News: Having trouble registering?  Please feel free to contact us at help[at]clinteastwood.org.  We will help you get an account set up.


0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this board.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Joe, Manco and Blondy  (Read 40792 times)
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14082



View Profile WWW Email
« on: December 15, 2002, 12:55:37 AM »

I'm transferring over this topic that D'Ambrosia started on the old board, because it's a question that keeps popping up... are Joe, Manco and Blondy the same character, and are the Leone films really a trilogy?  Nightwing just asked again on this board, so I hope some of the great responses in this thread will help to answer that question.  Enjoy!
Logged
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14082



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2002, 12:57:47 AM »

Originally posted by D'Ambrosia, 10-25-2001 11:10 PM



Is the man with no name really the same character in all three of the Leone films?

We know that he does have different names in all of the movies. He is called Joe in Fistful of Dollars, Manco in For a Few Dollars More, and Blondy in The Good the Bad and the Ugly

Just because he has the silver .45 snake handled pistol in all three flicks doesnít mean that itís the same guy. I mean come on, Rowdy Yates carried the same gun.

Is the Poncho the only connection between the man with no name and all three movies.

Maybe it was the Radio Guy who did the spots like: Clint Eastwood is back as the man with no nameÖhad something to do with it..

Is he the same guy in all three flicks or not?

What do you think?
-----------------------------

When you have to shoot, shoot donít talk.
Logged
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14082



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2002, 12:59:00 AM »

Originally posted by Holden Pike, 10-26-2001 12:48 AM      


No.
Logged
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14082



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2002, 01:00:29 AM »

Originally posted by Daisy. 10-26-2001 12:55 AM      

He's the "same guy" in the way that most of Wayne's western characters were the "same guy".

It's a persona - created by Clint and Leone - and it's clearly the same persona in each of the trilogy (and to an extent HPD too...) but in terms of the separate narratives he is not the same character

For one thing: Blondie must be old enough to be Manco's father - he's the age Manco is in FAFDM during the Civil War, some 20 years or so previously!

Daisy

« Last Edit: December 15, 2002, 01:01:08 AM by Matt » Logged
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14082



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2002, 01:02:18 AM »

Originally posted by bdc28, 10-26-2001 05:36 AM  

I believe in FISTFUL OF DOLLARS and A FEW DOLLARS more, the character is the same person.

I think Daisy is right on the timeline. GBU is much earlier. It couldnt be the same guy.

--------------------
"Has anyone ever told you that you have a SERIOUS IMPULSE CONTROL PROBLEM??!",-Jim Carrey as THE RIDDLER.

Logged
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14082



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2002, 01:03:44 AM »

Originally posted by KC, 10-26-2001 06:33 AM      

There's about a ten years' difference between The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and the other two, which seem to be set in the early 1870s. No reason why it couldn't be the same guy.

KC

Logged
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14082



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2002, 01:04:55 AM »

Originally posted by Daisy, 10-26-2001 08:50 AM      

Even if you're right KC - the reason he couldn't be the same guy is because he doesn't look ten years older - It was a hard life in Victorian times and they didn't have plastic surgery in them days!  

I'd put FAFDM in the 1880s making it more like fifteen to twenty years difference - not that it matters, it's all MAKE-BELIEVE...

Logged
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14082



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2002, 01:06:06 AM »

Originally posted by GMAT, 10-26-2001 03:19 PM

Yeah, it's definitely the same basic character that Eastwood and Leone were working from (I'm not sure what Holden's blunt "No" means). It's not like he ever has an official name - he uses different monikers for different times. Actually, he doesn't give himself the "Joe" and "Blondie" monikers - other people do. The same might have held true for "Manco."
Logged
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14082



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2002, 01:07:27 AM »

Originally posted by Mohr Stoutbeard,10-26-2001 03:35 PM      

I'm gonna have to agree with KC on this one. I mean, it's obvious that Sergio and Clint intended the character to be the same guy through all three films, otherwise why the poncho, mannerisms, etc? It's not as if three guys looking exactly the same who just happen to have a penchant for short cigars and gunfighting coincedentally kill each other in a sequence, each one taking the poncho for his own. . .

