Well, funny that you mention the ending, because in fact I have seen the alternate ending that is featured on the DVD. That particular ending is a happy one where Silence kills, I can’t remember the character Kinski played, but anyways, Silence kills the Kinski character and the other bad guys as well. I can’t remember if the love interest dies in that version or not. I think it mentioned somewhere on the disc the reason why they shot an alternate ending, but I don’t remember the reason. I just looked at my DVD copy of the film and I see the alternate ending features an optional commentary with it by Alex Cox. I don’t know. I thought the film was pretty good, Jazz. I like your interpretation of how you see it. I never thought of it that way. The DVD I own of the Great Silence is from Fantoma and it features an introduction from Alex Cox. The only thing I believe I’ve ever seen of Alex Cox is Sid and Nancy and that was a while back.
(Impressive, Jazz, that you have precision to two significant digits. I don’t even like 10 point scales because I don’t think I can be consistent between a 6 and 7 or 7 and 8.)
For The Great Silence, I was momentarily surprised as that ending unfolded, but very quickly I felt that, of course, that is inevitably how it had to go. That was an impressively blunt extinction of any hopes for redemption or catharsis, and, why really, should I have harbored such hopes in such a place?
I’m not sure how to flesh this out, but I think the snow and ice are a key element in the arc and mood of the film. You could shoot the same scenes in a desert with the characters all sweaty and dusty, but you would have a much different film with a more visceral and intimate cruelty like the difference between dying of thirst and freezing to death.
@Hal
I think I saw the same dvd, as I watched the alternate ending (which was terrible, imo; they made the ending for screenings in Africa and Asia, believing that the audience would never accept such a bleak ending).
@DBL
For The Great Silence, I was momentarily surprised as that ending unfolded, but very quickly I felt that, of course, that is inevitably how it had to go. That was an impressively blunt extinction of any hopes for redemption or catharsis, and, why really, should I have harbored such hopes in such a place?
But what’s your take on the purpose for the ending? I’d like to hear why it was so satisfying for you. (It is for me, but I’m not satisfied with my understanding of this.)
I’m not sure how to flesh this out, but I think the snow and ice are a key element in the arc and mood of the film. You could shoot the same scenes in a desert with the characters all sweaty and dusty, but you would have a much different film with a more visceral and intimate cruelty like the difference between dying of thirst and freezing to death.
Nice observation. But shade of meaning does the snow/cold add to the overall meaning of the film?
I thought this movie was too technically slipshod to maintain my full attention through to the bummer climax. Uniquely awesome snowy Rockys setting, an interesting array of characters, some some fine casting choices compromised by some really bad dubbing (that I can’t really hold against it) and some really bad zooms (that I can) made for a viewing experience that was ultimately lackluster. In spite of one of the best Morricone scores ever.
That alternate ending on the DVD sure does make no sense…where’d that cyborgtronical arm come from? Reminds me of Beyonce’s glove in ALL THE SINGLE LADIES, every time.
Still planning on cracking into COMPANEROS soon, primed by the sick trailer Alamo Drafthouse used to screen to promote their All You Can Eat Spaghetti Dinner and Spaghetti Western Night.
Well, if you remember Matt’s comment on the “Spaghetti Western” thread: “to me the Italian Westerns (particularly the best Leones) are more interested in expressiveness than presenting narratives, so they’re more like operas than novels” and also the idea on that thread that these films were consciously working with (on?) the viewer’s understanding of traditional westerns, then I think you can take The Great Silence as an emptiness in a broad social sense that comes from stripping off the moral conceit of the traditional western with its central clash of individual wills. Have you seen Altman’s McCabe & Mrs. Miller? I think it makes a good contrast. Altman also subverts the traditional western narrative (and does so in the snow) of a lone hero prevailing against his nemesis, but he keeps the one-on-one final showdown, so I would say his is a film of existential loneliness . McCabe’s death is as a cold isolated individual. The Great Silence gives us a community that is coldly isolated not only from our moral world but also the moral world of westerns.
Hmm, so does that make any sense? I can only invoke The Great Silence rather impressionistically since it has been a long time since I’ve seen it. I’d like to watch it again to see if I still think this sort of reading is really worthwhile.
@Ben
Were the zooms really that bad? (And is that what you mean by “too technically slipshod?” or did you have other examples?) I think you’re referring to the zooms that occur with the rider(s) on horseback in the snow? If so, they seem awkward and jarring, but I don’t think they were disastrous.
I’d like to hear you—and others—talk about the score. I did pay attention to it (and sometimes this took me out the film) because someone commented about how much they liked it. I did like the score, but I’m not sure it’s great—and I’m not sure I would have thought so had I not paid close attention to it. I liked the fact that one the main themes had an almost Christmas sound, but a bit more melancholy, or something less positive or less celebratory(?). On the other hand, there’s a dated quality to the score, I thought, too. Again, I’d like to hear more people talk about why they loved it so much.
