|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a real strange thing, the western. It seems to be purely owned by America, except like so much of that wonderful country, it simply isn't. Not only was the country formed by immigrants (and yes I know much like my own if over an even longer period of time), but the western is 'owned' by everyone. I might have said this before but the simple fact is that the form elevated itself almost to something beyond just being about a period of American history.... Forgive me, but you are wrong. Totally, utterly and completely wrong. And confused. Not all Americans are immigrants. Many Americans are born and raised here and America is all they know. And knew. Westward expansion from the eastern states to the western territories was done by people born and raised here, in addition to European immigrants. The children of immigrants born and raised here also settled the American west, and American is all they knew. It follows, then, that the Western as a genre derived out of the life Americans lived. The genre developed naturally out of our culture and heritage in the earliest days of cinema. The genre couldn't have started in any other country. That's not opinion, it's fact. The American west actually happened. In real life. It's not a myth. It's not a fantasy. The American west is a geographical place with an actual, factual history. Even fictitious westerns depict many underlying truths of western expansion and the pioneer experience. To say that the western is "owned" by other countries is preposterous and ridiculous and false on its face. It disrespects the heritage and culture from which the western derived, first in experience, then in 1800s newspaper reporting, in memoirs and journals, in books and magazines, and then in the earliest films. I'm glad that other countries enjoy the western and that it meant so much to them they started making their own imitations. But they're just imitations. The western started when the pioneers themselves started relating their adventures and experiences in letters to eastern newspapers. Every paper had a western correspondent. Then came monthly publications devoted to correspondence from pioneers. Then there were exaggerated stories, sometimes written by pioneers themselves but not always, which became dime novels. Dime novels about the American west started during the Gold Rush of 1849 and grew into a thriving industry by the 1870s to 1900. In a a very real sense western movies are an extension of dime novels, but not entirely. Personal experiences as well as national events -- like Custer's Last Stand, to name one in a thousand -- also contributed to the western. None of this happened in Europe. The Europeans didn't know anything about it until Buffalo Bill showed it to them in his traveling Wild West Circus. The western started on the page in 1850s America before the movies were invented. Once the movies were invented, westerns were among the first films made on the American continent, in some cases by the westerners themselves. Dime novel westerns published in 1800s America, not in Europe: First let me say, Richard, that I apologise for any insensitive remarks I might have made about what you rightly state is one particular country's period of history, which of course couldn't be any other's but the US. So naturally the stories that spring from that could only have started in the US. My remark about immigrants though, and I did include my own having been created through mass movement of immigrants, was really about ancient history, and ours (UK btw) is even more ancient. In both cases the country was created by successive amounts of people moving in. In our case they were invasions! Surely you'd agree that white Americans are pretty much all descended from people outside your shores? I know I wouldn't be here in England if folks from Europe hadn't settled here centuries ago, and you might be aware that whether we are part of Europe or not is a very thorny issue over here right now! Perhaps 'owned' should have read 'embraced'. I just feel that the western as a storytelling medium has sort of elevated itself to something beyond it's original country of origin (which is a huge compliment - there's no other form like it, it's unique), like many forms of food have. I bet many Americans feel that pizzas are American without a single thought to Italy. Which brings me neatly to my original point where I also took the long way round to make. These days I kind of find the Sergio Leone canon to be my favourite set of westerns despite being raised on all things American. Born in '61 western movies and tv series were a staple of entertainment. At the same time, despite my liking for the Italian product, I will say that I feel only the Leone big four - the Dollars trilogy and Once Upon A Time in the West can be regarded as classics. Even the best of the rest may well be what you would call "imitations". But if westerns made outside the US are only imitations, what are we to make of ANY story made by Hollywood that isn't about a US set situation? Do biblical epics, films about the Vikings, or films set in Norman England qualify as imitations? Let me tell you (and I know it's a legend, but it is OUR legend), hearing Kevin Costner's yankee drawl as Robin Hood was pretty irksome, almost as bad as getting from the White Cliffs of Dover to Nottingham via Hadrian's Wall! I think some respect for basic Geography was wanting there. Most of which has little to do with The Wild Bunch, so apologies to Joan, except to say that maybe, just maybe, the spaghetti influence on the American western was at it's keenest here. We know Sergio Leone was a fan, which is why he's referenced (together with the Wild Bunch!) in My Name is Nobody, another western about the dying out of the gunslinger and his kind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No apologies needed, Paul. I find these historical perspectives very interesting. Thanks Joan. Very much appreciated. I always try to be as fair as possible with posts, which is why I abandoned 'user names' a long time ago. I figure if I offend anyone (an easy thing to do in writing only without faces) I'm perfectly big enough to apologise. It's all it takes.
