Eastwood Movie Challenge Week Two: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Hang 'em High

[The Man With No Aim]

I watched both For a Few Dollars More and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly with Christopher Frayling's commentary on. In general, it is excellent, informative, intelligent and very illuminating both about the production history of the films and about details we might have overlooked. However, he does make a few mistakes. As I mentioned in the Week One thread, in For a Few Dollars More, he places Tucumcari in Mexico, instead of in New Mexico. More startling, in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, during the "triello" at the end, when we have a closeup of Angel Eyes' hand creeping closer to his gun ...



... Frayling points out the missing fingertip, and adds "In real life, Lee Van Cleef did not have a piece of his finger missing. So the hand they're using is a prop hand, as it were, a body double, to show that this man, even he has been damaged by his life as a gunfighter."

It's a nice thought. But in real life, Van Cleef DID have a piece of his finger missing! It's quite well known and is mentioned in all his biographies. and besides ... it's evident in quite a few other scenes of the film, and it's obviously not a body double!


Over on the Lee Van Cleef discussion board, someone posted a picture that shows Van Cleef in a TV show with a bandage on his finger. The show aired in December 1962, so they conclude the accident (he was building a doll house for his daughter, according to some sources) probably happened sometime the previous summer.



Frayling is right about one thing ... Leone wanted to exploit this physical disability. Eli Wallach recalls, in his memoir The Good, the Bad, and Me (page 252):

Deja vu all over again.

In the screen shot of Van Cleef's finger and pistol, we notice that the cylinder exhibits unmistakably a couple of percussion caps, which is puzzling because the gun has a top strap which identifies it as a 1873 model Colt or later, only manufactured as a cartridge gun, not as a "muzzle loader".   And of course in the same frame we see the cartridges in his gun belt.

Did Colt make the 1873 Peacemaker with its cylinder having external features exactly matching the earlier 1851 Navy and 1860 Army cylinders so that they were interchangeable? And why did the director choose to use a prop gun that was a cobbled together Frankengun instead of simply using a genuine 1873 Peacemaker?   


Man

Doesn't anybody screen these props for continuity??

PS...Well I just held my Colt Navy up close to the computer screen and probably answered my own question. The Van Cleef gun top strap looks like a bogus piece of plastic or scrap metal glued onto a Colt Navy or Army gun. The Van Cleef gun does not have a loading gate indigenous to a cartridge revolver. So evidently, Watson, the director saved a hundred dollars (1960s money) by not buying a genuine Peacemaker, but rather recycling a prop already at hand gun and improvising. However, this is an aggravation of a previously discovered discontent: there were NO large caliber handguns manufactured during the Civil War which used CARTRIDGES. The first large caliber cartridge handguns were manufactured starting in 1873. The Civil War was already over by several years by then.

I know: "It's just a movie!" 

[KC]

We're in 1862, so none of the guns is supposed to have been manufactured later than that. And of course, they weren't manufactured to fire metal cartridges, though conversions were possible. Frayling mentions the discrepancy ... for the kind of gunfights people expected in Westerns, percussion revolvers were too slow to reload. Anyway, there is an exhaustive post on the subject in the Internet Movie Firearms Database, here:

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Good,_the_Bad_and_the_Ugly,_The

Blondie (Clint Eastwood) carries a Colt 1851 Navy revolver with a loading gate cartridge conversion kit (which is actually historically correct-the first conversions were made in 1859, and .38 Short Colt was invented at the beginning of the Civil War) throughout the film, his being outfitted with wooden grips inlaid with silver rattlesnakes, with which all his revolvers were fitted in the Leone trilogy. It is based on the same grips used by Clint as Rowdy Yates in the television series Rawhide. Tuco (Eli Wallach) also carries a Cartridge converted Navy, his being fitted with a lanyard loop, which instead of a holster, is stuck in his pocket (because Eli Wallach had trouble holstering a revolver without looking at the holster.) Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef) also used a Navy Cartridge to murder a sickly old man towards the beginning of the film, firing it through his pillow. He keeps this Navy when serving in the Union, but carries a Remington 1858 for his own use. Throughout the film, it becomes obvious that if they have a cartridge revolver, they are going to fire it in the scene. In any other scene, the revolvers change to unloaded percussion models (with the exception of Blondie's).

