Tag Archive: Sergio Leone


DJANGO’S UNCHAINED VIOLENCE

DJANGO UNCHAINED directed by Quentin Tarantino (USA, 2012)

The men (and handful of women) who commit murder, behave savagely or revel in brutality have deep-rooted problems that are not triggered solely by exposure to the wrong kind of entertainment. This makes it all the more bizarre that the premiere of Django was delayed by the Weinstein Company in the wake of the school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut.

Both Tarantino and Samuel L.Jackson publically criticised this decision and the director was equally disdainful of Krishnan Guru-Murphy’s puritanical line of questioning in a recent Channel 4 interview.

Django Unchained is without doubt a violent movie but it is wildly misplaced to regard it as just a tasteless or gratuitous bloodfest. It borrows from exploitation-movies but it is far too intelligent and knowing to be treated as a common or garden splatter movie.

The scenes of cruelty and killings can even be justified in view of the subject matter and are surely mild compared with the actual treatment handed out to slaves in America.

Continue reading

CARLO VERDONE : FUN IS BEAUTIFUL

UN SACCO BELLO directed by Carlo Verdone (Italy, 1980)

saccoI recently bought a book by Roy Menarini entitled ‘Il Grande Cinema Italiano’ which lists, in chronological order, what the author considers to be the best Italian movies from 1900 to the present day. It lists 251 films in total and it made me realise how few of these I had seen or even heard of.

I’ve been living in Italy for over sixteen years now but can’t honestly say that I am culturally integrated. I rarely watch TV, don’t listen to much Italian music and, if I go to the cinema, it’s usually to see dubbed versions of American movies. Time to make a change though and take advantage of my local Cineteca where I can borrow DVDs for free.

This is the background to watching the first film Carlo Verdone made,and the first I’ve seen of the 25 or so he’s written, directed and starred in over the past 30 years. Verdone is now in his sixties but was just 30 when he made Un Sacco Bello, a title taken from a slang expression which has the awful title in English of Fun Is Beautiful. Talk about being lost in translation!

It has three separate stories are set in Rome on the same midsummer holiday, Ferragosto. Verdone plays the main character in each.

The first, we see him as Enzo,an aspiring Latin lover who has planned a sex tour of Poland in a sports car with a reluctant and more timid male friend. Enzo stuffs a towel down his jeans to look well hung and, to adorn his hairy chest, chooses from a vast collection of gold medallions. In essence he’s an Italian equivalent of a Chav.

Leo, in contrast, is a gauche mother’s boy; although we don’t actually get to see the woman who rules his life (we just see him continually speaking to her on the phone). He meets a free spirited Spanish girl who’s looking for a place to stay. If Leo were Enzo he would pounce on this female at the first opportunity but for Leo this is destined to be an unconsumated relationship.

The third character is Ruggero, a hippie whose life is add odds with his conventional father.

Verdone also plays three other minor roles, including a priest, which is how the film got to be made in just five weeks on a shoestring budget. Prior to this big break, he had built his reputation on TV and in the theatre. The switch to movies was made with the help of a reccommendation by Sergio Leone, a connection that explains how Ennio Morricone got to write the soundtrack.

Verdone switches roles expertly for what is, essentially three sit-com scenarios tacked loosely together. They are all in Rome but they never meet. If there’s a connection, it is that all three are quite lonely and isolated. Enzo’s travel companion falls sick, Leo’s amorous opportunity is dashed when the Spanish girl’s boyfriend reappears and Ruggero is so omminously surrounded by authority figures that his dream of escaping to the ‘freedom’ of life in a commune looks doomed.

It looks quite dated now and, although it’s not laugh out loud funny, this is an intelligent comedy which proved hugely popular at the time and helped launch Verdone’s successful movie career. I’ve got plenty of catching up to do!

RASHOMON : WHO KILLED THE SAMURAI?

RASHOMON directed by Akira Kurosawa (Japan, 1950)

When hearing testimony in criminal cases, the judge and jury always have to keep an open mind. The need to save face, guilt, shame or simply a bad memory are all reasons why the accounts of eye witnesses may not be as reliable as they first seem. What passes as an indisputable truth is often merely one person’s word against another.

Kurosawa’s cinematic masterpiece illustrates this with a poetic and brilliantly realised presentation of the killing of a samurai as seen from four different points of view.