@DBL
then I think you can take The Great Silence as an emptiness in a broad social sense that comes from stripping off the moral conceit of the traditional western with its central clash of individual wills.
Can you explain what you mean by “moral conceit…etc.?” Do you mean a false glorification of the showdown between the good guy and the bad guy—especially the way the good guy killing the bad guy signifies restoring a sense of justice and morality? (If so, I like that reading!)
The Great Silence gives us a community that is coldly isolated not only from our moral world but also the moral world of westerns.
Oh, I like that reading! (I’ve seen McCabe and Mrs. Miller, so I generally know what you’re talking about, but the ending is fuzzy for me.) Can you expand on this? What do you mean that the community is “…isolated not only from our moral world but also the moral world of westerns?” By “world of westerns,” you mean the good guys don’t always triumph and justice isn’t always served. I’m not sure what you mean by “our moral world.” (I don’t think justice is always served in our moral world—or do you mean what people consider to be moral and appropriate?)
So the ending sort of debunks western notions of morality, justice and the hero. It shoves hard reality of injustice—in the real world—versus our somewhat illusory sense that the world is just. (If so I agree with this reading—and if not, I think this is the reading I like. :)
(My rating is shooting upwards—moving closer to 77.)
For good or bad, this thread as made me come out of lurking. Pleased to meet you, people of Mubi! But back on topic, I sometime get so emotionally attached to a film that the mere fact that someone criticizes it (even as lightly as you did, Jazzaloha) makes me want to jump out and come to its defense, only there’s a problem ; my emotions take the reins and suddenly I’m having trouble forming a coherent argument. The Great Silence is one of those films. Still, I’m gonna do my best.
Firstly, even if there wasn’t a message behind the film’s ending, I would still think it’s wonderful as it is the most fitting ending for such a beautifully cruel tragedy, from the start there wasn’t going to be any other possible outcome. Secondly, I think another element to consider about the ending (as well as what Downbylaw wrote and the quote from Matt) is the political and social commentary running in Sergio Corbucci’s films, as well as his own feelings.
Criticism of capitalism, greed, hypocrisy, of the cowardice of people and their unwillingness to maybe sacrifice something to gain better life conditions (comfort and indifference), he also addresses class struggle in a way, etc. All themes that are often found in Corbucci’s films. I think the message of this particular film might be that the “revolution” (social changes for the better) might just not be possible or that a single individual cannot succeed alone in bringing change for the better (and of course, there’s almost certainly a willingness to go against the codes of the western). And in the context of his oeuvre, it makes for some good food for thoughts (seems like a reflection of his thoughts), his next film (and second masterpiece, if you ask me) The Mercenary seems cautiously optimistic. The following ones less and less, especially interesting is Companeros where the ending is a bit subversive : (slight spoiler) at first it looks like a victorious and romantic ending, but when you think about it, the heroes have 99.99% chance of dying, just another failure like Silence’s.
Also, here’s a fascinating excerpt from a review of The Great Silence (from the Spaghetti Western Database) :
“Corbucci had also often underlined the idea of the futility of one man’s endeavours to change the world, which was usually interpreted as an anti-christian (in Italian terms: anti-catholic) statement. In this view Silence’s failure to defend the poor and his violent death, refer to Jesus Christ, more in particular to a popular notion among Marxists to see Christ as a unsuccessful revolutionary, a Che Guevarra avant la lettre. The scorching of his hands might be another motive to link Christ to Guevarra by means of Silence: Christ’s hands were penetrated when he was crucified, while Guevarra’s hands were chopped off and sent to Fidel Castro after his violent death.”
And the music? The cruelty, the hopelessness, the melancholy, the coldness, the slight romanticism, so perfectly expressed that I have trouble imagining how can someone not find the soundtrack great (or dated). The music in this could almost make me cry, simply haunting. As for the directing, as much as I think Corbucci is great, he did have a tendency to cut corners it seems, still I don’t think it’s badly filmed. And nobody mentioned the actors? Trintignant, Kinski, Wolff, McGee, Pistilli all fantastic!
Oh and lastly, I recommend watching spaghetti westerns in Italian if you can. These guys… excellent dubbers!
Lots of crazy rambling, sorry about that.
Oh, I hadn’t considered Che, but yeah, this is just after he was killed. That’s interesting.
In typical westerns, not only is there a breach of the rule of law, but the community is unable—lack the courage or lack the skill—to respond. The hero doesn’t accept this loss of agency and is provoked to respond finally prevailing with an act of individual will. This doesn’t just restore a sense of justice, but by removing terror, it restores to the people their ability to act as moral agents. But this is all self-contained—the isolation of the town in the desert or on the high plains makes it a world unto itself that can be fixed by such action.
