Written by Jon Warner
It wasn’t the first spaghetti western, but A Fistful of Dollars was certainly the one that really put the whole sub-genre on the map. This is the film that synthesized several key ingredients that would make the spaghetti western into influential cinema, namely the iconic “Man with No Name”….aka Clint Eastwood who dishes out hefty doses of justice and deadpan humor. There is also the presence of Ennio Morricone, who wrote so many fabulous scores for several spaghetti westerns and is nearly synonymous with the sub-genre, who provides a clanging and lilting score that in its own way, is as memorable and jaunty as anything he ever wrote. And of course the assured direction from Sergio Leone, whose confidence in what he was doing seems to ooze from just about every scene in the film. These three together helped take the spaghetti western from its low budget roots and turned it into a western revival, with a legacy and influence that has seemed to transcend the western altogether.
Although Leone would go on to create more lavishly spectacled and densely thematic works (particularly his magnificent Once Upon a Time in the West), there is a certain appeal in the taut economy of storyline here in A Fistful of Dollars. As “The Man with No Name” (Clint Eastwood) rides into a border town near Mexico, he is told of the local feud between two families, the Rojo clan, led by the evil Ramon (a deliciously vile Gian Maria Volonte), and the Baxters, led by Sheriff Baxter. The Man with No Name determines he can profit off of this feud by facilitating the escalating violence and looking for ways of exploiting the situation. He winds up in the middle of some controversy when he sees some gold being stolen by Ramon and his gang, whereupon he sells information to both families to get them to engage in a fight over the “survivors” of the massacre. While this is going on, TMWNN learns of a woman named Marisol who is being held captive by Ramon, keeping her from her husband and small boy. TMWNN finds a way to free her from her captors, but Ramon and crew find out about this and soon beat him to a pulp (I’m not sure which film Eastwood looks worse in….this one after the beating or in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly after the walk through the desert with Eli Wallach). Through pluck and ingenuity, he escapes, and as Ramon believes the Baxters are hiding him, he and his gang set fire to the Baxter house and murder the entire family. TMWNN heals up and returns to town to exact revenge upon Ramon and rid the town of the Rojo clan in a fantastic showdown.
It’s well known that this film borrows significantly from the plot of Yojimbo, Akira Kurosawa’s wonderful 1961 work that already was borrowing on iconography of westerns to begin with. A Fistful of Dollars is basically a remake of Yojimbo, and in fact Toho films sued Leone and the producers for the Asian rights to the film after they saw it and determined how much it borrowed from their film. During the early 60’s, in fact, the melding of the samurai concept and the western had already occurred a few years earlier in the blockbuster western, The Magnificent Seven (based on The Seven Samurai). But, Leone adds so many of his own elements to the film. First and foremost, was getting Clint Eastwood to play the lead, who at the time was mostly known for his work in the Rawhide TV series. Eastwood came to Italy, without being able to speak any Italian, and in fact was making very little money on this low budget film. One of the key elements for why I think Eastwood is so effective in this film and the entire Dollars trilogy, is that he doesn’t do anything quickly. He moves slowly. Eastwood even talks as if he’s just awakened from a nap. It’s not quite a whisper, but not really projecting either. Everything with Eastwood is smooth and subtle, highlighting a hyper-cool machismo…..he’s cool and he knows it. But the effect of all this languorous moving and talking, is that the action moments come across as that much more impactful. He moves deliberately and smooth and slow with everything he does, except when he shoots….and Leone often makes a point of showing us his hands as he shoots the gun as this is the only time he moves with any quickness whatsoever. Eastwood’s deadpan humor also goes a long way here, allowing him to subvert his own approach and keep the pastiche from getting too thick. Eastwood’s emblematic portrayal of The Man with No Name, adds to what I consider to be a critical element of the spaghetti western, which is the meditation on the masculine identity. In Eastwood’s Man with No Name, we have the ideal personification of a man who asks for nothing, needs nothing and relies upon only himself for sustenance, using ingenuity, skill, and his sly humor to get him through. It is Eastwood’s alone-ness and self sufficiency that recalls classics of the western genre, but in this case, there is a self-awareness subverting the traditional intent. This is a quality that would come up not just in other Leone films, but in many of the great spaghetti westerns, particularly those from Corbucci, like Django, and The Mercenary. Just about the only glimpse into The Man’s past is after he helps the family, the woman asks…“Why do you do this for us?”. He replies,“Why? Cause I knew someone like you once and there was no one there to help.” Leone also plays upon reference points of western culture and iconography, elevating the images, the characters, and the sounds into a kind of reflexive mythology, incorporating elements from other westerns, most often recalling George Stevens’ Shane. Speaking of sounds, Morricone’s soundtrack here is loaded with what sounds like noises….whistles and clanging things that give a sort of caricatured personality to the proceedings. Leone and Morricone were always on some kind of miraculous level. Yes the music isn’t as iconic as in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, but the understated and comedic matter-of-factness of the score here fits very well with Leone’s more simple approach in this film. In addition to the music, the visuals are rife with close-ups and attention-grabbing widescreen framing, reflecting the self awareness inherent to the spaghetti subgenre, as it reflects a post-western consciousness. A Fistful of Dollars isn’t just a western….. it’s a western that knows it’s a western.
In a significant supporting role, Gian Maria Volonte is Ramon, the personification of evil. His evil is best seen in the sequence where he massacres the Mexican army with the Gatling gun and there’s this certain way that he grimaces with pleasure every time he shoots the gun. There’s also that dark, violent and nasty set piece where Ramon’s crew burns down the Baxter house and massacres the family, including Baxter’s wife in cold blood. Eastwood is watching the whole massacre from his concealed location in the coffin after he got beat up. This sets up a brilliant denouement where Eastwood not only wants revenge for Ramon’s treatment of him, but also their full-on display of evil incarnate, setting up a herculean confrontation where Eastwood must take on Ramon and his whole clan (Not without some help from a protective bullet proof breastplate). In the final showdown, Leone pulls together all the elements that would become iconic about the spaghetti western…. the drawn out suspense, the machismo and taunting, the sweaty close-ups, the clanging score, the art of surprise. A Fistful of Dollars must be recognized historically and cinematically for what it represents and what it popularized. True there are better spaghetti westerns, but few are as unassuming and compact as this one can be, as Eastwood’s understated humor and the short running time seem to reflect a “less is more” approach that I find immensely likable.
Although Leone would go on to create more lavishly spectacled and densely thematic works (particularly his magnificent Once Upon a Time in the West), there is a certain appeal in the taut economy of storyline here in A Fistful of Dollars.
Very true Jon. I wouldn’t describe it as epic either. Yet it’s a terrific entertainment that exhibits storytelling prowess. Tremendous review.
Haha. Thanks yes Frank it’s certainly not epic but it gets to the point and I like that here. For some reason I don’t like For a Few Dollars More as much as this one just because of the fact it’s slightly more bloated and a bit too drawn out for me.
These three together helped take the spaghetti western from its low budget roots and turned it into a western revival, with a legacy and influence that has seemed to transcend the western altogether.
Beautifully framed Jon, but then so is this entire masterful review, which easily stands among the best submitted so far. Am I at all surprised? Hardly. The work at your own site has been extraordinary now for months, and your careful delineation and passion of the western genre has had you operating on full throttle. While the comment section is slow to build today, I’m sure the legions of western adherents will soon be attending this examination in celebratory mood. Your discussion of the origin of the “Man with no name” theme, the incorporation of deadpan humor into the screenplay, the incomparable Ennio Morricone as composer, and Eastwood’s emblematic measured approach and trademark macho demeanor sets a tone that was to be emulated throughout the run of the spaghetti western genre. Yes the film closely followed YOJIMBO, so though I wasn’t aware of it, I can’t say I am startled that Toho filed a lawsuit. I wonder if they won it. No this is not ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST by any means, but as you note it’s remarkable economical and it makes the most of every scene. The film’s placement in the Top 50 speaks for itself.
Again, spectacular review Jon!
Hey thanks Sam! Yes actually Toho did win out as it was settled out of court. But, Leone has also indicated that the source of the material can be traced to Dashiel Hammet’s Red Harvest, and the play Servant of Two Masters by Goldoni.
Really excellent review! Eastwood’s soft, gravelly voice belies his ruthless, calculating nature and lightning fast draw as “The Man With No Name.” As always Leone is the master of the quick cut. Looks like the coffin maker is the busiest entrepreneur in the town. On the soundtrack Morricone is boss.
Haha thanks Peter. You’re right that coffin maker is doing boffo business there. That massacre scene at the Baxter mansion sure created a lot of dead bodies.
A solid evocation Jon. Morricone’s contribution makes the movie memorable.
But whenever I revisit these early Leone efforts I come away disappointed. I first saw them as a callow teenager struck by their larger than life novelty. Now, oddly for Westerns, they have a dated feel and the characterisations a cartoonish aspect. I can’t take them too seriously. I have never been comfortable with deliberate humor in Westerns in the face of graphic violence, and Leone has that Italian penchant for buffoonery which frankly despite my Italian heritage I find subverts the drama to no good purpose. Leone did of course redeem himself in my eyes with his great final salute to the genre.