Angel Eyes/Sentenza (Lee Van Cleef) carries a Remington 1858 New Army as his personal sidearm. It seems it's dual toned, with a blued or black cylinder and barrel, and a grey cylinder housing. When not carrying his 1858, he is carrying his Union issued Colt Navy. He uses it to kill Stevens, on behalf of Baker, and moments later, Stevens oldest son. After that he's not seen firing it again, instead using his colt Navy. It is a somewhat notable goof that he keeps a cartridge belt despite using a percussion revolver. Also, a common continuity error is that the gun is loaded or unloaded with percussion caps.

Side by Side showing how his Remington goes from being unloaded to loaded during the final standoff.

As to where the guns came from ...

All the guns in this film were supplied by Aldo Uberti Inc. of Italy.

[The Man With No Aim]

Thank you for digging up all that pertinent information and posting it!

I had either never known about the 38 Short Colt cartridge (most likely) or forgotten about it (entirely possible) and have been easily amusing myself thinking that those conversions in the Civil War era were based on the Henry 44 rim fire cartridge. I gots to look it up but the cartridges in the Van Cleef gunbelt look too long to be a SHORT Colt.

Again just a minute ago I closely examined my Navy Colt comparing it against the screen image and everything is in the right place to be a Colt Navy or Army. But don't have a Remi hanging around, maybe all the stuff is by coincidence in the same places.

Anyway, endless thanks to you for the interesting information.


NoName

With a "muzzle loader", a cheap and easy to fire a blank is to put in a little black powder gunpowder but NO ball or, bullet, just a little wad of paper or scrap cloth. Perhaps the director used the percussion gun to stand in as a cheap and easy blank. At this moment I don't remember if Angeleyes fired a shot in the shootout.   

[Doug]

I wasn't going to watch Hang 'Em High, but what the heck, I'm getting into the spirit of the challenge. I just checked and realized I didn't watch it when I did my own personal challenge ten years ago, I guess because we'd analyzed it so thoroughly here during the film discussion. Enough time must have passed, because I enjoyed it more than I was expecting to. It's never been a favorite, and in fact I'd probably rate it only above Joe Kidd with regards to Clint's westerns, and that hasn't changed--but there is a reason I'm the fan of Clint Eastwood, and it's still a pretty good film.

In fact the script is pretty solid, and it's really Ted Post's directing and the strange film score that is mediocre. The hanging scene is still the artistic highlight of the film, and it's really well done. And there seems something subversive about Jed's taking of the prostitute during that scene that really stood out this time. Another thing that seemed to strike me is Eastwood's persona in this. Yes, it's still a western, but here he's not playing the badass loner, but a lawman, and it feels like a shift toward the persona he would eventually fully realize with Dirty Harry, that of the lawman with his own way of doing things and at odds with his superiors. Having noticed this, I'm more interested in Coogan's Bluff.

[Matt]

I wasn't going to watch Hang 'Em High, but what the heck, I'm getting into the spirit of the challenge.

 

I know what you mean... I formed my opinions of these movies, and there are some that I just didn't plan to ever return to... like Where Eagles Dare or Firefox, but I'm glad we're doing this because I'm sort of making myself watch them again, and it's reminding me that even if they aren't all great films, I'm a Clint Eastwood fan, and it's still fun to watch them again.

I agree with your placement of Hang 'em High when it comes to the 10 Eastwood Westerns. I'd just push it up one notch above Two Mules for Sister Sara. But, then again... we'll be seeing that one soon, and maybe my opinion will change. One thing I'm trying to do is watch these with an open mind all over again.

Watching Coogan's Bluff for the first time in so many years really felt almost like I was discovering a brand new movie. There were just so many things I hadn't remembered. This Challenge has been fun, but so much MORE fun because so many people have joined in and are posting about the movies. 

[The Man With No Aim]

GBU is a better film each time I watch it. After uttering confusion about the guns in it, I want to now clear the air.

