Most of the films I have previously reviewed for this course were considered masterpieces right out of the gate, and this label was not questioned until years later if at all. Once Upon a Time in the West, however, had almost the exact opposite effect. The New York Times review published the day after the film was released does not have high praise for the film and flat out calls it bad saying, “Granting the fact that it is quite bad, ‘Once Upon the Time in the West’ is almost always interesting, wobbling, as it does, between being an epic lampoon and a serious homage to the men who created the dreams of Leone's childhood.” Today, the general consensus is much different. Even the comments posted in response to this review show an overwhelming support of this film, going as far as to call it “the best Western ever made.” Why do the views of a 1969 audience seem almost opposite in comparison to a present day audience? I believe the answer lies within the ideology, which has clearly changed in those 40 years.
Our textbook defines ideology as “the ways in which a certain image of one’s place in the world becomes internalized and then functions as a guide to proper conduct in a given social context” (503). Using The Searchers as a sample of the “proper conduct,” there are obvious changes and disruptions in the dominant ideology of the time. Let’s start with the obvious: Henry Fonda. The audience sees him and expects a kind, soft spoken gentlemen. They get a point-blank child shooting villain. To make matters even more confusing, this is not the first shoot out we see. Instead of the film building up to one final shoot out in which the good guys take down the bad (like any good Western should) the first action of the film is one of these shoot outs, except it’s so soon that we really are not sure which side is good and which side is bad, which is where I believe the biggest ideological challenge lies within distinguishing who is good and who is evil.
We want to believe that the nameless harmonica man is good because he shot the men that hassled the poor old station attendant, but we question in because how many “good guys” appear out of nowhere and shoot three men for an undisclosed reason? The portrayal of him with Cheyenne still does not allow us to properly label him. The same can be said for Cheyenne. He appears to be evil; when he enters everything stops and all focus is on him, not to mention the fact that he is in cuffs. His meeting with Jill makes us wonder if he really is evil. After all, he seems to want to help her, and at this point, he seems to be fighting against Mr. Harmonica. I seem to be rambling on about the confusion, but this mirrors the feeling the audience gets when watching the movie. Mr. Harmonica seems to fall into the side of evil when he sneaks up on Jill and rips her clothes, leading the audience to believe he is going to rape her.
It isn’t until the end of the movie that we have a better understanding of good vs. evil, but it is still foggy and much less clear than your average Western, challenging our ideology. We have to accept that the “good guys” are not good through and through; they have some elements of evil. The film also challenges the idea of sides. It seems as though it’s every man for himself instead of one common goal uniting each other. Mr. Harmonica is seeking revenge, and the only reason he helps Jill and Cheyenne is to attain it, so in a sense, it is for his own gain, perhaps even selfish.
Then we get to family dynamics. The Searchers has strong family ties shown through Ethan’s five year quest for his niece and sudden change of heart. In this film, the only sense of family is a dead one, leaving us with a whore, definitely not what a 1969 audience is used to, but exactly what Leone wanted to show. This film makes a question good and evil, and makes us realize that our beloved heroes sometimes are not as pure as we hoped. It also shows the average American as the villain, a drastic change from The Searchers as the Comanche were not even viewed as “human.” What was considered normal for Westerns is challenged in a Western film, which according to the review, seems to have been rejected at the time, but today’s audience loves it because, unlike the people of that time, we can identify with some of the characters, and it fits into our dominant ideology much more neatly than the ideology of the 1960’s.
Your analysis of the film as a discussion on good and evil is quite interesting, and also very appropriate. It took me about half of the movie to figure out who everyone was and how they were related, and even longer to understand why. Also, the idea that Leone was ahead of his time in portraying an ideology much closer to current American dominant ideology than that of the time seems to fit as well, largely because of the ideas of good an evil, and especially the portrayal of Americans. Lastly, I think that it is important that this "spaghetti western" is not solely from the American viewpoint which allows its creators to compose a more detached look at the concept of the Western than their Hollywood counterparts who might find difficulty portraying so many Americans in such a distasteful manner.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of good vs. evil is very interesting and definitely something I didn't think of while watching the film. It is true though that you never really know who is with who and it does seem to be every man for themself. I also thought your idea on the relationships between people was interesting. There are not any true relationships throughout the film which creates a kind of cold sense between the characters.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about the film challenging the ideas of sides. Sure, many westerns have the typical good guy/bad guy conflict, but I think that those labels cannot apply to this film, except everyone can agree that Henry Fonda is a bad guy. I think he is the only definate one though. There are more characters and more motives and backgrounds they come from in this film which I think make it difficult to pin everybody on one side.
ReplyDelete