 |
| Eli Wallach |
Welcome to Alternative to What: a weekly column that tries to find a great alternative to driving to the multiplexes. Based on releases of that week, the selections will either be thematically related or feature recurring cast and crew. The goal is to help you better understand the diversity of cinema and hopefully find you some favorites while saving a few bucks. At worse, this column will save you money. Expect each installment to come out on Fridays, unless specified.
THIS WEEK:
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (1966)
- Alternative To -
Captain America: Civil War (2016)
Today marks the latest film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe to hit screens. With Captain America: Civil War, a lot of the familiar superheroes from over the past decade have joined forces to fight a lot of familiar superheroes from over the past decade. It's an all-out showdown that reflects a current and familiar trend in which good guys no longer fight bad guys. They must defeat good guys who disagree with them in the slightest. It may not make for a thoroughly engaging story on paper, but the idea of picking sides is something that is familiar. It goes back to the Civil War that it references. However, you aren't likely to learn a lot about the Civil War from Civil War. That is also true for the also competitive The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, which is pretty much the same film set in a western community.
The most glaring similarity comes in the fact that both are the third in a series meant to conclude an arc. While Sergio Leone's arc isn't nearly as defined, it embodies the journey of a nameless figure played by Clint Eastwood. In this case, he must fight other forces that are just as despicable as he is. Somehow in the equation, Eastwood is the least offensive, and that's saying something. Still, you get three eccentric archetypes between Eastwood, Eli Wallach, and Lee Van Cleef. Together, they fight each other on their way to find gold. It's abusive, and it manages to cover all of the bases that Civil War did, but with far more emphasis on cinematic impact.
Of course, it may be difficult to recommend entirely if one considers that the pacing is different. Leone takes his time with a shot and lets the audience resonate in a moment. However, the brevity in which it crosses over with the Civil War is essentially what makes it very much a recommendation for Civil War. One doesn't learn much about the iconic American war, but they have enough action and intensity to make people care. It's secondary to the characters, who hate each other, as they fight for their own personal goals. It also helps that the film is funny in a cynical way, especially in the case of Wallach. So in this sense, both films essentially treat the idea of a Civil War the same. They merely exist in a world where the famous war happened.
The most glaring similarity comes in the fact that both are the third in a series meant to conclude an arc. While Sergio Leone's arc isn't nearly as defined, it embodies the journey of a nameless figure played by Clint Eastwood. In this case, he must fight other forces that are just as despicable as he is. Somehow in the equation, Eastwood is the least offensive, and that's saying something. Still, you get three eccentric archetypes between Eastwood, Eli Wallach, and Lee Van Cleef. Together, they fight each other on their way to find gold. It's abusive, and it manages to cover all of the bases that Civil War did, but with far more emphasis on cinematic impact.
Of course, it may be difficult to recommend entirely if one considers that the pacing is different. Leone takes his time with a shot and lets the audience resonate in a moment. However, the brevity in which it crosses over with the Civil War is essentially what makes it very much a recommendation for Civil War. One doesn't learn much about the iconic American war, but they have enough action and intensity to make people care. It's secondary to the characters, who hate each other, as they fight for their own personal goals. It also helps that the film is funny in a cynical way, especially in the case of Wallach. So in this sense, both films essentially treat the idea of a Civil War the same. They merely exist in a world where the famous war happened.
The one advantage is that it's highly entertaining and manages to give the plausible duel model an interesting twist. Everyone wants to know who will win in their own personal battle, and the build-up is intense. One quickly takes sides in the exploits of the trio and the world manages to become a lot more interesting as a result. Thankfully, the music is a lot of fun and is arguably Leone's most iconic work. People still hear "Ecstasy of Gold" in commercials. The legacy is just as rich as the comic book equivalents, with so many iconic moments that they can rival each other for their own potential Civil War. The only difference really is that there's a certain shamelessness that comes with Eastwood destroying a building. Civil War isn't likely to live up to those expectations.
So if one is wondering what the Civil War actually is, the answer isn't likely going to come in Captain America: Civil War. However, you may stand stand a pretty good chance learning a thing or two if you watch The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. At least in the film, it portrays the events without misleading the audience in any significant way. Of course, both are films in a series that close arcs for iconic characters. That alone makes them similar enough. The only thing missing really is Abraham Lincoln. If one of these two could've landed that get, then they truly would've won the Civil War and provided a rather entertaining action film.
Comments
Post a Comment