The MoFo Top 100 Westerns: Countdown

The shadow in The Quick and the Dead wasn't internally consistent. It was absurd, and done purely for dramatic effect. You can see that for the light to shine through like that the trajectory of the bullet would have had to be aimed at the sun, which it wasn't, that is assuming it wasn't simply obscured with blood and guts in the first place.

Vampires aren't inherently unrealistic just because they don't exist. That's not how realism works. There's a vast scale of degrees of realism. When we talk about something that doesn't exist being in a movie, like Aliens, Ghosts, or Magic, we consider them realistic to the degree that they are portrayed if they existed. And the degree to witch their existence and abilities are consistent with what's internally established, movies about vampires and other things are criticised. Consistency and realism are objective qualities that can be measured. If realilsm and objectivity don't matter to you that's fine. I'm not trying to tell you what perspective to have or what you're allowed to enjoy. I just don't think The Quick and the Dead is a good movie.

I do enjoy debating this topic, but I also don't want to derail the thread with too much debate.

I'm a little apprehensive about this post I'm going to make, since I said I didn't want to derail the thread too much. I wasn't going to, but I ended up thinking of some things that I really wanted to say, so I hope it's okay.

No, I got that already. I was asking in a general sense. As you've made similar comments before and we've already discussed the topic of realism, I'm not keen to rehash. But, it seems that you generally don't care about reality, and prefer fantasy over reality. To the extent that you seem to find the reverse absurd, it's a little bewildering. Do you think critically of people who prefer reality to fantasy? Or perhaps, just those who do in art?

Spiderman? Never heard of it. Sounds pretty unrealistic, except for the fact that it literally is the premise. Realism is based on what that establishes. In other words, if a radioactive spider could give super powers, what would it look like if it was real? Spiderman is like a childish fantasy of, "If I could have super powers what would I want? I'd want to be able to beat up bullies, and zoom around the city, and climb walls." Spiderman wasn't a very realistic movie, but it did have a compelling story. And having a compelling story is really the most important part. I still found absurdities in Spiderman of a comparable degre to The Quick and the Dead. I still enjoyed Spiderman a lot more, and I think it was a much better movie. It's not like I ever implied realism is the only criteria for art that matters to me.

That explains the blood and guts perhaps, but not the bullet trajectory and angle of light. Nevertheless, there is the old cliche, two wrongs don't make a right. Was there something in the premise that implied such unrealistic things made sense internally within the movie? I don't have to appreciate it as much as you enjoyed it for its entertainment value.

That's a fair point. But nevertheless, even subjectively, it did "feel" massively out of place to me both times I watched it. I don't think anything else in the movie was as over the top for dramatic effect, maybe DiCaprio's death. And mostly the movie did "feel" like a serious realistic Western to me. But I had a hard time believing, even internally within the movie's setting, the plot twist of turning the duels into death matches, and the melodramatic ending. It felt cliche, but I at least enjoyed some of the action and characters when I was younger. I think that scene would be more in place in a movie like Django, or The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. But, a bunch of absurdities doesn't make any of them feel immersive or good, unless the tone of the movie is comedic. Was the scene of the bullet hole in the shadow supposed to be funny? I sensed that the tone of The Quick and the Dead was serious. The music said that it wanted the audience to feel serious emotion, but internally I found myself rejecting the mood of the music because what I was seeing didn't match.

I have no recollection of that. Must not have been a very memorable discussion.

I "generally don't care about reality"? What? I genuinely have no idea WTF you're talking about.

No, but I think critically of people who nitpick things like bullet trajectory and the angle of light in a film that never pretends to be striving for anything other than pure entertainment.

The premise is that this town full of over-the-top gunslingers and outlaws holds an annual quick-draw competition. Emphasis on over-the-top. Although the movie did occasionally go for a bit of sentiment, not a single damn one of these characters felt real to me.

