MovieChat Forums > Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo (1967) Discussion > My interpretation ...

My interpretation ...

posted 4 years ago by redban (6318)
2 replies | jump to latest

I think the movie aims to convey a message about goodness, badness, and a mixture of goodness & badness in the world.

1). Clint Eastwood is the "Good." He shows mercy (e.g. lets Tuco live), he shows compassion (e.g. "Sorry, Shorty"), he doesn't kill or bother anyone who didn't threaten him etc. Tellingly, the "Good" is the movie's protagonist, the character that the viewer naturally identifies with. This automatically signifies the movie's idea that goodness is pivotal and desirable in life.

2). Angel Eyes is the bad. He viciously kills two men in the opening scenes, one of whom is on the deathbed, just because "I do what I am paid for." He also kills one of the man's sons. He brutally tortured Tuco. He probably would have killed Blondie / Eastwood, which is why Eastwood seeks escape.

3). Between Eastwood ("Good") and Angel Eyes ("Bad") is Tuco, the "Ugly." Some people say that Tuco should be "Bad" or "Really Bad." But I disagree. Tuco has some sympathetic qualities. The scene with the Padre, the brother, indicates that Tuco ended up bad because he grew up in harsh circumstances, in poverty, with limited opportunities ("you're either a padre or a bandit"). I also consider it a deliberate feature that Tuco is a brown-skinned Hispanic while Eastwood & Angel Eyes are White men, in a society dominated by whites and racism. Tuco is lonely. He is short, physically unattractive. He's also dim-witted (e.g. - he didn't think that Eastwood would give him wrong info about Arch Spencer grave; he didn't realize the Angel Eyes would kill him anyways after giving the name of the graveyard). Tuco's poverty, intelligence, loneliness, and appearance are the reason he is "The Ugly."

Importantly, "The Good" and "The Ugly" survive in the end, leaving with the money. They also work together at several points, showing signs of friendship. Therefore, the movie conveys the message that Goodness and Ugliness can go together, and a person can make it in life if he is good or ugly; or both. Eastwood, obviously, made it out most comfortably and stylishly, so the movie puts goodness as #1. But Tuco's survival, however embarrassing at the end, still means you can be ugly and still be ok.

But badness can't survive. Angel Eyes and Eastwood join together for a little while, but the partnership doesn't last long; in the end, Eastwood kills Angel Eyes. Therefore, the movie declares that goodness (Eastwood) and badness (Angel Eyes) cannot co-exist or cooperate, the way goodness (Eastwood) and ugliness (Tuco) can. Angel Eyes also dies at the end, with shame, and he gets no money. So the movie declares that being bad will not produce good results for the individual in life.

[–] Ace_Spade (9574) 4 years ago

That's a pretty good analysis; I dig it.

The movie also might be hinting that some of these qualities are relative to each other and to the environment. You highlight this in your breakdown of "the ugly". Some people say that Eastwood's Blondie character isn't good, often pointing out his duplicitous "bounty hunter" scam he's running with Tuco. But compared to the others, he's good; given the circumstances of the harsh environment, he's good.

He also grows into goodness as the film goes on. We can't underestimate the effects of the Civil War going on as the setting. When Eastwood sets out, he's a treasure hunter. But look at his face as he sees the carnage of the war. In fact, we see Tuco being unsettled by this as well - so he's a little rough around the edges, but not bad (or The Bad) because he feels a little sympathy for these men. Angel Eyes, on the other hand, is actually participating in the warfare.

I really like your assertion that Ugliness isn't necessarily physical (although his disgusting behaviour certainly seems to be part of it here), but rather a trait of personality, and maybe even something that happens when a person gives in to compromise and situational ethics. Tuco has his background as a reason for his behaviour and selfishness, but he's using it as a crutch and refusing to grow out of it, so he's Ugly because he's blending Good with Bad.

The ethnicity thing is maybe something that I'm not sure is true here. I don't think there's a deeper message behind making Blondie and Angel Eyes good and bad and white. Saying that Hispanics are just victims of circumstance robs them of agency (not to mention accountability) and says that "they just can't help themselves". The filmmakers were a pretty mixed-race bunch, too - Leone was Italian, of course - and I'm not sure if his Italian background would make that statement. I don't know, maybe it would, but I don't know what Italians in general (of that time period) or Leone in particular thought on that

[–] gbu (581) 4 years ago

I like your analogy but I always thought the good/bad/ugly element coexisted between all of them dependent on their circumstances in any given scene, at times they was all good, bad or ugly throughout although arguably Angel Eyes was the worst of all.
Btw the grave was Arch Stanton not Spencer. :)