Just not an hour ago I first watched the end sequence, the three way shootout, repeated times, and there is no confusion, Angeleye's gun is a Remington model 1858. You all have my apology for all the confusion caused by my earlier silly and confused statements. Without doubt, the Angeleyes gun in the final shootout is a 1858 Remington.

My earlier point was the gun anachronisms in this otherwise remarkable and indeed glorious film.

In the final portion of the film, the battle of the bridge, there are scenes showing rapid fire weapons which never were used officially in the Civil War, and the official records are all we have to go on. And there are rapid fire weapons shown which are , to me, unknown and which seem to defy laws of physics.

However, each time I watch this film, I am more impressed by how intensely it explores human emotions and the need for more sympathy and empathy that every human should have for every other human. This is a truly epic Western film, and really a truly epic film in general.


The Man

[higashimori]

Good to still watch and it's often funny but I am beginning to find " The Good, the Bad and the Ugly " is a bit long.......!
On the occasion of this challenge, for the first time I opened the set of four DVDs; Dollars Trilogy and " Hang'Em High " which I bought a few years ago!  Usually films of Eastwood particularly Dollars Trilogy often show on TV, so I did not need to watch my DVD or VHS!
I watched " A Fistful of Dollars " and " For a Few Dollars More " without audio commentary by Sir Frayling that I'm not interested to do.

But I have watched for GBD with audio commentary because I saw that the commentary was Mr. Schickel!    And I made a discovery surprise!   In the scene where Tuco cross desert with pink parasols, Mr. Schickel said about his impressions of that scene was very surreal!
I posted the same impressions in the "Movie Night "of GBD few years ago, so I was very surprised !! 
The scene of crossing desert, Tuco carefully prepared of water, foods, pink parasols and the tray to wash the feet !!..... typical Italien technique..as the films of Michelangelo Antonioni, for example ....I think...

Every time when I saw the last scene, I do not why but I always think for a few seconds "Poor Tuco, He Died !!"    after the rope was cut by Blondie,Tuco's head hit on the big rock!!    Perhaps because my first impression was very strong and it stay always in my brain?!! 

[The Schofield Kid]

  after the rope was cut by Blondie,Tuco's head hit on the big rock!!

Was it a rock or bag of gold coins?

[KC]

Good observations about the surrealism in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Higashimori! I watched with Frayling's audio commentary on, and he also pointed out the surrealist influence. He also mentioned that that part of Spain was "discovered" for filmmaking after parts of Lawrence of Arabia were shot there a few years previously.

And I don't think Tuco died ... he is immortal.

[-satu-]

I'm dragging behind you all. I watched Hang 'Em High just yesterday.

I think it's a decent film but I had again trouble concentrating. Work stuff on my mind. So I have a question. I lost my interest for a minute while the love scene with Clint and Inger and continued watching when Cooper was heading to the ranch to find the captain and the other thugs. How did they know he was coming? Didn't they think he was finished when they went to shoot him in town? This was probably the second time I watched this and have no memory of the first time. 

Please, anyone?  Sorry about this, sometimes I just have no room in mind to concentrate on films.

I think Stevens was a bit stiff, not my favorite actress in Eastwood films.

Somehow I have the sympathy for the two boys but I kinda understand Judge Fenton too. We had a discussion about it with my boyfriend and he, too, said that cattle stealing was a crime worth hanging.


One question about GBU or rather, what happened after. Do you think Tuco went back to his crimes or do you think he settled down somewhere? And how did he get away from the cemetery with those heavy bags of coins, one of them broken? I sometimes like to think about what happened to the characters after 'the end'.

Now I'm off to watch Where Eagles Dare. Be back later! 

[KC]

I guess Captain Wilson must have had a spy in Fort Grant who conveyed the information that Cooper had survived the attack. Or maybe it was covered in the local newspaper?

You're right, I don't think it's explicitly explained in the film.

I don't think Tuco was the settling down kind! He probably took as much of the gold as he could carry, and re-buried the rest, coming back for it bit by bit when he ran out of money. After all, everyone else who knew where the gold was buried (except one man) is dead.