And I still fail to grasp how you can complain about how unrealistic this image is:


in a film that also contains this one:


But you know, the angle of the light and the trajectory of the bullet match so it's totally realistic. Or something. And the movie is definitely going for seriousness.

Not to mention it has a character whose chest is so full of scars from being shot that you could probably draw a picture by connecting the dots and another character who somehow managed to bust off a wagon wheel that he was left chained to out in the middle of nowhere and then dragged it into town.

You had a hard time believing that an over-the-top outlaw gunslinger who forced another man to murder the priest that had saved both their lives and who gave a gun to a little girl and told her to shoot the noose around her father's neck to save him would suddenly change the rules of the competition when he realizes that one of the competitors has been hired to kill him and that two of the other competitors have formed a bond? Okay...

Like I said, if you don't like the over-the-top style of the movie, that's entirely fine. You're not obligated to like it. But I find it a little ridiculous to point to the shadow and that "twist", among so many other ridiculous scenes, and complain about a lack of believability.

__________________

Bone Tomahawk

Why do you have a problem with that?

I think it comes down to an improper definition of terms. This seems like it's less to do with some absolute objective concept of realism (or even a "vast scale of degrees") than it is to do with one's personal capacity for suspension of disbelief regardless of how much a film's concept and/or execution is rooted in reality (or not). I didn't even mention how Vampire Hunter D is a highly-stylised anime, which definitely complicates the question of realism more than whether or not it includes vampires. Would Vampire Hunter D be a lesser film if it was live-action? Would The Quick and the Dead be better if it was animated? In any case, I think the reason that users like Vicky or myself have a problem with your alleged emphasis on objectivity is because of its capacity for missing the forest for the trees when it comes to assessing and appreciating films (especially if you have to split the difference between your "subjective" and "objective" ratings for a film). Considering the fairly comic and cartoonish tone of The Quick and the Dead, the physically impossible bullet wound really is more of a sight gag than anything else. If you think that's bad, you're really going to hate it when Blazing Saddles cracks the list.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

No.

You don't get to ignore this:
And still get a response to that.

We're done here.

My neck is bad so replies are in short supply from me.

The Quick And The Dead was my #4. That film is as entertaining as **** and that's where I'm at. Plus I really like the cast.

Anyone who wants to kill the kid on Shane will have to get in line behind me... And I'm nowhere near the front of that queue.

I wanted to like The Proposition but I didn't care much for it. Brutal and dull in most of the ways of using those two words.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...ionOfDisbelief

I don't think suspension of disbelief is a matter of capacity. It's a matter of will.

Animation isn't inherently better or worse than live-action. A drawing of a sword is not measured against a sword as though the sword is better because it's the real thing. Rather, a drawing of a sword is measured as a drawing. A drawing is a real thing. It's quality is based on how good of a drawing it is, and how well it depicts a sword. Just as a real sword in a live action movie would be measured by how well was filmed, and how creatively was used. There is a lot more about realism to be examined in a movie's writing than it's visuals. The plot, story, dialogue, characters, motivations, all the concepts in the movie. So to generalise that a movie is very realistic or not very realistic, everything has to be examined, not merely the visuals.


It's a matter of separating emotion from rational judgement. Feelings are constantly changing moment to moment. "Because I liked it a lot," Doesn't really answer why a movie is good. If quality wasn't objective, then why would you ever argue with anyone else about whether a movie is good or bad?


I didn't really find it comic and cartoonish, but I think I see what you mean, and it's a fair enough point. I just think those, "comic and cartoonish" elements were absurd, and they ruined the movie for me.

I just don't buy the argument that just because it wasn't going for something better it can't be criticised for what it was.

Na, I won't hate anything. I think I'm pretty indifferent now towards what appears on the list and where. I'm just looking at this as a fun community event. I'm not taking the list too seriously. I may not like The Quick and the Dead, but I don't mind that it's on the list or where it showed up.

I don't know how much of it can be attributed to a conscious demonstration of willpower, though. Doesn't really account for people who just don't care either way, for instance.

