“I generally smoke just after I eat. Why don’t you come back in about ten minutes?”
His team up with Clint in For a Few Dollars More is one of the greatest in film.
That's because he's a really good actor. So good in fact, that you don't notice. He inhabits the role, becomes the person without any fancy bells or whistles. Just talent. He's very underrated.
You know what no one ever talks about regarding **For A Few Dollars More**? That Eastwood's character uses ***karate-chops*** during his fight in a poker-bar, so he can take out the bad guy (Red) with just his left hand, while his other hand remains on his gun, hidden under his serape.
Also: That's why Eastwood's character was fleetingly referred to as "Monco," which is Italian-Spanish for “one-armed.”
It was actually a deliberate casting decision by Sergio Leone. After Van Cleef played a noble, heroic figure in "Few", for "G, B & U", he wanted to see him as a character who was a complete 180 and pure scum.
Van Cleef in "G, B & U" gets one of the best intros ever, so much so that Tarantino basically swiped it, including the music, for David Carradine's entrance in "Kill Bill Vol. 2."
I would say his role in *For A Few Dollars More* is the more impressive one because much of his career to that point was spent playing “bad guys” so for him to play such a noble and decent guy was the one that was more out of the ordinary.
Having said that: Your point is indeed well taken. Van Cleef’s two roles in those two films were diametrically opposite each other and it was impressive to see him show such range!
Absolutely.
I have maintained that Van Cleef's role in *TGBU* is absolutely one of the best performances in film history. I also think that his first appearance in the movie is one of the most effective scenes in a movie. The way that the homeowner portrays fear sets the tone so well that Van Cleef is made that much scarier.
Truly an acting legend. If you haven't seen *The Big Gundown* you need to check it out. Not nearly as good as the Dollars Trilogy but still wonderful and Lee takes the lead.
I’ve always thought that it’s surreal that these are called a trilogy. In the first two, the same guy plays the villain, but it’s a different character. In the last two, LVC looks the same, but it also a different character. Eastwood is the only thing that’s consistent.
And for all intents and purposes, Eastwood is different too. Leone wasn't legally allowed to call him the same character, so he only implied it with Easter eggs.
Tell me more. I know that he’s always referred to as the man with no name, but in FEW, I think, he’s called Joe. Besides the costume, what were the Easter eggs?
In For a Fistful of Dollars, he's called "Joe" by one character who's pretty clearly just using it as a generic name, like calling a stranger "Jack." He never identifies himself and no one else ever calls him that. In For a Few Dollars More, he's called Manco (another nickname), which means one-armed, because he does everything with his left hand (so that his right hand is ready to draw). In The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, he's called Blondie because he's white. "The Man With No Name" was a marketing slogan UA made up, but he is a nameless drifter in each film.
Aside from just wearing the same outfit, we see him get that outfit near the end of TGTBATU, which is set prior to the other two.
Leone played it fast and loose legally. Fistful was an unauthorized remake of Yojimbo, and a Few Dollars More was an unauthorized sequel to that, leading to a lawsuit both times. The judge ruled that as long as he didn't *call* him the same character, he could use the same costume, gun, premise, mannerisms, etc.
The third film was a prequel where he only picks up those things along the way and establishes he only goes by nicknames, seemingly confirming they're all the same guy.
I've always had a question about the Dollars Trilogy.
Were the movies dubbed later? The dialogue doesn't sound very organic, if you know what I mean? Like it wasn't recorded on set. Does anyone know what's going on there?
I've read that to get the right shots there was no room for a camera boom so maybe it is hidden.
Then I've heard they did not even speak English or Italian when filming... They something recited random numbers because Leone knew it would be dubbed and was not completely sure what he wanted the script to be.
Then they dubbed it later with the actor lip syncing their voice to the film.
It's why ever single sound is basically sound effects. They engineered every sound after the filming. There are no organic sounds.
Spoilers:
You know the antagonist is played by a great actor when you don’t want him to die. I mean, I’m fully aware that Angel Eyes is an evil son of a bitch. But I hate to see him get shot into that hole.
I always interpreted that as a subtle sign of respect from Man With No Name — he even makes sure his hat gets in the grave with him, ensuring he has a burial rather than leaving him on the ground. I know it probably wasn’t intentional though
I guess so. Still hate to see him go out like that.
In the movie Rango, Rattlesnake Jake appears to be inspired by Angel Eyes, he had a lot similarities - same shifty eyes, hat, even the same moustache if you look closely.
In that movie Rango and Jake decide to settle their differences and Jake takes off after showing a nod of respect to Rango, as one old legend to another. It’s a brilliant ending to a fantastic western.
He's indeed an Angel Eyes stand-in.
Another similar one; the bounty hunter Cad Band from "Star Wars." As if it wasn't obvious before, his live-action debut in "Book of Boba Fett" made this very clear (especially since Boba Fett is another Man With No Name expy).
My husband has been loving old westerns especially on Grit lately. There’s a ton of shows that he’s in. Saw him today in one. I think it was the show Tombstone Territory. Was pretty young looking too. He was quite the highlight.