|
|
|
|
|
Author W.K. Stratton will be a guest on Larry Mantle's AirTalk on National Public Radio (89.3 KPCC here in LA) next Friday. Check your local stations, as they used to say. And it's screening, for one night only at the Fine Arts on Wilshire, tomorrow night
|
|
|
|
|
If you take away W's comments and just leave the book pics, his post would have some value.
|
|
|
|
|
TWB was reissued on 70mm in the last decade(?). I saw a screening in SF.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you take away W's comments and just leave the book pics, his post would have some value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd also like to point out that whilst I might have been concerned that I might have upset him, I did actually find his reply quite informative, and admire people for standing up for their country's history and heritage etc., so no problems here.
|
|
|
|
|
"That aint what counts ...its who you give it too!!"
|
|
|
|
|
I'd also like to point out that whilst I might have been concerned that I might have upset him, ......e. No one else is concerned. Relax.
|
|
|
|
|
If you take away W's comments and just leave the book pics, his post would have some value. Made me laugh. But maybe I’m just confused. You ain't confused, pardner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 3, 2019 - 3:11 AM
|
|
|
By: |
Rameau
(Member)
|
The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull & The Battle Of The Little Big Horn by Nathaniel Philbrick. A really great read, & thinking about Richard's post, I'm sure I can remember that the book states that only 17% of Custer's 7th Cavalry were born in America, but I could be wrong there, as I can't find that bit in the book, but I did find this: 12% were born in Germany, 17% in Ireland, 4% in England & the 7th also included troopers from, Canada, Denmark, Switzerland, France, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Greece, Poland, Hungary & Russia. ...& I do hope that Richard is wrong about The Wild Bunch not getting a new 4K transfer. It's the film's 50th anniversary, & it's a bloody masterpiece (very bloody!).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't hate you. In fact your posts are occasionally insightful. You would be on my ignore list if I hated you. Brm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 3, 2019 - 11:09 PM
|
|
|
By: |
Richard-W
(Member)
|
Paul Hickling writes: First let me say, Richard, that I apologise for any insensitive remarks I might have made about what you rightly state is one particular country's period of history, which of course couldn't be any other's but the US. So naturally the stories that spring from that could only have started in the US. I'm not offended. But I am glad to know you appreciate the distinction I was trying to make, that the western grew out of the American way of life and is not merely a style that could have happened anywhere. It has an internal makeup and content which gave birth to the outer style. My remark about immigrants though, and I did include my own having been created through mass movement of immigrants, was really about ancient history, and ours (UK btw) is even more ancient. In both cases the country was created by successive amounts of people moving in. In our case they were invasions! Surely you'd agree that white Americans are pretty much all descended from people outside your shores? Yes. I agree that white Americans are all descendant from Europeans starting some 500 years ago. And so are Latin Americans. And so are Indians, aka Native Americans, going back to ancient times before recorded history, if the latest DNA testing is accurate which it surely must be. How the North American and South American continents were peopled is not in dispute. The participation of immigrants in the American west is not in dispute. What concerns me is that some people, here and elsewhere, deny that the western is American on the basis of immigration. It's a false argument. Those immigrants who weren't wiped out at the Little Big Horn adopted this country's ways and means, and shared in its collective thinking. They became American-ized. But their children and children's children were American by birth, and they took part in westward expansion and pioneer settlement as well. Many people who settled the American west were born and raised in America and had no knowledge or experience of Europe. Many western men and women were born and raised in the wild west. They considered themselves Americans, and they couldn't care less about Europe. The kind of internationalism and easy travel we enjoy today did not exist for them in the 1800s. I know I wouldn't be here in England if folks from Europe hadn't settled here centuries ago, and you might be aware that whether we are part of Europe or not is a very thorny issue over here right now! My hope is that the United Kingdom will retain its cultural identify and economic integrity while still being a part of Europe and a friend to Europe. How that can be achieved, I wish I knew. It's alarming to watch the growing division. Without British involvement European economies will crash and burn. Without a strong and resolute U.K. alliance the European countries will not be able to stand off Russian aggression. They're doing everything they can to undermine the "brexit" as you know. Let there be no doubt, destabilization and confrontations are coming. And then the