I think there's also a propensity to be more forgiving of animation bending or breaking the physical laws of reality since it's already existing at a remove from the reality of live-action. It may still violate its own internal logic, of course (often deliberately if it's entertaining enough to do so - just ask Roger Rabbit), but you still have a pretty good idea of what to expect from an animated film and assess it accordingly. Likewise, I don't think a live-action film has an inherent obligation towards "realism" to the point where a lack of it in any or all aspects can automatically be considered grounds for failure.

Because objectivity only matters so much when it comes to evaluating art. Take a movie like 28 Days Later... that's shot on handheld early-2000s digital cameras. One of us could hate the cinematography because it looks cheap and is used in a disorienting fashion that makes the film harder to watch while one of us could love it because those particular elements of the cinematography ultimately augment the tension of escaping from running zombies. Which one of us would be right? The general consensus that 28 Days Later is a modern horror classic would suggest the latter, but does that really make it an indisputable fact?

If it doesn't work for you personally, that's fine, but articulating those criticisms as if they are absolute truths that everybody should agree with is where things start to fall apart. This was the original quote

If anything, "believable" is the sticking point because I figured belief is more of a loose, subjective concept. I've definitely hated my fair share of quote-unquote absurd movies (weren't we having the same discussion about the 1960s Casino Royale a while back?), so it's clear that even I have my limits

Fair enough.

Interesting...

I was checking MoFo before going to bed, then I went out and brushed my teeth, went to bed, woke up, made a nice cup of coffee, some extra delicious breakfast because it’s weekend, then I went for a run, took a shower, went out to a cafe, did some shopping on the way home, watched some tv, fell asleep in front of the tv, woke up AND THIS DISCUSSION IS STILL GOING.

I blame Holden for having a life.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Actually, all things considered, it’s been a pleasant conversation.

I'll second that

Conversation is a helluva lot better than this thread sitting empty waiting for another two countdown reveals on Monday. I mean if we don't talk, why have a countdown at all?

What are you doing hanging around for? You have results to tally and post up! The Noir HOF beckons!
Get to it!

I make a George Lucas joke on the "What DVD have you purchased" thread and someone on here and there ran with it and thought I was being serious and wrote a book about it in the process. Strange, but yes it'd be nice to talk westerns again...

__________________
Imagine an eye unruled by man-made laws of perspective, an eye unprejudiced by compositional logic, an eye which does not respond to the name of everything but which must know each object encountered in life through an adventure of perception. How many colors are there in a field of grass to the crawling baby unaware of 'Green'?

-Stan Brakhage

To be fair, it was a discussion about a western. I mean, we’re going to discuss some inclusions so I don’t see it as derailing the thread any. Otherwise, what’s the point?

Has anyone seen this western, I Shot Jesse James (Samuel Fueller 1949)

It's the first film directed by one of the greats Sam Fueller. I seen it just the other night and it might have made my ballot had I seen it before the deadline. It's the story of Bob Ford who shot Jesse James. It's done as a somber, mood piece, maybe you could say it's existentialism. I thought it was pretty effective for a b budget western as it really had this sense of foreboding to it and Fueller knows how to tell a story. John Ireland (Cherry Valance in Red River) is a very conflicted Bob Ford the doomed assassination of Jesse James. It's sad how his girlfriend begins to loath him for his cowardly act especially as he did it so he'd have enough money to buy a farm and marry her.

I think I have it on DVD, (I think Criterion did an Eclipse Series featuring it), but I haven't gotten around to watching it yet. Maybe I'll do that this evening and get back to you.

I see that there was a Criterion release of Samuel Fullers first films which has:
I Shot Jesse James 1949
The Baron of Arizona 1950
The Steel Helmet 1951

He also did two more westerns for a total of four.
Forty Guns (1957)
Run of the Arrow (1957)

Outside chance that Forty Guns makes the countdown. The rest won't.