In The Great Silence the law is corrupt on a scale too large for the individual to conquer no matter his skill or fierceness of will. So I guess you could read this as a call to collective action against the corruption of power if you wish to insist that these people were not inevitably doomed. But at least we are shown the inadequacy of the western moral vision to comprehend the sort of evil that so many people really do face. We don’t get the restoration of normal morality after an aberrant evil is defeated because it is the normal state of affairs that is evil. The system wins.
Maybe another comparison would be to look at the failure of another romantic hero in Brazil. Here we have an evil bureaucracy that is immense in its sprawl. Since it is capable of surviving its own amazing incompetence, it is impervious to the flea bite assault of our hero.
@Monsieur Zom
Hey, thanks for the post. Fwiw, “rambling” posts often lead to some interesting comments—as yours did—and I hope you “ramble” more often. :)
…from the start there wasn’t going to be any other possible outcome.
What makes you say that? I didn’t get that sense myself.
To my knowledge, this is the only Corbucci film I’ve seen, so I really can’t draw out ideas from the film based on Corbucci’s oeuvre.
I did like the comparison to Christ and Che, btw.
Re: the music
I agree with your descriptions for the most part, but I use the term “dated,” because it does have a sound that I associate with films from the late 60s/early 70s. Maybe it could stand on its own; maybe not. I’m not sure. That’s just my opinion, of course.
And nobody mentioned the actors?
I thought the two leads had a good look and screen presence, but I didn’t think the acting was exceptional otherwise. (I saw the film in the dubbed version, though.)
@DBL
But at least we are shown the inadequacy of the western moral vision to comprehend the sort of evil that so many people really do face.
I like thinking of the film as a kind of debunking and critique of westerns, rather than a wake-up call to the community. In a way the film reminds of Haneke’s Funny Games—although I think this works a lot better, or I find it more satisfying.
I see where you’re going with the comparison with Brazil, although my sense is that the film is not presenting a huge system as a cause for the evil; rather, the film seems focused on criticizing the easy moral resolutions in westerns and wants to inject a dose of cold, hard reality.
Yes, I wouldn’t push the comparison far. Brazil offers a well-articulated political idea that is about more than just film. To go back to the idea of “expressiveness”, The Great Silence is dealing with such themes, but in terms of emotions more than ideas. And I do take it to be focused on earlier westerns. That’s why I not sure the Che thing amounts to much—does either this film or the revolutionary cast much light on the other?
@ Jazzaloha
“What makes you say that? I didn’t get that sense myself.”
To be honest, it’s just a feeling, I felt a certain sense of fatality emanating from the movie. And Corbucci can be rather unkind with his western heroes (although, never as much as in The Great Silence).
Glad you found my rambling post interesting, I’ll try to contribute as much as I can to the forum!
And now I feel like watching Brazil!
@Zom
To be honest, it’s just a feeling, I felt a certain sense of fatality emanating from the movie.
I didn’t really get that, but I haven’t seen any other Corbucci film, so…
Glad you found my rambling post interesting, I’ll try to contribute as much as I can to the forum!
Yes, please do. More thoughtful participation is always welcomed! :)
Jazzaloha
This probably won’t surprise anyone, but I want to talk about the ending of the film. Before I say anything else, I briefly mention my reaction to the film. Right now, I’d probably give a rating of 68/100—which barely misses a film that either satisfies me and/or I think is good (work of art)—although I think the rating applies more to the former than the latter.
As an action film, it’s not very satisfying or entertaining. As a film about ideas and expression of them, I didn’t feel it was completely satisfying, either—except when we get to the ending. I haven’t really thought deeply on about the ending, but there’s something about it that I like. I’m not sure exactly the significance and meaning of it, but—again, there’s something about it I like.
Now, the ending reminds me of some other films that have a similar downbeat ending. I have several response to films like this: a) the filmmakers chose the ending simply to be “deep” and “dark;” b) all other possible endings were lame, but there’s no larger meaning besides that; c) the ending does actually have a larger significance that serves the film well.
At first, my impression was “a” and “b” were the likely choices. But now, I feel “c” could be a possibility. The problem is I can’t really articulate the reasons I feel this way. Here’s my vague, fumbling about the meaning of the ending: Silence is a hero that wins justice for others, and his name suggests a “silencing of evil.” But at the end, given the events, silence now signifies the silence in response to evil. The film’s message seems to be one where evil gets away—no justice is served. It’s a cold, hard message, but one that also rings true.
Some times art can depict these cold hard truths via tragedy and the audience experiences a catharsis—the art allows us to shed tears over these hard truths. But the film doesn’t really do that, and it leaves viewers with a different effect, and I think that’s somewhat interesting. We’re just left with that “message”—without any release. But now that almost sounds like “a”, but somehow I don’t think so. I think that effect is purposeful and meaningful. (I think my rating just went up to at least a 70.)
What do others think?
And if anyone has any other comments or questions about the film, please throw them out there.