MSN.com
By Dante Santella
Throughout its heyday as one of the most sought-after
types of movie western, the subgenre known as the Spaghetti Western influenced
and reshaped the landscape of what a Western film can be. Before gaining
prominence during the 1960s, Old Hollywood-style westerns were generally
defined by pre-established rules that general audiences had come to expect with
every new western being released; until many directors from Europe had taken on
the western genre and gave it a new fresh coat of paint.
Known for audacious stories, stylized filmmaking and an
Italian sensibility, spaghetti western films garnered all sorts of acclaim and
criticism during the height of the genre’s popularity. Despite having been
recognized in recent years as an important cinematic genre, not all spaghetti
westerns are made with pitch-perfect craftsmanship; as with any movie genre,
some definitive factors are unconventional within multiple spaghetti westerns
and tend to appear often.
The Law of The Land Is Nonexistent
The Spaghetti Western Is the True Wild West
[Lee Van Cleef as Angel Eyes dueling against the Man with
No Name and Tuco in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.]
As with many westerns, the typical narrative of a lone
hero trying to save the day against the forces of evil is still expanded on
within spaghetti westerns; however, a critical difference between traditional
westerns and a spaghetti western lies in the law’s presence throughout the
story. Without much indication of a system of government, nor any sheriffs or
bustling community, most spaghetti westerns feel like out of a fantasy rather
than true to life.
[A split image of Django, Day of Anger, and Once Upon A
Time in the West spaghetti western movies.]
Spaghetti Westerns don't always get their due, but there
are rich, nuanced action stories being told in this unsung cinematic genre!
With the sheer amount of crimes committed throughout an
average spaghetti western, most would assume that any kind of justice will step
in to stop the madness. But in truth, the lawlessness and apt description of
the Wild West best encapsulates a spaghetti western and, oftentimes, the
chaotic environment leaves little to the imagination of how brutal these films
can be; especially with how most films disregard realism.
The Big Stars Often Stick Out Too Much
A Leading Man Can Overshadow an Ensemble
[Franco Nero as
Django in Django]
Helping define the careers of many successful actors, the
western genre has produced some big-name stars who charmed audiences and played
iconic cowboys. In the wake of Clint Eastwood’s rise to stardom by working with
Sergio Leone, many spaghetti westerns aimed to recapture the magic by finding
the next great leading man, though ironically, the search for an Eastwood-esque
figure would ultimately put a damper on the spaghetti western ideology.
Framing individuals with a grimy and unflattering look,
the characters in spaghetti westerns are meant to evoke a naturalistic
portrayal of the Old West. With many spaghetti western protagonists, the
leading men were often American B-list actors or unknown European actors that
resembled a specific caricature but didn’t necessarily fit with the rest of the
cast. Most of the memorable aspects in spaghetti westerns are the engaging side
characters, while the protagonist serves as a tool rather than a believable
individual.
The “Heroes” Are Not Usually That Good
The Audience Doesn’t Always Have Someone to Root For
[Clint Eastwood
gives a scowling look in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.]
Within the traditional western’s blueprint in
storytelling, audiences will recognize the standard trope of a cowboy with a
white hat juxtaposed with a cowboy with a black hat. The terminology is meant
to imply a clear hero versus villain dynamic, whereas a spaghetti western film
instead aims to blur the lines of morality altogether. Whether motivated by
greed, revenge or circumstance, a spaghetti western protagonist is more of an
anti-hero or just a wandering observer.
Although many great spaghetti westerns engage viewers
through compelling narratives and impressive moviemaking with a morally complex
hero, the lower-tier spaghetti westerns utilize mindless action as a crutch to
compensate for poor characterization. If the protagonist is the lesser of evils
amongst all the characters in the film, then the viewer becomes disinterested
in the ongoing plot and the film just becomes a showcase for meaningless
violence.
A Close-Up Shot Can Sometimes be Overbearing
The Viewer Already Knows What's Going On
[Opening shot from
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.]
Among the numerous amount of directors who helped foster
the genre of spaghetti westerns, none were as influential nor as adept in
filmmaking as Sergio Leone. In creating his signature style, Sergio Leone would
often let the camera speak for the characters and mastered the art of the
close-up shot, but in doing so, the director’s style was frequently used and
the copycats made the technique appear lazy and repetitive in other spaghetti
western films.
Although the Western genre isn't for everyone, these
films are beloved by the vast majority of audiences.
As the close-up/quick zoom was meant to evoke a
character’s emotion or emphasize an important plot point, the reliance on this
technique made some spaghetti westerns overindulgent with storytelling. One
downside to this genre is the recurring use of plagiarism, where the best
working directors like Sergio Leone had to deal with his work becoming stolen
and poorly executed; thereby making other spaghetti westerns appear all alike
to casual audiences.
The Gunslinger Is Unbelievably Skilled in Battle
Without Any Real Stakes There’s No Tension
[The protagonist
Ringo in A Pistol for Ringo.]
Throughout the history of westerns, nearly all of the
protagonists are experts in the art of the duel, but none are as magically
gifted as a spaghetti western hero. Blurring the lines between appealing to a
grittier tone or framing the film like a cartoon, spaghetti western
protagonists appear to never be in any true danger. Moreover, most spaghetti
western heroes never even seem to get harmed despite the massive odds against
them.
