New Westerns

Re: New Westerns

WOW! Can't wait for Miike's film. Looks great. He really is one of the most interesting filmmakers working today. Has anybody seen Gozu? Super cool flick by Miike. One of my favorites of his though Audition, Ichi the Killer, and Visitor Q are up there as well.

Right on about Harris too. Pollack was fantastic. Appaloosa looks incredible and what a cast. I've really been getting into westerns lately and these two films have me very excited. Throw in Burn After Reading and Septemeber is looking like a tremendous month at the cinema.

Cheers,

Jason

Re: New Westerns

I just found out about Appaloosa the other day. Thanks for the trailer.

Re: New Westerns

Tho I've only the mistiest memories of it at this point, Django was a staple of my childhood.

--
H

Re: New Westerns

I have no interest in the "spaghetti western." The term is a contradiction in and of itself.

Appaloosa is an American western filmed in New Mexico and Texas where the west happened, and its story reflects the American experience to a large degree. It is directed by Ed Harris, an immense talent. I wouldn't mind seeing Ed Harris do a new western every year.

Re: New Westerns

It's not a "spaghetti western", but a sukiyaki western. I saw it at Fantasia this year, and it is pretty darn insane, but a blast if you like Miike. The man probably could have made a "normal" western - the skills are on display - but Takashi Miike is a mad genius, and you can't complain about the madness.

Re: New Westerns

The trailer for Appaloosa was really good. Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen? Coolness!

Re: New Westerns

Care to explain how one of the most popular and recognized genres in film is a contradiction?

Re: New Westerns

I love spaghetti westerns but I assume that the "contradiction" is from the fact that "spaghetti" (ie: Italy) is pretty darn far to the east of the historic American West.

But, if you recognize that the western GENRE (as opposed to the history) has more to do with the subject matter of the film than the film location you wouldn't see any contradiction. The characters, plots, subject matter, themes, etc. of the genre really only give a nod to the actual history anyway. The western genre is a thing in and of itself and should never be confused with the history.

There are many "Westerns" that are not filmed (or even set) in the American West, and many films set there that are not "Westerns".

Re: New Westerns

I too just learned of Appaloosa this week when I found a trailer on Apple's movie trailer site.

I'm a big fan of Westerns . . . the genre, almost completely dead, seems to have experienced a slight resurgence as of late (Seraphim Falls, 3:10 To Yuma; The Proposition [Australian western]).

I think it was Ebert (or was it Siskel?) who said that the American Western is the only unique contribution of America to the movies. Does that sound correct?

Re: New Westerns

David Lynch. John Waters.

Cheers,

Jason

Re: New Westerns

Not quite. I don't recall the exact wording but your quote is a little off. I read a similar statement in a book about westerns long before Ebert & Siskel began their program. It might have been the French who said it first; in France, the western is a foreign art film, and they were among the first to define the genre and publish studies of it (in French). The point is that the western could not have originated in any other country because it originated specifically out of the American experience and culture in the early 1900s, when the pioneers of westward expansion inherited a new art form, the movies, and began making movies about how they had lived.

It's not merely a question of geography or where the film was shot, although that's part of it. Any historian worth his salt knows how the landscape affected the pioneers, and some film directors, like John Ford, knew it, too. It's a question of history, culture, and national experience which informs even the most generic and formulaic western. The Italians work from an entirely different sensibility. I'm 50% Sicilian, so I should know. Italy's homages, to be nice, echo the visual look but not the inner content of the American western. Italian "westerns" are not the same thing because they're about different things. They're about the Italian love affair with the American western.

Non sequiturs, Brian. The genre cannot be separated from the history, culture and experience that gave birth to it. A film doesn't have to be an historical re-enactment to be a western, but there are many historical westerns, and many westerns that are time, place and event specific. She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, High Noon, The Searchers, The Unforgiven (1960), Ride In the Whirlwind, Hombre, The Wild Bunch, Tell Them Willie Boy Is Here, Monte Walsh (1970), Ulzana's Raid, Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, Heartland (1979), The Ballad of Gregorio Cortez (1982), and Lonesome Dove could not have been dreamed of, let alone written and directed by, Italians in Spain. Italian "homages" contain a different subject matter than even the most generic and formulaic B western.

More non sequiturs. Although the western originated in America, coming out of American culture, history, and experience, many of its themes are universal, and can be appreciated and understood everywhere. I saw many westerns and spaghetti westerns when they were new or in re-release in the 1960s and 1970s. It's not like comparing apples and oranges. Spaghetti westerns are not westerns; with few exceptions they are some kind of abstract hybrid. Ironically, I've seen the spaghetti western exert an influence over the present generation of film makers and film buffs. The influence is not all bad, necessarily, but it has overtaken the western. The DVD generation knows all about spaghetti westerns, but they've seen very few westerns, and in blogs and threads like this, express their preference for the Italian kind. It's sad when I see American film buffs turn their back on their own film culture, the western. The best spaghetti homage (that would be Once Upon a Time In the West) might be an authentic cinematic experience and a memorable film, but it is does not hold a candle to the American western.

On a related note, there is a huge demand for new westerns in that vast no man's land between Los Angeles and New York City, but the industry isn't listening. They've forgotten how to make westerns, and some of the younger executives hate the very idea of a western. They don't want to hear about the country's enthusiasm for new westerns. They have other things on their plate.

True the genre has never died off completely, but new westerns are few and far between. If there weren't so much resistance at the executive level, westerns would be more numerous and frequent. Open Range and Seraphim Falls were very good. The remake of 3:10 to Yuma was laugh-out-loud ludicrous, but popular due more to its spaghetti western influences, super-charged action and violence than with being a western. The original 3:10 to Yuma, although a half century old -- now that's a great American western.

Re: New Westerns

The origins of the western genre? Agreed. Non sequiturs? I don't think so. Universal themes? Hmmm, maybe that's what defines the genre?

Our backgrounds in the genre aren't that different, though I think I am a bit younger. My dad introduced me to the genre as a kid and I watched many of the classics growing up. Every time "High Noon", "The Searchers", "True Grit", "Shane", "The Magnificent 7", "Liberty Valance", "The Outlaw Josey Wales", "The Good the Bad and the Ugly", or any movie even remotely connected to the genre came on TV; I would be coaxed into the den with "It's a classic - come and watch."

I was a film major in college and took some western classes, so I understand what you're saying.

But the question we're discussing (and film-makers have been exploring for decades) is how much can be stripped away from a western and still call it one? Does it have to be filmed in the west? Set there? Does the director need to be American? The characters? The plot? Must it be set between 1865 and 1900? Does the lead character have to be a cowboy? outlaw? loner? Does it need to be male oriented with female characters taking a secondary role (if any)?

..... All of the above?
Now this is interesting to explore. Obviously my list above is not complete. I didn't even include Native Americans (though they appear only in some westerns). I left out gamblers and trains. I left out themes of redemption. I left out.... well, dozens of elements, archetypes, characters, etc. The point is, we all know the parts that make a western. We all know that you don't need them all in every movie. If you believe that you can't contradict a single "rule" and still have a western, then I guess we have to agree to disagree. But, if you believe that you CAN break a rule or two, then it gets a little interesting.

The thing is, every "rule" of westerns has been broken in a classic western at one time or another. So filmmakers try pushing it... what if they break 2 rules? or 3? How many elements are required to consider the film a western? Which rules can be broken and which are essential?

Time period?
What if it's set during the Civil War? Still a western or just historical drama?
What if it's set after 1900? Still a western or just a movie about cowboys whose time has passed?

Plot?
What if it's a re-make of a Japanese movie (7 Samurai)? Is The Magnificent 7 NOT a western because of it's source material, even though it has all the elements of a western? If it IS a western, does that mean that 7 Samurai is, too? If the remake IS and the original ISN'T - does that mean that a western is defined merely by setting, costumes, and culture? If so, then we've just opened the definition up to a lot of movies that really don't seem to fit.

