured combatant killed by firing squad to the tortured Confederate spy trussed to the train’s cowcatcher and the countless corpses decimated by cannon fire on both sides of the bridge. Blondie, a man of few words, hammers home the point when he says, “I’ve never seen so many men wasted so badly.”

Another takeaway? Shifting loyalties, sudden betrayals, and living by the “kill or be killed” code. Blondie and Tuco repeatedly team up and double-cross each other. Blondie also joins forces with Angel Eyes and his gang, but Blondie preemptively kills off his men before they can do the same to him. In this world of conscienceless mercenaries and cutthroat criminals, allegiances can quickly change, and solipsistic self-preservation is the prevailing ethos that guarantees survival.

GBU also has a lesson about the universality of human vice and virtue, suggesting that we can’t neatly sort humankind into three neat “good,” “bad,” and “ugly” buckets. Truth is, we can be described as any and all of these across the span of our lives. Contemplate that there are several times when Blondie doesn’t conform to his titular name, for example. Leone explained: “What do 'good', 'bad,' and 'ugly' really mean? We all have some bad in us, some ugliness, some good. And some people appear to be ugly, but when we get to know them better we realize that they are more worthy.”

Actions speak louder than words, we are also reminded. GBU is purposely devoid of unnecessary dialogues and monologues. Talk is cheap to these hard-edged characters, for whom force, skill, and instinct speak volumes. Perhaps the funniest line in the film, “When you have to shoot, shoot – don’t talk,” summarizes this sentiment perfectly.

Additionally, this is a tale about luck trumping will. Ponder how survival in this story seems more dependent on fate and unpredictable outside factors than rugged individualism, grit, or resolve. Cases in point: Blondie is spared from certain death at the hands of Tuco first by a runaway carriage that miraculously appears in the desert and later by a fortunate blast of cannon fire. And it turns out to be fortunate that Tuco and Blondie are apprehended by the Captain and his Union troops, as it ultimately gives them the idea to blow up the bridge and cross the river, which they likely could not have accomplished otherwise.

Lastly, there’s a fascinating reading of the film (promulgated by blogger Cary Watson) that this entire story is about the battle for one sinner’s soul. It cannot be disputed that Tuco is the primary character: He’s afforded the most screen time and dialogue; he’s more relatable because he’s the most emotionally expressive of the three main characters; and he’s provided a complex backstory (we know almost nothing about Blondie’s or Angel Eyes’ past). And Leone said he felt the closest to Tuco, particularly the character’s emotional volatility. In this interpretation, GBU is concerned with the struggle for the spiritual redemption of Tuco, who has an angel on each shoulder. 

On one side sits Blondie, occasionally a Christ-like figure who is referred to as Tuco’s “guardian angel.” Blondie is certainly no saint, but Tuco observes how the man occasionally demonstrates empathy and compassion: He comforts the dying soldier with a smoke and a blanketing coat; he brings a smile to the face of the dying Captain by blowing up the bridge; and he treats Tuco with more fairness and integrity than he receives in return, repeatedly shooting him free from several nooses and splitting their profits equally. 

On his other shoulder perches the uninvited “Angel Eyes,” a devilish mercenary who tortures and mocks Tuco, offering no partnership or opportunity for mercy. When first introduced, he kills both men who hired him to murder the other, insinuating that making a deal with the devil is bound to backfire; ultimately, Angel Eyes is symbolically cast back down to hell by Blondie, falling dead into an open grave. Tuco is the everyman sinner made all the uglier by original sin; ponder how the pre-hanging public recitations of crimes read like a laundry list of serious sins a priest might hear inside a confessional. Watson suggests that, because Blondie severs the rope on each occasion, Tuco’s sins have been forgiven. At the conclusion, Blondie forces Tuco to stand atop a cross and consider one of two options: remain upright and live (ergo, lead a more virtuous life), or go for the gold and risk death by hanging (suffer eternal punishment by indulging in greed and materialism). Tuco’s trespasses are ultimately forgiven by Blondie, who again severs the rope.

Ultimately, what is GBU’s greatest gift to viewers? Perhaps it’s the perfect marriage of music and visuals that closes the story. The showdown stands as one of the greatest sequences in movie history, masterful in its direction, editing, scoring, and performances, and all the more impressive because it relies on three characters standing motionless for a seemingly interminable stretch.

“The ordering of these shots begins perfectly balanced between the characters,” wrote BBC writer Luke Buckmaster. “There are three close-ups of each person’s pistol, for example, followed by three medium close-ups of their faces, then three close-ups zooming in further. The scene gets more frenetic and the shots shorter and tighter as Morricone’s score soars. The audience enters that rare and special space where we feel as if we are inside the characters’ minds, trembling along with them in fear and anticipation.”

The way Leone juxtaposes wide shots and over-the-shoulder shots with extreme close-ups of faces and hands, and uses rhythmic cutting that builds to a frantic pace before the gunfire climax, is nothing short of extraordinary – deserving of being mentioned in the same breath as Hitchcock’s shower scene in Psycho and the Odessa steps sequence in Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin.

Read more...

  © Blogger template Cumulus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP