Films/DVD Asylum

RE: I don't know why I bother.

216.196.128.235

This Post Has Been Edited by the Author

In Reply to: RE: I don't know why I bother. posted by tinear on January 04, 2008 at 11:39:17

None of what you wrote has anything to do with "irony", at least using the definition that educated people in the english speaking world use. I assume you know the definition of hypocrisy? Assuming, for a moment, the truth of your arguments relative to Eastwood in GB&U, you criticize Leone for making this evil man the hero. Yet, here many times, you have praised Tarantino for making a hero of Jackson in Pulp Fiction, a man who spends a film killing people in cold blood, all the while quoting Biblical verses prior to his mindless killing, all performed for a underworld criminal. Think those scared shitless lily white suburban youths deserved to be gunned down, defenseless? At least Leone had the courtesy to put guns in the dead characters hands. This is the problem with not fully forming an opinion, and sticking to it.

I know you like Unforgiven. Would a guy that has spent his life as a ruthless, drunken killer, who abandons his children in the middle of nowehere to collect a payday in order to kill some overeager cowboys, one of whom did nothing more than be in the wrong place with the wrong compadre. And then, in a climax or realism, Clint cleans out an entire bar of armed men, rides off into the dark, rainy night, never to be heard from again. Perhaps the law should have organized the same posse that tracked down Billie the Kid. Then again, I would not imagine a man traveling with two small children on the open prairie would be too hard to find. Is that what you mean by "ironic vision."

On the other hand, how was Eastwood as villanous, or murderous, as the other characters in GB&U? Van Cleef, by my memory, kills the first man on the range, his wife, and his young son. Why? He was hired to kill the guy. I guess the wife and young son were freebies. He then kills the man who originally hired him, claiming the first guy he killed, and from whom he stole money after killing him, hired him to kill the second guy. At least he had the courtesy of putting a pillow in front of his face prior to blowing his head off. Maybe that is what you meant?

On the other hand, in GB&U, Eastwood kills, who exactly? He kills some of the men that Van Cleef send to hunt for him. And then, who? Van Cleef. I know when I ask you for examples you will not provide any, which is why I ask you for them. Your facts are completely wrong. On the other hand, if you want to take another stab at providing facts to support your argument, have at it.

What I have shown you, with facts, is that your "truth" is not truth, which, in turn, makes your statement of "ironic vision" wrong. But again, if you want to take another stab at demonstrating why Eastwood is as murderous as Van Cleef, go ahead. I never saw Rawhide, so maybe you are including Clint's body count from that series. Again, though, under your tortured definition of "ironic vision", which is really just gobblygook, Tarantino would more than apply.

Then again, as another poster pointed out, Tarantino lists GB&U as one of the three best directed films of all time. Tarantino, Tin. Tarantino, Tin. Hmm.

"If one wishes to see realism, Huston is the one to which to turn."

Now, this one is choice. See a western for "realism?" Easy to knock a film by criticising it for what it is not, nor intended to be. Helps you from the real job at hand. You mean, when Clint kills as many men in one fight as Billie the Kid and Wild Bill did their entire careers, that was not "real." I'll never watch another western.

"The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" was groundbreaking long before Eastwood was beginning his "Rawhide" years."

What the hell does "Treasure" have anything to do with this argument? By the way, I did love "Treasure." The Great Train Robbery was groundbreaking long before Bogie wore a toupee.

Follow Ups: