THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY

[Rev. Powell]

I guess many, if not most, on this board are familiar with this classic 5 star/slime spaghetti western, so I won't bore you with a plot summary or review.  This is a masterpiece that definitely deserves its own thread here.

The scene that always sticks out like a sore thumb to me is this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoNccwtxwwo
(Sorry, the clip quality's not the best).

Blondie abandons Tuco in the desert, 70 miles from the nearest village (where there's a bounty on his head), with his hands tied together.  Not quite a death sentence, but pretty close.  Adding insult to injury, Clint taunts him.  And, Blondie's reasons for dissolving the partnership are basically left to the audience to invent.   

Yet, Leone chooses this moment, when Blondie has performed his most despicable, out of character act, to tag Eastwood as "the Good."  (Seems to me a more conventional point to paint this legend on the screen would have been after the first time Clint shoots off the hangman's noose, before this clip starts).  I know this scene sets up Tuco's revenge motivation, which drives the rest of the first act, and creates sympathy for the little rascal, but I'm still a little confused by Leone's choice here.   

Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts on this scene, or any other comments on this seminal western, fell free to post them here.

[Oldskool138]

I started a thread a while back:

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,116043.0.html

[Gerry]

I think the difference between "the good" and "the bad" is a matter of degree and personal honor.

Angel Eyes would have killed Tuco outright, but Blondie gives him a chance...the same (albeit twisted) chance that Tuco returns later.  Angel Eyes has no moral code whatsoever other than what will bring him the most profit.  Blondie on the other hand seeks profit, but has a moral code and sense of mercy that is displayed in situations such as telling the wounded Colonel to listen for the "good news" of the bridge being blown up and giving the cigar to the dying soldier.

By most moral standards, "the good" isn't really a very good person, but compared to "the bad" and "the ugly" he is certainly the more redeeming individual.

[Andrew]

I think the difference between "the good" and "the bad" is a matter of degree and personal honor.

Angel Eyes would have killed Tuco outright, but Blondie gives him a chance...the same (albeit twisted) chance that Tuco returns later.  Angel Eyes has no moral code whatsoever other than what will bring him the most profit.  Blondie on the other hand seeks profit, but has a moral code and sense of mercy that is displayed in situations such as telling the wounded Colonel to listen for the "good news" of the bridge being blown up and giving the cigar to the dying soldier.

By most moral standards, "the good" isn't really a very good person, but compared to "the bad" and "the ugly" he is certainly the more redeeming individual.

That is an excellent way of putting it.

So, Tuco is Lawful Evil and Blondie is Chaotic Good?

[Gerry]

I wouldn't call Tuco "lawful" by a long stretch, but then again I could never figure out that D&D characteristic anyway.   ;)

[Rev. Powell]

Huh, somehow my response got lost.

Oldskool, you're right.  Not only did you start a topic, I actually responded to it!  I did a search but the thread didn't turn up.  Sorry.

Gerry, I agree somewhat.  My first thought was Blondie was only "the good" by default.  But through the rest of the film he does sort of act like "the good," in the examples you cited and more subtly when he allows Tuco to brag about his brother without letting on that he knows the truth.  In that scene he even shares his cigar with Tuco, like he does with the dying soldier.  Blondie's actions in that early scene still seem out of character to me.

Andrew, I think you mistyped.  Tuco seems the definition of "chaotic."     

[Oldskool138]

Huh, somehow my response got lost.

Oldskool, you're right.  Not only did you start a topic, I actually responded to it!  I did a search but the thread didn't turn up.  Sorry.

No prob.   

As I've said before this is one of my favorite movies.

Sure Angel Eyes has close to no morals but in the extended cut of the movie you see that Angel Eyes is not without a soul...a very tarnished one but he is human.  That extra scene really helped flesh out his character better.

[Rev. Powell]

Sure Angel Eyes has close to no morals but in the extended cut of the movie you see that Angel Eyes is not without a soul...a very tarnished one but he is human.  That extra scene really helped flesh out his character better.

Yep.  Just a subtle shift of Van Cleef's eyes.  I actually wouldn't have consciously noticed it without the commentary pointing it out, but its definitely there. 

It's amazing how much acting all three leads did just using their eyes. 

[Oldskool138]

I was reading the news today and I came across a guy with the same name as Tuco (he real name read before they tried to hang him).  It's that fugitive Marine's cousin in this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22792945/

[threnody]

I'm embarrassed to say this, but I haven't seen it, despite the fact that I own it. I have the entire trilogy, but I've only seen A Fistful of Dollars. My brother and I were going to watch all three together, and we only saw the first one before he moved far away. I'm waiting to watch the other two with him.

[Neville]

Cheat on him oon this one, it gets better the more you watch it.

About the movie, what can I say? One of Leone's best, and one of the best westerns ever.

[Oldskool138]

About the movie, what can I say? One of Leone's best, and one of the best westerns ever.

I'm not a spaghetti western director but I did stay at a Best Western last night.   

[Neville]

And I bet it wasn't as good as this movie, was it? 

I was right, then.

[Oldskool138]

And I bet it wasn't as good as this movie, was it? 

I was right, then.

Few movies are.