Skip to main content

You pull that trigger and shoot me, I fall. And if I fall... they'll have to alter all the maps.

A Fistful of Dynamite
aka
Duck, You Sucker
aka
Once Upon a Time… The Revolution
aka
Gui la testa!
(1972)

(SPOILERS) You wouldn’t think there could be a forgotten film on the resume of a world-renowned director with only seven (officially) to his credit, but A Fistful of Dynamite rather takes that mantle. The Colossus of Rhodes is rightly rather dismissed as unrepresentative of Sergio Leone’s style, obsessions and ambitions, but from that point on his tastes and interests are emblazoned for all to see. He wasn’t originally going to direct Duck, You Sucker, which has as many reported proposed directors as it does titles (names like Peter Bogdanovich and Sam Peckinpah are thrown about, and Leone’s Assistant Director Giancarlo Santi was reportedly nixed by star Rod Steiger in favour of the supremo himself, ten days into the shoot), and the finished product was, like Once Upon a Time in the West before it and Once Upon a Time in America after, horribly mistreated by an unsympathetic studio (a trilogy of mutilation). Even in restored form there are occasional ellipses that lead to a lack of clarity, but Once Upon a Time… The Revolution is nevertheless confirmed, lest there was any doubt, as a magnificent piece of work, an ostensibly political picture that is actually all about friendship, a serious-minded epic that’s irrepressibly quirky and occasionally hilarious, and work of sumptuous visual splendour wrapped in an Ennio Morricone’s score that will probably be a litmus test for how far you’re willing to go with the composer’s eccentric choices.


The picture is a close second only to The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in my Leone ranking. It’s one that provokes debate over its director’s intentions and depictions, as is frequently the case, not least in the release extras which either promote myths or entrench personal tastes depending on your own personal tastes. Self-appointed connoisseur of all things Leone Sir Christopher Frayling pronounces it as Leone’s warning (the Italian title is effectively, ‘Keep your Head Down’) against the revolutionary spirit, so positioning him as a contrarian to the very zeitgeist-y mood of the period. It’s a film that begins with a Mao Tse Tung quote (“The revolution is an act of violence…”) but proceeds to dispel any alluring notions of honour and virtue in its processes. It ends with a question “What about me?” posed over the questioning mug of Rod Steiger’s Mexican bandit Juan, now alone, but a glorious hero of the revolution, with the title Duck, You Sucker superimposed below him. Which could be read as advice not to get involved, to just stay out of it (although, narratively, it’s a bit late for that).


I think there’s a problem with over-stating the ‘keep your head’ down case, though, since it suggests Leone is offering that as an all-encompassing answer (which would be to implicitly condone a status quo he is explicitly criticising). It’s been said Leone wasn’t an overly political guy, shooting from the hip, and I don’t think Gui la testa! is intending to give such an affirmation. It’s very clear on what is wrong, how those in positions of power, status and influence manipulate those without to their own ends, but Leone is not presumptuous about having a means of addressing this; he just knows very well that, for all that his pictures take great glee in enacting violence, it is not an answer. It merely creates and perpetuates cycles. That’s why John/Sean has to die, and – whether intentional or otherwise – it’s instructive that the scene following the machine gun massacre inflicted by John and Juan, in which they’re giddy with said glee, depicts the rude awakening of a cave of resistance fighters’ bodies, including Juan’s slain family (I say “or otherwise”, as it appears there were originally several scenes positioned between these events, including the torture of Dr Villega (Romolo Valli), that lead to the atrocity, so my reading is a consequence of an edit Leone did not necessarily intend).


Juan: I know what I am talking about when I am talking about the revolutions. The people who read the books go to the people who can't read the books, the poor people, and say, "We have to have a change." So, the poor people make the change, ah? And then, the people who read the books, they all sit around the big polished tables, and they talk and talk and talk and eat and eat and eat, eh? But what has happened to the poor people? They're dead! That's your revolution. Shhh... So, please, don't tell me about revolutions! And what happens afterwards? The same fucking thing starts all over again!


Leone, leftist in politics, had nevertheless been dismayed over the romanticism with which the radical left had seized the revolutionary ideal, and wanted to disabuse it of lustre. He also had Mussolini’s fascist exploitation in his sights, hence an anachronistically endearing mash-up of period and people (set in Mexico in 1913, so pre-official IRA, despite John being identified as such, with a very Nazi German as the primary antagonist, and WWII machine guns in action). Leone’s feelings are best summed up by the Juan dialogue above, which concisely encapsulates the truths of power and its plays. The director’s heroes tend to be anarchists, here and elsewhere, since systems of rule are inherently corrupt, manipulative and untrustworthy.


On the debit side, A Fistful of Dynamite is also a picture that emphasises Leone’s sometimes crude appreciation of gender politics. His milieus are very much male affairs, the women a means to an end (witnessed at is most controversial in Once Upon a Time in America), even in Once Upon a Time in the West, where a woman is ostensibly one of the three protagonists. Here, the rape of a rich stage coach passenger (Maria Monti) by Juan is depicted as something she secretly wants, and which Juan, with insights into their false superiority and lofty ignorance, recognises. It’s an uncomfortable scene, coming in an era recognised for such problematic content (see also Straw Dogs). The only other female character is a non-speaking part, Coleen (Vivienne Maya), central to the relationship between John and Nolan but purely instrumental, there to define her men.


Leone precedes the rape with a masterful sequence, a crescendo of extreme close-ups of the coach occupants’ cruel, greedy mouths and disdainful utterances in reaction to the lowly Juan’s presence in their midst. While this serves to align us morally with Juan, the subsequent assault ensures that, while he may be a protagonist, Juan is definitely not to be mistaken for a hero (he’s a criminal, a would be bank robber, one who arms his children and thinks nothing of murdering in cold blood).


But neither is Coburn’s Mallory; this is no glamorous depiction of an IRA man, as one might find Brad Pitt essaying, although Coburn chews into his character with typically whole-hearted relish (and a similarly eager, rather than necessarily accurate, approach to accent). John has excused himself from the fight; one revolution was enough for him, and now he believes only in dynamite (his services are for sale to the highest bidder).  He is nevertheless embroiled in this one, and haunted by the murder of his best friend at his own hands, a friend who betrayed him and so shattered all illusions.


It’s the purity of the friendship with Juan that brings John back to the land of the caring (Leone referred to it as a reverse Pygmalion, where the intellectual is taught by the naïve Mexican). Juan, whose country is "me and my family". It’s been suggested (on the restoration doc on the DVD) that the ménage a trois revealed at the end, between John, Nolan (David Warbeck) and Coleen (Vivienne Chandler), provides John with a motivation to, in fact, inform on Nolan. Which could be a reading (equally it could be a reading that John and Nolan are themselves intimately involved), but that doesn’t appear to have been the filmmaker’s intent; the idea was for the open relationship to symbolise all that was good and untainted about idealised friendship (which is spoiled by the intrusion of politics). Certainly, the thought that John might have engineered Nolan’s capture didn’t occur to me before the doc forwarded it.


One of the oft-cited debates over Duck, You Sucker is the casting, and how Leone wanted Eli Wallach and Jason Robards as Juan and John. To be honest, it sounds like the kind of lazy casting that also put Clint Eastwood in the frame, a director settling for known quantities rather than looking for the best actor for the part. I can certainly see Wallach in the Steiger role, but I really like Steiger’s performance here, eccentric accent, mannered style and all (he and Leone apparently clashed, particularly due to his preferred spontaneity and the director’s yen for multiple takes – which is nothing new, there were similarly obverse approaches with Kubrick and Nicholson, and Fincher and Downey Jr).


Steiger also has great chemistry with Coburn, whose irrepressible exuberance really makes the movie. Robards would have offered an altogether more focused, controlled energy, which, again, could have worked, but would have reinforced the picture’s downbeat tone. As it is, Coburn fills the screen in a very vital, tangible way that helps link this back to the Dollars westerns rather than Once Upon a Time in the West, which is more taciturn and subdued (particularly with the taciturn, subdued Bronson). Their relationship also ensures this is, for all its tragic ending, perhaps the most life-affirming Leone film. The bonds in For a Few Dollars More and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly are motivated by financial interests or convenience, and the ones in Once Upon a Time in the West never really have substance. Once Upon a Time in America, meanwhile, is all about the death of the bond of friendship.


Once Upon a Time… The Revolution is also a frequently very funny film. The opening antagonistic squaring-off between Juan and John, parrying guns with explosives as they destroy each other’s chosen vehicular transports, is a hilariously extended piece of comic exchange, emphasised by Morricone’s uber-playful soundtrack. Throughout, Leone stretches time more than ever before – even for him – be it with the slow motion, jaunty motoring flashbacks in Ireland or the willingness to allow each and every scene its unhurried head; some may find the results slow, but I find that, contrastingly, they are rendered all the more engrossing as a result. 


And, also on the amusing side, who can forget Antoine Saint-John’s indelible, ultra-creepy, egg-sucking, rigorously teeth-brushing Colonel Gunther Reza?


Gui la testa! is chock full of stunning or resonant moments and imagery, from the enormous bridge explosion, to the casual pan across firing squads filling pits with falling bodies, to John attempting to pacify a chicken then wringing its neck when soothing utterances fail. Sequences recall earlier pictures, but with even more panache (the opening combat is a replay of Clint vs van Cleef in For a Few Dollars More, and the flashbacks also recall that film, as the friendship with Juan and Villega’s betrayal cue John’s remembrances).


And what of Morricone’s score? It’s a real curate’s egg. Even knowing the choral “shon shon”, I always hear it as “Sean, Sean”, so referring to John. Some find it much, much too much, but I regard it as a high point of the composer’s career, crazily expressive, funny, and irresistible; it helps the picture find balance with the darkness. Morricone knows where to find the light.


Revisiting a Leone film is a sobering reminder of how few really visual filmmakers there are working today. The likes of De Palma and Roeg are very much in decline/retirement or cannot get work, but the ‘60s and ‘70s enabled a perfect forum for stylistic free rein that would never be entertained today. Even the likes of Spielberg and Scorsese started to tread softly on their more distinctive talents as time went on. Leone ranks up there with Kubrick as a director with an innate understanding of the medium and how to immerse the viewer within it. And A Fistful of Dynamite might be his equivalent of Barry Lyndon; an unfairly forgotten work. Even if he didn’t recognise it, though, Leone got a lot luckier than Kubrick did with his lead casting.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the