Is it the trappings or the themes? Where do you draw the line?

It seems to me there are only two options:
1) Westerns MUST consist ENTIRELY of elements defined as part of the genre; including plot, story, archetypes, setting, time-period, etc. Violate or contradict one rule and it's not a western. This would leave out such films as The Magnificent 7 and The Good the Bad and the Ugly.
2) There are essential elements of a western (open to debate), and as long as a movie has a certain amount of these it may still be a western. We can debate forever what is essential and where to draw the line, but this opens up interesting possibilities. Obviously this would mean that The Magnificent 7 and The Good the Bad and the Ugly might be westerns; but it MAY also include Sukiyaki Western Django, Serenity, and Star Wars.

(Note: Personally, while Star Wars has western archetypes and themes, I wouldn't call it one; but I would respect a debate on the subject.)

I'm guessing that movies like Sukiyaki Western Django, and The Good the Bad and the Ugly violate a certain theme(s) or element(s) that you consider absolutely essential to the genre. I'm curious what those are. Whatever those elements are seems to define the genre for you.

Re: New Westerns

I've seen the trailers for both "Appaloosa" and "Sukiyaki Western Django".

SWD just looks ridiculous. Dressing someone like a Cowboy and giving him a gun, instead of a sword, doesn't make a film a Western. SWD looks like a Samurai film but with guns, instead of swords.

APPALOOSA looks like a true Western. However, going only by the trailer, it looks like a tired retreading of ground that has been explored a thousand times by better directors than Ed Harris could ever be.

The Korean "Western" demonstrates how the Italian take on the Western genre has supplanted the American Western which was the progenitor of the genre.

I have to admit the movie that interests me most is the Korean one, even though it is a blatant rip of the Italian "Spaghetti" Western. At least that one looked like whoever made it had a blast doing it.

Re: New Westerns

Hope it doesn't offend anyone, but I've never heard of Takashi Miike before, but the trailer for Sukiyaki Western Django looks like a fun movie to go see. If it weren't for these forums, there's a ton of movies I'd miss out on seeing. Thanks for posting the links or I wouldn't have known about these.

Appaloosa looks very promising, gonna go see that one too.

Re: New Westerns

Ah, you poor lucky man. There is a whole world of crazy for you to discover if you choose to.

Well, samurai films and westerns serve roughly the same purpose for their respective cultures, and there's not a whole lot of difference between a gun for hire and a wandering ronin. I've seen it, and I suppose if you're going to insist that any given film can only fit in one little box, it's neither a samurai movie nor a western, but an action-adventure told in a way that only Miike can. I do think that despite taking place in an unreal world, it manages to touch on the theme at the center of most great westerns: People raised to believe in the rule of law living on a frontier beyond the law's reach.

Hopefully, I'll get a chance to see Appaloosa this Friday, as it's opening the Boston Film Festival. I'm looking forward to it, as it does seem to be the film of this year's crop that comes the closest to the classical idea of the Western.

I'm also really looking forward to The Good, the Bad, and the Weird. Kim Ji-Woon is a downright fantastic director, probably best known in the U.S. for A Tale of Two Sisters. His last movie was the marvelous A Bittersweet Life, somehow has not even gotten a DVD release here, despite it being classic action of the sort that John Woo and Chow Yun-fat used to make before coming to the U.S. and getting soft. Lee Byung-hyun, the star of A Bittersweet Life, plays "The Bad", so I'm doubly looking forward to it.

Re: New Westerns

I saw Appoloosa on Friday, with Robert Parker and the screenwriter in attendance (no Ed Harris, sadly), and it was pretty good. It's a much more conventional western than many that have come out lately, kind of taking a while to get to the really interesting bits, but Harris and Mortenson are quite good in it, and I liked Renee Zellwegger much more than usual.

Re: New Westerns

The trailer for Sukiyaki Western Django looked awful

the other two were worth considering.