The film opens during a violent storm with a woodcutter and a priest sheltering from heavy rain under a partially ruined temple of Rashomon. They are both depressed about  a tragic murder, a killing that makes them despair for the human race. A passing ‘commoner’ joins them and takes a more pragmatic perspective, unable to understand why they should be getting so distressed over the death of just one man.

What follows are four different accounts of how the samurai met his end. All the versions are agreed on what preceded this man’s demise . This is that a bandit (Tajōmaru) takes a shining to a woman journeying through the woods by her husband. He follows the couple, lures hubby away with a cock and bull story about swords for sale (cut price?!) then ties him so that he can have his wicked way with the wife.

In most synopses this is referred to as a rape but it is presented more as an aggressive seduction. She puts up some violent resistance at first but this is followed by passive submission and her clenched hand changing to a caress suggests complicity.

It’s like one of those scenes in Sergio Leone’s spaghetti westerns where the man with no name (Clint Eastwood) beds a girl with no shame even when she initially seems unwilling. In other words, it’s based on the non politically correct premise that “no” means “maybe”.

Tajōmaru’s wild manner and maniacal laughter  either makes him a dubious witness or someone with nothing to lose.

His version of events is actually the most credible. This has it that he chivalrously set the samurai free to fight (a little belatedly!) over the woman’s honour and won out in the ensuing duel.

The woman is distraught and her account is less convincing. She apparently begged for forgiveness but was met only with her husband’s steely accusatory gaze. The guilt and despair forces her to faint with a dagger in her hand. When she come round the dagger is buried in her man’s chest.

The woodcutter disputes this testimony on the basis that the man was killed by a sword. But can he be trusted? Initially he denied having seen anything but then changed his story. Ultimately, he also identifies the killer as the bandit, although he says the duel to the death was a far messier affair with Tajōmaru emerging victorious by good fortune rather than through expert swordsmanship.

The dead samurai gets to give evidence too through the use of scary looking medium who looks like his wife in drag. The way he tells it is that he committed suicide, again with the dagger, as he couldn’t live with the disgrace of his woman having done the nasty with the bandit. This seems the least believable of the four possibilities. For starters, someone would have had to come along afterwards to remove the blade.

However, by the close, there’s nothing to say definitively what really happened. The only thing that’s certain is that the samurai is no more.

The allegorical ending shows a new life substituting the needless death. After the storm abates, an abandoned baby is discovered crying in the temple. The woodcutter offers to take the newborn and this gesture, together with the sight of him gleefully carrying the child in swaddling clothes restore’s the priest’s faith in humanity.

This majestic movie is equal 26th in BFI’s list of best movies of all time and the ‘rashomon effect’ is a term now used to describe the fallibility of perception.

ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA

ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA directed by Sergio Leone (Italy/USA, 1984)

Set in the criminal world during the era of prohibition, the full version of this movie stands up besides Martin Scorsese’s  great works of the 70s and 80s and is often regarded, a little misleadingly, as a companion piece to Francis Ford Coppola’s Godfather trilogy.

Yet the fact that the film required eight official screenwriters (including Leone who didn’t speak English!) is illustrative of its troubled birth and the problems persisted  long after it was completed.

Given his esteemed track record, it is astonishing that Sergio Leone didn’t have full control of his work. The bum deal he signed meant that he could do nothing about the savage cuts to his original 229-minute version.

The producers decreed in their infinite lack of wisdom that a convoluted plot spanning four decades was a non starter in commercial terms.

Probably the absence of respect for this great Italian director was partly due to the fact that his ‘spaghetti westerns’ were not taken seriously. Even Robert De Niro admitted he wasn’t familiar with these movies when he was first approached to play the lead role as David “Noodles” Aaronson. Continue reading

REPUBLICANS ON HORSEBACK

THE SEARCHERS directed by John Ford (USA, 1956)

Ethan Edwards

John Wayne as Ethan Edwards

With his self-centred arrogance masquerading as heroic individualism, John Wayne symbolises all the negative qualities of the white American male.

His distrust of groups and team work make him the embodiment of the Republican party philosophy whereby co-operative values and compassion for minorities are regarded as tell-tale traits of commie sympathisers.

In The Searchers, as in all his movies, he is the archetype macho man with a past he never speaks of, emotions he keeps hidden and serious anger management issues. He hates taking orders, doesn’t feel the need to explain himself and  never apologizes.

I suppose he’s not so far removed from the equally taciturn Clint Eastwood as ‘the man with no name’ in Sergio Leone’s masterpieces, but there’s a style and mystique around the spaghetti westerns that you don’t find in John Ford’s so-called ‘classics’. Continue reading