U.K. will find themselves truly at risk. That's how it appears to many of us on this side of the pond. Europe needs the UK and the UK needs Europe. You have to stick together. Perhaps 'owned' should have read 'embraced'. I just feel that the western as a storytelling medium has sort of elevated itself to something beyond it's original country of origin (which is a huge compliment - there's no other form like it, it's unique), like many forms of food have. I appreciate the compliment you are paying the classic American western, and at the same time, I'd rather not comment on your food analogy except to say that most Americans are acutely aware of where Pizza hails from. The Italian-American population is vast and hungry in the USA. Back to your other point, the American western was a pliable genre. It could accommodate any and every approach from documentary realism to neo-realism to expressionism to lyricism to fable & myth. But it is rooted in cold hard fact: life in the west was a relentless hardship, and sometimes savage. The wholesomeness of the American western started out as a way of looking on the bright side of a grueling existence for many. The early westerns understood this without dwelling on it. There was always an honesty in the genre. It was a place to go for storytellers who needed to express the basic primal emotions in clean terms. As time went by, and we entered the the late 1950s, this began to change. ... Which brings me neatly to my original point where I also took the long way round to make. These days I kind of find the Sergio Leone canon to be my favourite set of westerns despite being raised on all things American. Born in '61 western movies and tv series were a staple of entertainment. At the same time, despite my liking for the Italian product, I will say that I feel only the Leone big four - the Dollars trilogy and Once Upon A Time in the West can be regarded as classics. Even the best of the rest may well be what you would call "imitations". The so-called "Man with no name" trilogy are not westerns. Not really. On the other hand they are very powerful films in their own right. Leone didn't think they were westerns either, apparently. So he made one more to fulfill his deepest wish, to emulate the genre he loved. Leone was one helluva storyteller whose visual poetry seduced everybody including me. He was a brilliant director. If you're saying he made your favorite Italian westerns, I suppose they are my favorites as well. Or at least Once Upon a Time in the West is. That film towers over most movies from any country in its emotional range and visual power. It's a rousing poem. That's because it's essentially a silent movie. Think about it. The dialog is incidental, mostly. Turn off the dialog and sound effects and the story is still vividly told. Fifty years later and I'm still listening to the score and watching the film. I also think highly of The Big Gundown (1966) (despite Tomas Milian's grandstanding and big facial expressions) and Cemetery Without Crosses (1969). Death Rides a Horse and The Great Silence also have merit, as do a couple of others. The best spaghetti westerns should draw on a cultural identity of their own, as you say they should be about something larger than themselves in their own country. But do they? You tell me. At one time I bought and studied carefully 159 spags on DVD. I found the genre soulless, shallow, empty. Most of them have no story to tell, just a thin premise followed by parlor games and endless posturing. Underneath all that gritty style there was nothing, except perhaps sadism. I sold them all a couple of years ago, as I mentioned in a post here. I was looking for another Leone, another Once Upon a Time In the West ... but alas. But if westerns made outside the US are only imitations, what are we to make of ANY story made by Hollywood that isn't about a US set situation? Do biblical epics, films about the Vikings, or films set in Norman England qualify as imitations? Let me tell you (and I know it's a legend, but it is OUR legend), hearing Kevin Costner's yankee drawl as Robin Hood was pretty irksome, almost as bad as getting from the White Cliffs of Dover to Nottingham via Hadrian's Wall! I think some respect for basic Geography was wanting there. Most of which has little to do with The Wild Bunch, so apologies to Joan, except to say that maybe, just maybe, the spaghetti influence on the American western was at it's keenest here. We know Sergio Leone was a fan, which is why he's referenced (together with the Wild Bunch!) in My Name is Nobody, another western about the dying out of the gunslinger and his kind. I will take up these questions in another post. But I will say that Costner's Robin Hood is embarrassing and ludicrous. I can't stand it. Also, if it's a comfort to you, Sam Peckinpah said in an interview that the popularity of spaghetti westerns in the U.S. is the only reason Warner Brothers allowed him to make The Wild Bunch. He wasn't trying to make a spaghetti western. He just wanted to make a film the way he always wanted to and they didn't try to prevent him. But they would have prevented him if he had tried to shoot it in the USA where there was actual oversight. Appreciate the discourse, Paul Hickling, thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey TG n' bruce, wanna go down the park?! Iets get the bikes!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|