[The Man With No Aim]

Money has changed in value by a big factor since 1862. More than 100X. Which explains a lot of things. Tuco's half, $100,000, is equal to $10,000,000 (or more) in 2016 money.

Every time Blondie turned Tuco in for the reward, Blondie made $100,000 in 2016 money. Blondie and Tuco were both filthy rich before the Army gold flap. So there is no question about Blondie being able to hire a gunsmith to manufacture cartridges and a properly modified Navy Colt to shoot them in. All of my previous quibbles about gun anachronisms have turned into smoke and dust.

So the movie plot has just got turned on its head. If YOU were filthy rich already, would you plot and scheme and murder to get your hands on $200,000 (equal to $20,000,000, 20 million, of today's money) or just relax and enjoy your secure and comfortable financial condition?


Manwith

[higashimori]

I liked a lot at the first view of " Hang 'em High " long time ago!
It was a very familiar to me who was a fan of " Rawhide " !  It was very good western! 
The sweetness scene to start, Jed takes the calf in his arms .. but suddenly absurdly hanging for Jed by cowboys that followed the cow thief! 
And Fenton is presiding ... hanging ritual of this town begins.....

But if there was not Rachel's story, this western was been boring and was the only revenge story, scenes brutal and irrational court.
At the end we can see in the future of this town will be better than now because Jed will stay! 

[Matt]

Money has changed in value by a big factor since 1862. More than 100X. Which explains a lot of things. Tuco's half, $100,000, is equal to $10,000,000 (or more) in 2016 money.

Every time Blondie turned Tuco in for the reward, Blondie made $100,000 in 2016 money. Blondie and Tuco were both filthy rich before the Army gold flap. So there is no question about Blondie being able to hire a gunsmith to manufacture cartridges and a properly modified Navy Colt to shoot them in. All of my previous quibbles about gun anachronisms have turned into smoke and dust.

So the movie plot has just got turned on its head. If YOU were filthy rich already, would you plot and scheme and murder to get your hands on $200,000 (equal to $20,000,000, 20 million, of today's money) or just relax and enjoy your secure and comfortable financial condition?


Manwith

We only see Blondie turn in Tuco twice. Let's say that's all there was. Using your numbers, that's $200,000 in today's dollars each, which isn't rich. It buys a middle class home, but it's not enough to retire on.

So, yes! I would think they still need more money! And neither of them seem afraid or upset at having to kill a few men to get to it.

[Matt]

I liked a lot at the first view of " Hang 'em High " long time ago!
It was a very familiar to me who was a fan of " Rawhide " !  It was very good western! 
The sweetness scene to start, Jed takes the calf in his arms .. but suddenly absurdly hanging for Jed by cowboys that followed the cow thief! 

Since you were a fan from Rawhide, was this the first movie you saw in the theater starring Clint, or did you see him in any of the Spaghetti Westerns first?

[The Man With No Aim]

We only see Blondie turn in Tuco twice. Let's say that's all there was. Using your numbers, that's $200,000 in today's dollars each, which isn't rich. It buys a middle class home, but it's not enough to retire on.

So, yes! I would think they still need more money! And neither of them seem afraid or upset at having to kill a few men to get to it.

LOL!

Dear Matt, dear fellow, you were obviously born into, and have lived in, circumstances much different than my own.

I was born in the foothills of the Appalachians, and lived in a very small shack in the country, in Oak Ridge, smaller than the one Johnny Cash lived in in the recent film about his life, to give you a perhaps common reference point. Next we lived in a 30' 1948 Shult house trailer which sheltered me until I got married and moved out at the age of 22. My bride and I moved into a small 2 bedroom apartment that was the cheapest I could find in Memphis. In 1965 my rent was $35, equal to about $350 in 2016 money.

I am retired and I presently live in a dwelling which I own and which cost me $11,000, recently enough bought for that to be the current fair market value. By coincidence my annual living expenses are about $11,000 on the average .

I have been noticing that many people pay far more than me for housing, a fine car, and everything. However it is not fair for you or anyone else to point to your own extravagant financial lifestyle and say that you are living in a bare and frugal way and your circumstances are normal.