--------------------
Tuco: 'See you soon, id. . .ids. . .'
The Man With No Name: 'Idiots.' It's for you.
Logged
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14082



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2002, 01:08:41 AM »

Originally posted by AKA23, 10-26-2001 08:37 PM      
Holden, what exactly did you mean? Would you care to expand and add a bit more commentary so I and the rest of the board will be able to get a better understanding of your position. Maybe you have some perception of it that we're missing or that we don't have but it's getting exceedingly difficult to infer from your one word retort.

As far as my own view, I see absolutely no evidence to suggest that it is a different character in all three films or that in any of the film he's not the same character. I think in this kind of situation you can always speculate that he may be a different character but in this kind of situation I think if there isn't evidence presented in that fashion than I don't see at all why it would be a different person. Maybe it is but I just don't see it at all. Anybody else have any thoughts as to this? It's an interesting discussion.
Logged
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14082



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2002, 01:10:08 AM »

Originally posted by D'Ambrosia, 10-26-2001 09:09 PM      
I trying to get the timeframe right.

We know that GBU took place during the Civil War, 1861-65, and guessing by location it was more than likely set in the latter half of the war. I'll say '65.

Now, we also have the tombstone in FFD. Engraved on the stone is the year 1873, I think, and it looks to be a fresh grave.

I'm not sure if there is a real reference to "time" in FFDM, is there? (When were telegraphs introduce?) Even if Dasiy is right about it taking place in the 1880's that's really only 15 years from GBU. Alot of people can go fifteen years and not really change there apperence or features.

How about Manco doing everything left handed. Do Joe and Blondy do everything left handed. I may have to go back and watch them again, (Bummer, huh  )

And lastly, the gun. Is it the same gun in all three movies? Snake handled silver .45. Does he modify it over time? It sure looks like it to me.

--------------------
"A couple of steps back...

Logged
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14082



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2002, 01:12:04 AM »

Originally posted by KC,10-26-2001 09:38 PM  
D'Ambrosia, it's apparently the same gun in A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More: a "Peacemaker" model Colt .45. This model was introduced in 1873, so that's a terminus a quo for these two films (as is, for Fistful, the date on the grave). For the Civil War-era The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, a period gun was selected ... a Navy Colt, anachronistically firing metal cartridges. It has the same silver snake ornaments on the grips as the gun the character uses in the two post-Civil War films (originally, this was a weapon acquired in an early episode of Rawhide by Clint's character, Rowdy Yates).

To narrow the date of GBU down further: the Battle of Glorieta Pass, which seems to be alluded to in the narrative, took place on March 26-28, 1862.

KC

« Last Edit: December 15, 2002, 02:30:11 AM by Matt » Logged
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14082



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2002, 01:13:11 AM »

Originally posted by Daisy, 10-26-2001 09:44 PM      
Of course manco's left-handedness could be a result of the damage to his hand in AFD - remember he has to practice to use his gun left-handed, maybe he got used to it.

But I say fifteen years was a long time in the nineteenth century - and hell he looks older during the Civil War than he does during AFD! How does that work?  

Honestly, looking for internal consistency in the Leone universe is fun but wildly irrelevant. Yes it's the same character, but yes also - each film stands alone and is separate. It's a series if you want it to be, but it is not set up with any consistancy like say the Harry movies.

Daisy

« Last Edit: December 15, 2002, 01:15:16 AM by Matt » Logged
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14082



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #13 on: December 15, 2002, 01:16:51 AM »

Originally posted by KC,  10-26-2001 09:47 PM      
Daisy, Manco uses his left hand for everything ... except shooting! (And he also shoots right-handed at the end of A Fistful of Dollars.)

The Man with No Name is a mythic character, so why should he age?