Thanks Tony. I don’t necessarily disagree with your descriptions, just whether or not these are qualities that add or detract from its effectiveness. I actually agree that there is a cartoonish aspect and a buffoonery on display, as became somewhat a hallmark at times for this entire subgenre. I can’t but sometimes laugh at several moments in this film, as well as the following 2 in the dollars trilogy. I mean The Good, The Bad and the Ugly might be the most cartoonish of them all, especially with those freeze frames in the early going and that wah wah wah music. It’s all so over the top. The question is though, without the subversion, would we be saying these films take themselves too seriously? For me, the comedy is a bit of a saving grace. Imagine this film without the deadpan from Eastwood, or Django without gallows humor. I sort of feel that they need the comedy to keep from being too self important. Once Upon a Time in the West doesn’t need the comedy so much because it’s much more densely thematic and backs up the bravado with real meat on its bones.
As for whether they’re dated, I suppose they do scream of a certain time and place. However, I’m not sure they’re dated any more than any other classic western. I mean much of the violence and tounge-in-cheekness has been reimaged for today’s audiences by Tarantino and everybody eats it up.
Great stuff Jon. Leone is remembered for those other Westerns but as you nicely mention, this has a historical signifance especially since it laid a template for the trilogy, with the above mentioned elements.
Interestingly, each film in the Dollars trilogy grows in scope, music & length with the addition of another character. A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS is 99 min, FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE is 132 min & THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY is 161 min. Therefore, Leone increases each film by about 30 min to accomodate the additional character. In a way, that is a perfect way to scale the three films.
Thanks Sachin. You’re right, the running times get longer and there are more characters….not to mention a bigger budget with each film.
Budgets for
A Fistful…… $200K
For Few…… $600K
The Good…..$1.2M
FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE remains the only film essay that is still unclaimed. Daunting? or more of a lack of strong feeling? Ha!
Haha. Well I didn’t vote for that one as I don’t find it to resonate as much as the first and third installments of the trilogy.
Jon, to be honest that one is the least popular of the three, white THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY is always seen as the masterpiece with very good reason.
I don’t recall how many votes it got, but it seemed like several people voted for it as I recall. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is surely the most highly regarded.
It did get votes in fact, and would have placed if we had extended the results to 75 as I recall.
God I muffed this one up. The film DID make the countdown, otherwise why would I have stated that it wasn’t claimed yet?
And Sachin Gandhi just graciously volunteered to write it up!
Well, this is certainly the tightest film of Leone’s “Spaghetti Western” Trilogy.
My biggest problem with Leone always seems to be the sense of excess and severe overage in the running times. With the exception of this film, all of Leone’s westerns seem to suffer from bloating. Now, this is not because Leone wasn’t a great film-maker, for what he gave us he was one of the best. However, as a compulsive who loves food and wine and music or anything that stirs the senses, I can definitely identify with the problems Leone had in the editing rooms when cutting his films. The Trilogy is loaded with so many arresting visuals and moments that it seems like a personal loss to lose any of them. I think Leone was always conflicted by heartbreak when he was forced to look at his films with a critical eye and then tasked to remove scenes that weren’t working but “looked” great. In a way, I think he was a whore for the visual and got off with the composition of the frame.
In my opinion, even his masterpiece, ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, as hauntingly beautiful in its audio/visual presentation as it is, also seems to run on way too long once the initial hook has been inserted into the viewer with the magnificent, almost purely musical opening. Lets be honest, after the first 50 minutes of ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, are we really as interested or as stunned by the rest of the film?
It’s good stuff… But, nothing beats the first 50 minutes.
A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS is Leone’s tightest film and doesn’t seem to suffer from being over-stuffed.
Lets be honest, after the first 50
minutes of ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, are we really as interested or as
stunned by the rest of the film?
My answer is a resounding yes Dennis, but I’ll save the debate for Tony d’Ambra’s review of it later in the countdown. WEST is one of the greatest films ever made.
I certainly won’t disagree that A Fistful of Dollars is the tightest of Leone’s films. I think that’s one of the reasons for why I like it so much. At times, I like it better than either of the other two films and actually rated this one higher than TGTBATU for some of the reasons I mentioned in my essay. However, Once Upon a Time in the West for me is clearly superior to all of them despite the long running time. I understand what you mean about the visuals, but that’s part of the point of course. Leone’s approach was to elevate the visuals into the stratosphere in order to take a reflexive approach upon the western as a whole. As I said, he takes what we know about westerns and molds and distorts the archetypes in different directions in order to view it in a different context.
Outstanding review. Always in the shadow of “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly,” but definitely more economical.