Whether facing a swarm of outlaws, bandits or soldiers,
the spaghetti western hero typically handles the conflict with ease and is left
unscathed. While by no means do audiences demand that the protagonist be killed
off, it is much more interesting to watch a hero struggle to win the day rather
than reach the end of the film unfazed by all the gunfights, carnage and
relationships established throughout.
Unjust Violence Is Paramount to a Spaghetti Western
Nothing Is off the Table Within the Genre
[Django holds a
pistol and has a gatling gun ready in Django.]
As a prominent aspect in all kinds of westerns, violence
on screen distills a fundamental storytelling function of having tension and
release, where the brutality framed in a spaghetti western film is highlighted
somewhat excessively. Although the goal of a spaghetti western is to be shocking
and more raw than prior American westerns, some lesser-quality films come
across as over-the-top in the execution of violence. Moreover, the unrestrained
use of violence dampens any real meaning to the plot at hand.
[Angel Eyes looks
over to the side in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.]
Spaghetti Westerns were massively popular in the 1960s
and '70s, and they laid the groundwork for future generations of filmmakers.
In trying to upend any sense of convention within the
western genre, spaghetti western films set out to depict as much gore as
possible to throw off an audience; and while some of the best spaghetti
westerns were able to maintain a proper balance of spectacle and artistic
merit, a vast majority depended too much on shock value that killed all sense
of purpose for the viewer to connect with the story.
Humor Is Hard to Adapt For Everyone
Comedy Must Be Universal in Order to Reach the Largest
Audience
[Terrence Hill and
Bud Spencer in They Call me Trinity.]
Once the spaghetti western genre reached its peak, many
variations were spawned from the subgenre and amongst them were comedy films.
With notable works by Terence Hill & Bud Spencer, the acclaimed spaghetti
western comedies were able to pack physical humor and satire throughout the
story, though this didn’t always work with other films in the same way. Whether
having an offbeat style or poor delivery of jokes, a lot of spaghetti western
comedies couldn’t fully entertain audiences.
At the same time, the exaggerated tone and attempts at
parody merely muddle the plot and leave the viewer baffled. Although a
spaghetti western comedy doesn’t have to engage with real life, the farcical
nature of these films isn’t nearly as entertaining to excuse lackluster
writing, bad acting, shoddy directing or faulty 1960s/1970s Italian humor that
does not hold up by today’s standards.
The Cheaper Quality Kills Any Kind of Escapism
A Familiar Look Doesn’t Expand the Narrative
[Clint Eastwood in
A Fistful of Dollars.]
Often being shot in various locations around southern
Italy and Spain, spaghetti westerns were meant to evoke the arid landscapes of
the American Southwest and Northern Mexico, while also placing characters in
small towns, local communities or abandoned areas. In this case, many spaghetti
westerns operated on a lower budget and were made quickly to follow the market
trend, which shows in the familiar production design and repetitive stories
that occur in these films.
[Split Images of
Hidalgo, Forsaken, and Tell Tale.]
Westerns are a huge genre of the silver screen. Which
ones fell under the radar that are off the beaten path of the classic spaghetti
western format?
Despite aiming for success by copying what worked before,
many spaghetti westerns retread the same visual style which tarnished the
uniqueness of the more acclaimed spaghetti western films. Moreover, as the
years went by, the standard of many spaghetti westerns had reached a low point
where any competently shot film made it to theaters; where multiple directors
should’ve instead tried to present something different and challenge audiences.
Weak Audio & Translation May Ruin the Flow
Bad Technical Design Lessens a Film’s Execution
[Terence Hill in
My Name is Nobody.]
Being a distinct quality in all spaghetti westerns, the
use of dubbed dialogue served to benefit the audience, where the multicultural
cast and crew that made these films all worked well together despite some
language barriers. However, in the lesser quality spaghetti western films, the
terrible post-synched dubbing sticks out and ruins the performance of the
dedicated actor trying to sell the story, who is instead turned into a
laughingstock.
Like many other significant westerns, the actor is vital
for conveying the truth of the story to the audience and, while the art of film
is a visual medium, and the audience can understand the characters with just
the actor’s face, bad dubbing takes away the intonation of each performer’s
voice and overall presence within the story. Moreover, bad dubbing can also
ruin a narrative through misguided translation, as a specific native language
can be misinterpreted by an audience in another country.
A Meandering Plot Can Wreck a Viewing Experience
An Essential Aspect for a Good Movie Is a Tight Script
[The Protagonist
in The Great Silence.]
For however many good spaghetti western films there are
that deliver a terrific story, there are even worse spaghetti westerns that
fumble all sense of story momentum. Taking the basic structure of a good
western, such as having a good guy defend others against a bad guy, many
spaghetti westerns instead attempt to reframe this dynamic and include way too
many plot threads. It is the inclination to take the narrative in so many
directions that kills any audience enjoyment.
The point of a great spaghetti western film is to
gradually build upon a story’s themes and reach a satisfying conclusion while
having a good time along the way with interesting characters, engaging action
and impressive filmmaking. But with most spaghetti westerns, the narrative
often suffers from misguided scenes that don’t offer anything unique to say and
end up ruining the pacing for the viewer.