You have cleverly diverted attention away form the nexus of my original post. The nexus I presented was that obviously Blondie and Tuco have lived in poor circumstances which, as I have now revealed, to be familiar to myself, though equally obviously you are not personally familiar with living in limited circumstances. Both Blondie and Tuco (and The Man With No Aim) would consider $200,000 in 2016 money to be "filthy rich" compared to much of their and mine financial history.

Counter to your assertion, let's imagine that Blondie and perhaps Tuco also have performed their ruse many times before, but Leone already knew his movie would be too long and did not care to document every one of a dozen or two times they had acquired $1,000 apiece. One dozen times? Blondie has $1,000 X 12 = $12,000. Now, to see it in 2016 money, $12,000 X 100 = $1,200,000. Blondie is rich enough to afford to hire a gunsmith to custom build a fine gun and manufacture cartridges for it. Tuco has to rely on a severe historical anachronism to obtain a fine gun and cartridges for it.

Therefore, I raised two points which I consider to be important to understanding GBU.

1. Belatedly I have realized that Blondie had enough money to get his highly anachronistic gun and its cartridges.

2. Neither Blondie or Tuco were driven by any kind of NEED, but rather by naked GREED.

Matt, my living expenses are one twentieth of what you have called ESSENTIAL, but I do not feel driven by NEED to steal or murder to get a $200,000 house like yours or a retirement stash of $200,000 like yours. I have retired on a cache of cash which is much closer to $1.98 than to $200,000.


Man 

[KC]

Well, as Mr Micawber said (in Dickens's David Copperfield) ...

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen, nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

Here's hoping we all can avoid misery, no matter our present (and past) circumstances.

[Matt]

But they're both still young, and they'd be buying a house at today's prices. Today's real estate market does have middle class homes at approximately $200,000 all over the country. I'm not talking about my home... I"m talking about the U.S. Middle Class home values of 2016.

Here's a chart:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/10/10/middle-class-buyers-home-prices/2953539/#

It has nothing to do with MY personal circumstances, and no rub on anyone. It's just about facts. It's like I said, it would be enough for a middle class home in today's economy, and not enough to retire on. They're looking at about 40 years to retirement. They needed more money.

[higashimori]

Since you were a fan from Rawhide, was this the first movie you saw in the theater starring Clint, or did you see him in any of the Spaghetti Westerns first?

Yes, I watched " Hang 'em High " after the Macaroni Westerns! (Yes, for us it's not Spaghetti !!) 
I prefer the Old Fashion Western!  For the Japanese Era drama, too! 

[The Man With No Aim]

But they're both still young, and they'd be buying a house at today's prices. Today's real estate market does have middle class homes at approximately $200,000 all over the country. I'm not talking about my home... I"m talking about the U.S. Middle Class home values of 2016.

Here's a chart:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/10/10/middle-class-buyers-home-prices/2953539/#

It has nothing to do with MY personal circumstances, and no rub on anyone. It's just about facts. It's like I said, it would be enough for a middle class home in today's economy, and not enough to retire on. They're looking at about 40 years to retirement. They needed more money.

But, Matt, your comments undeniably insist that any human has a RIGHT to a middle class home and retirement stash of cash even though such a condition is far above the set of circumstances that is survivable without feeling tortured. I have proved my case by being retired for 10 or 12 years, I forget which, in all the excitement I lost count myself. I have never had the smallest temptation to lie, steal, or murder so as to climb up the economic ladder to have a more luxurious retirement. Tuco, and even Blondie, could have quit nefarious activities after the two reward scams displayed in the film and survived without feeling tortured just like I have done. The FACT that they did not quit, but continued lying stealing and murdering, shows that the characters were motivated by GREED, not need.

Do you believe that, if your personal circumstances were changed to those I presently have, you would be justified to lie, steal, and murder, so as to raise your comfort level?

In a like way, I claim that the film characters, Blondie, Tuco, and Angeleyes were all motivated strongly by GREED, and this must be understood to then properly understand the plot of the film.


Man