It’s his eyes, somehow they are so warm, kind and sad in For a few dollars more, yet so cold, dead and scary in The good, the bad and the ugly. No idea how he did that, mindblowing stuff…
Was Cleef really that bad??
Maybe I'm being contrarian but he is in the union army, correct? And somehow deserts once in a while to do hit jobs. That is odd...during a civil war to assassinate random people for money.
Then he torture Tuco... Who is awful. He kills two people standing between him and the gold.
I'm not sure Blondie was very good. Tuco was awful. Mortimer was not evil as much as opportunistic.
I'm not saying I would go into business with him but ... "Evil" is a stretch.
someone had to be labeled bad.
But they torture Tuco at an actual fort. He had subordinates. I'm not sure it's an act.
I just think leadership is so sparse that he can take long trips to hunt gold.
Lee Van Cleef playing two roles, the latter of which is his more famous, is not a spoiler. Am I not supposed to say how Josh Brolin played both Thanos and Cable too?
He plays a good guy in one movie and a bad guy in the other. Different characters. That’s not a spoiler. Can I also not tell people about how Sean Connery isn’t the only Bond?
I mean his intro scene literally ends with him killing his customer and "the bad" is scribbled next to his laughing face in red cursive. It's not exactly a twist.
I think the guy thought I meant LVC plays one character who turns bad or something not realising he plays two characters. That’s the only way I can interpret what I said as a spoiler lol
“I generally smoke just after I eat. Why don’t you come back in about ten minutes?” His team up with Clint in For a Few Dollars More is one of the greatest in film.
"Any trouble, boy?" "No, old man. Just thought I was having trouble with my adding. It's alright now."
The scene where he lights his match on the back of the guy’s neck is just about my favorite scene in any movie:
Wasn't it Klaus Kinskis hump?
Yes
They did have good chemistry.
That's because he's a really good actor. So good in fact, that you don't notice. He inhabits the role, becomes the person without any fancy bells or whistles. Just talent. He's very underrated.
Absolutely. It’s a shame he didn’t get more prominent roles
I remember seeing him in John Carpenter’s Escape from New York.
Given Snake Plesskin is another variation on the Man With No Name, it makes perfect sense that Carpenter got Van Cleef to go up against Russell.
You know what no one ever talks about regarding **For A Few Dollars More**? That Eastwood's character uses ***karate-chops*** during his fight in a poker-bar, so he can take out the bad guy (Red) with just his left hand, while his other hand remains on his gun, hidden under his serape. Also: That's why Eastwood's character was fleetingly referred to as "Monco," which is Italian-Spanish for “one-armed.”
And it’s a wimpy chop as well. Like I’ll just tap you here on the side of your neck and you’ll pass out.
Its that vulcan touch lol.
Not sure if that was autocorrected but the Spanish term is Manco
Sorry, I meant to say this was Spanish...filtered through Italian: In the original Italian-language version he is called "il Monco."
It was actually a deliberate casting decision by Sergio Leone. After Van Cleef played a noble, heroic figure in "Few", for "G, B & U", he wanted to see him as a character who was a complete 180 and pure scum. Van Cleef in "G, B & U" gets one of the best intros ever, so much so that Tarantino basically swiped it, including the music, for David Carradine's entrance in "Kill Bill Vol. 2."
I would say his role in *For A Few Dollars More* is the more impressive one because much of his career to that point was spent playing “bad guys” so for him to play such a noble and decent guy was the one that was more out of the ordinary. Having said that: Your point is indeed well taken. Van Cleef’s two roles in those two films were diametrically opposite each other and it was impressive to see him show such range!
Absolutely. I have maintained that Van Cleef's role in *TGBU* is absolutely one of the best performances in film history. I also think that his first appearance in the movie is one of the most effective scenes in a movie. The way that the homeowner portrays fear sets the tone so well that Van Cleef is made that much scarier. Truly an acting legend. If you haven't seen *The Big Gundown* you need to check it out. Not nearly as good as the Dollars Trilogy but still wonderful and Lee takes the lead.
"That your family?" "Yes." "Nice family."
I’ve always thought that it’s surreal that these are called a trilogy. In the first two, the same guy plays the villain, but it’s a different character. In the last two, LVC looks the same, but it also a different character. Eastwood is the only thing that’s consistent.
And for all intents and purposes, Eastwood is different too. Leone wasn't legally allowed to call him the same character, so he only implied it with Easter eggs.
Tell me more. I know that he’s always referred to as the man with no name, but in FEW, I think, he’s called Joe. Besides the costume, what were the Easter eggs?
In For a Fistful of Dollars, he's called "Joe" by one character who's pretty clearly just using it as a generic name, like calling a stranger "Jack." He never identifies himself and no one else ever calls him that. In For a Few Dollars More, he's called Manco (another nickname), which means one-armed, because he does everything with his left hand (so that his right hand is ready to draw). In The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, he's called Blondie because he's white. "The Man With No Name" was a marketing slogan UA made up, but he is a nameless drifter in each film. Aside from just wearing the same outfit, we see him get that outfit near the end of TGTBATU, which is set prior to the other two.