KC

Logged
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14082



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #14 on: December 15, 2002, 01:18:37 AM »

Originally posted by Daisy, 10-26-2001 09:53 PM
Everything?!   ;D

How can you tell?   :o
Logged
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14082



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #15 on: December 15, 2002, 01:19:54 AM »

Originally posted by D'Ambrosia, 10-26-2001 10:05 PM      
So, he has a Navy Colt in GBU and a Peacemaker in the other two. Thanks KC.

Good point about Clint's character being mythic. Never thought of that one.

Plus the Poncho. We do see him aquire it towards the end of GBU. Leone must have put that in there to show us somthing...

-------------------------
Red: "Didn't hear what the bet was."

Manco: "Your life."


Logged
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14082



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #16 on: December 15, 2002, 01:26:42 AM »

Originally posted by bdc28, 11-02-2001 11:52 AM
If there isnt any other consistency between Fistful and FOR A FEW, the hand brace. The part where Manco is caught stealing the money and Indio tells him to "put it on". More than likely not a style, but damage caused by the hand stomp from the first movie. Too much was done to link this character to be the same. Even the same poncho (not the same style poncho, as I remember correctly in GBU there was a different pattern).

So, the question is really, is the character in GBU the same character as FISTFUL and FOR A FEW.

I dont think its supposed to be the actual character. In FOR A FEW, if he was aged twenty years later (from GBU date), I dont think Col. Mortimer would constantly refer to him as "Boy". They would roughly be the same age, as Col. Mortimer did fight in the Civil war, and then "reduced to bounty hunting". Also, it was stated by Col. Mortimer that he "reached fifty years of age using this system". When asked by Mortimer how long Manco was expected to last, he replied "Not that long".

So, the answer would be, MANCO is the same character from FISTFUL, but not the same character in GBU. (also remember, in GBU he ran across the poncho by chance, whereas in FFU and FAFDM he wore it intentionally...I agree that was an inside joke for Eastwood fans).
Logged
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14082



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #17 on: December 15, 2002, 01:28:04 AM »

Originally posted by GMAT, 11-02-2001 05:21 PM      
I'd take Daisy's advice and no scrutinize this stuff so severely ... this "trilogy" was hardly planned out in a Star Wars or Godfather sense.
Logged
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14082



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #18 on: December 15, 2002, 01:30:11 AM »

Originally posted by Mohr Stoutbeard,11-02-2001 06:52 PM      
No, the poncho in "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" has the same exact pattern as in the previous films (or the subsequent films, since GBU is a prequel), and as far as I know it WAS the same poncho throughout all the films. Not just the poncho, either. The Man With No Name sports the same duds underneath the poncho (the striped light blue shirt, the dark blue/black pants, the vest) in the first (last?) two films, and we are shown that these clothes were given to him by Angel Eyes in the last (first?) film, GBU.

It was obviously intended to be the same character throughout both films, and thinking otherwise because of minor things is just plain neurotic. The reason Blondie "came on it by chance" is that it was intended as an origin for the. . .uh, "mystical" poncho that became associated with his character, and as GBU was a prequel, this fits in nicely.

--------------------
Tuco: 'See you soon, id. . .ids. . .'
The Man With No Name: 'Idiots.' It's for you.


Logged
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14082



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #19 on: December 15, 2002, 01:31:30 AM »

Originally posted by AKA23, 11-03-2001 12:35 PM      
It's the same guy in all three films in my opinion. I don't see the benefit that would be gained from having him be a different character in any one of the three films. Besides, all of the evidence presented here is extremely circumstantial and far from conclusive. I think this is a classic case of overanalyzation which I myself am prone to at times so I recognize it when I see it. Unless somebody can convince us of the merit of believing him to be different people in one or more films other than what has already been presented here I see no reason to continue speculating because I don't see why it would not be the same person in all three films.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7 Go Up Print 
 




C L I N T E A S T W O O D . N E T