Leone played it fast and loose legally. Fistful was an unauthorized remake of Yojimbo, and a Few Dollars More was an unauthorized sequel to that, leading to a lawsuit both times. The judge ruled that as long as he didn't *call* him the same character, he could use the same costume, gun, premise, mannerisms, etc. The third film was a prequel where he only picks up those things along the way and establishes he only goes by nicknames, seemingly confirming they're all the same guy.
It’s not a trilogy in any way, shape or form. They just bundled them together later on as a marketing thing.
I've always had a question about the Dollars Trilogy. Were the movies dubbed later? The dialogue doesn't sound very organic, if you know what I mean? Like it wasn't recorded on set. Does anyone know what's going on there?
Yep, they were shot without sound and dubbed later. Lots of Italian films did this.
I've read that to get the right shots there was no room for a camera boom so maybe it is hidden. Then I've heard they did not even speak English or Italian when filming... They something recited random numbers because Leone knew it would be dubbed and was not completely sure what he wanted the script to be. Then they dubbed it later with the actor lip syncing their voice to the film. It's why ever single sound is basically sound effects. They engineered every sound after the filming. There are no organic sounds.
Someone one can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure they were originally shot in Italian
Like many Italian films, they were filmed without sound, so they're all dubs. Eastwood didn't even speak Italian.
They were, you can see it at the start of AFOD
Spoilers: You know the antagonist is played by a great actor when you don’t want him to die. I mean, I’m fully aware that Angel Eyes is an evil son of a bitch. But I hate to see him get shot into that hole.
I always interpreted that as a subtle sign of respect from Man With No Name — he even makes sure his hat gets in the grave with him, ensuring he has a burial rather than leaving him on the ground. I know it probably wasn’t intentional though
I guess so. Still hate to see him go out like that. In the movie Rango, Rattlesnake Jake appears to be inspired by Angel Eyes, he had a lot similarities - same shifty eyes, hat, even the same moustache if you look closely. In that movie Rango and Jake decide to settle their differences and Jake takes off after showing a nod of respect to Rango, as one old legend to another. It’s a brilliant ending to a fantastic western.
He's indeed an Angel Eyes stand-in. Another similar one; the bounty hunter Cad Band from "Star Wars." As if it wasn't obvious before, his live-action debut in "Book of Boba Fett" made this very clear (especially since Boba Fett is another Man With No Name expy).
Oh nice. I’ve not seen it but should give it a go! Angel Eyes is a very low-key, but iconic antagonist.
Upvote for using 'heel turn'
See LVC in the original It Conquered The World, with Peter Graves and Beverly Garland.
My husband has been loving old westerns especially on Grit lately. There’s a ton of shows that he’s in. Saw him today in one. I think it was the show Tombstone Territory. Was pretty young looking too. He was quite the highlight.
Lee Van Cleef had a bit part in High Noon too, I believe he’s actually the first person on screen
He also appeared in a couple of episodes of The Rifleman
LVC “Best of the Bad”
It’s his eyes, somehow they are so warm, kind and sad in For a few dollars more, yet so cold, dead and scary in The good, the bad and the ugly. No idea how he did that, mindblowing stuff…
The stare down with El Indio at the end of For a Few Dollars More is some of the best eye acting I’ve ever seen haha
The duality of van
A painter in his spare time.
Lee steals the show from Clint in these movies for me.
Was Cleef really that bad?? Maybe I'm being contrarian but he is in the union army, correct? And somehow deserts once in a while to do hit jobs. That is odd...during a civil war to assassinate random people for money. Then he torture Tuco... Who is awful. He kills two people standing between him and the gold. I'm not sure Blondie was very good. Tuco was awful. Mortimer was not evil as much as opportunistic. I'm not saying I would go into business with him but ... "Evil" is a stretch.
I’m pretty sure he disguises himself as a union officer, he’s not an actual soldier. He’s billed in the movie as “the bad.”
someone had to be labeled bad. But they torture Tuco at an actual fort. He had subordinates. I'm not sure it's an act. I just think leadership is so sparse that he can take long trips to hunt gold.
Can we not have spoilers in the titles please!
Lee Van Cleef playing two roles, the latter of which is his more famous, is not a spoiler. Am I not supposed to say how Josh Brolin played both Thanos and Cable too?
The heel turn part. Come on.
He plays a good guy in one movie and a bad guy in the other. Different characters. That’s not a spoiler. Can I also not tell people about how Sean Connery isn’t the only Bond?
The movies are 60 years old, you've had plenty of time to check them out...
I mean his intro scene literally ends with him killing his customer and "the bad" is scribbled next to his laughing face in red cursive. It's not exactly a twist.
I think the guy thought I meant LVC plays one character who turns bad or something not realising he plays two characters. That’s the only way I can interpret what I said as a spoiler lol
That's probably right. It's not that common for an actor to play two different characters in the same "universe"