A few plot questions that didn't make sense
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — A Fistful of Dollars
porkfat — 15 years ago(September 07, 2010 11:32 AM)
Why does Joe ask the tavern keeper who the stronger of the two families are and then kills guys from the weakest? You'd think he'd want to whittle down the stronger, no? When he does kill four of the Baxter men, why is there no retaliation from the patriarch? He's the SHERIFF! He doesn't attempt to kill or arrest Eastwood's character at all! He just says "I should have you arrested!" but then does nothing.
Secondly, the Baxters were suspicious of the dead soldiers Joe used to lure the two families out. Why can Ramon Rojo not clearly see the soldiers are just SITTING THERE hanging out while guns fire all around them! They didn't run, hide or try to do anything. Then Ramon has to roll around with his rifle and shoots them. How in the world did he not see that the soldiers weren't reacting what so ever to the current situation? I can let this one slide as a dramatic way to show the viewer that these were bodies and they couldn't be seen due to the darkness, but they were so obviously out in the open it's almost laughable. Then the fact that the Baxters explicitly say "they look like mannequins" proved that the bodies could be seen and they were obviously out in the open. Nobody hides behind a thin slab of shale or granite out in the open like that.
Third, the husband and son of Marisol just hang out RIGHT NEXT DOOR? REALLY? And the Rojos do nothing about this?
I don't know, just a few things that kind of got to me. -
scott_uk88 — 15 years ago(September 07, 2010 05:26 PM)
I think No-Name picked on the weaker Baxters because he knew it would make him popular with the stronger Rojos. The men whom he shot were hired and could be replaced so he wasn't whittling the Baxter side down permanently. In any case, I think No-Name wasn't the type of person to take an insult such as the Baxter men gave him and his mule. Even if it had been bad strategy I think he would still have shot them. Baxter himself was rather weak and merely a cipher of a sheriff. When he and his son confronted No-Name after the shooting, No-Name held the advantage and there was no way they could deal with him. After that No-Name was hard to tackle because he was connected with the Rojos. Later he did Baxter a favour by giving him some important information. That was probably enough to make Baxter forget about what No-Name had done earlier.
I too found it a bit strange that the Rojos weren't suspicious about the lack of movement from the soldiers in the grave-yard. The only thing I can think of is that the Rojos had a much worse view than the Baxters had. With the darkness of night, the grave-stone in the way and the chaos of the gunfight, it's possible that they could have been deceived. On top of that, Ramon was impetuous. He probably didn't reflect on the lack of reaction from the soldiers' bodies after he shot them. At the film's climax he showed the same trait by not thinking to target a spot other than No-Name's heart - even though he clearly wasn't having any success aiming there.
I always got the feeling that Ramon and the rest of the Rojos felt so much contempt for Marisol's husband that they almost didn't care what he did or where he was living and couldn't even be bothered to kill him. He must have appeared to them as weak and wretched and worthless. Ramon in his cruelty might also have enjoyed having the husband so close in order to torment him. Another reason might be that Ramon used the husband and son as hostages - visibly threatening to harm them if Marisol refused to give herself to him. -
billybobd — 15 years ago(February 13, 2011 08:28 PM)
I think No-Name wasn't the type of person to take an insult such as the Baxter men gave him and his mule.
I disagree. He doesn't decide what to do until talking to the tavern keeper, and he doesn't seem that annoyed. I think getting revenge was a happy coincidence.
With the darkness of night, the grave-stone in the way and the chaos of the gunfight
the darkness of night
That scene took place in broad daylight. Darkness would really have made it work better. The suspension of disbelief really does break down there, doesn't it? The Baxter gang gets very close to them and one of them even thinks the whole thing is weird, but no one ever figures it out, even when they remain perfectly still with a big gunfight breaking out around them. I guess no one went and looked at the bodies to find them all chewed up by the machine gun, either. -
Promontorium — 13 years ago(May 31, 2012 12:42 AM)
They paid $500 for the tip that 2 soldiers, survivors of the attack (probably shot up, hence not in the best of health) had made it to the graveyard. The Rojos had to be sure, and seeing someone behind a tombstone not moving is not "sure" if their arch enemy is right there to take the soldiers away, you want to be ABSOLUTELY SURE they are dead, not just weak and unable to escape.
The Baxters also wanted to be sure. It doesn't make any difference in the world if the soldiers appeared dead, they just paid $500 for the tip, they must assume the soldiers were alive soon before, but notice the Baxters only plan on checking out the soldiers if they can flank the Rojos, i.e. they weren't so positive, and weren't exactly willing to risk their life any more than they had to.
I see nothing odd about this at all. You are not medically qualified to determine someone is dead from 100 feet away when they are sitting up, bloodless and were to the best of your knowledge completely alive an hour earlier. You're not a f$cking doctor and your entire livelihood is on the line. Don't you want to be sure? Isn't your emotional desire to end this conflict just enough to at least look closer? -
Noel_MarquisDeMaynes — 11 years ago(November 01, 2014 05:55 PM)
billybobd says:
That scene took place in broad daylight.
The scene took place in the middle of the night. As usual in the 60ies, it was shot in broad daylight with strong blue filter to give it a (unconvincing to the 21th century viewer) nighttime feeling. Technically, this was the best they could do then. -
guaili — 15 years ago(February 21, 2011 08:06 PM)
My take on your first question: Joe goes after the weakest first because he is going to risk his life with the show he put on for the stronger faction, so he wants the easiest killings and the least probable retaliation. Remember he wasn't doing this out of a noble heart or to even up the sides, but for money and what was more advantageous for him.
As for the Baxters not arresting or shooting Joe on sight, you could see the Sheriff already thinking of ways to draw such a gunslinger to his side, plus because of said gunslinger's prowess, he wasn't ready to put his money where his mouth was. -
LAT71 — 15 years ago(March 10, 2011 05:50 AM)
Joe saw currying favour with the Rojos as a much less risky strategy than currying favour with the Baxters. take a minute and think about the consequences of killing some Rojos to curry favour with their weaker enemy.
I agree with an earlier poster - Ramone took an evil, sadistic joy in the constant taunting of Marisol's husband, it would have played into his ego. He wouldn't have paid any attention to her son.
As for Baxter being the Sherriff - Joe voices the reason as to why the badge is pretty much worthless. -
Promontorium — 13 years ago(May 31, 2012 12:35 AM)
You bring up the same idiotic point that's listed as an error on IMDb. Are you responsible for that?
The explanation is that it doesn't make any damn difference at that point. The Rojos and the Baxters had both been tipped off, and they both had planned on peace just before, so they were both ready to kill each other while simultaneously not completely sure of what was going on.
They both could have surmised that the soldiers were probably dead, but the tip was that they had survived the attack, so they might have been barely clinging to life, just enough energy to whisper to a Mexican General "Rojo". The Rojos weren't going to take that chance, and the Baxters similarly wanted to at least see if they could get to the soldiers just in case because it would be the end of the Rojos if they could save them.
The whole theme of the film was uncertainty, trickery, backstabbing, etc. -
jt-hix2112 — 13 years ago(January 13, 2013 01:41 PM)
The graveyard scene takes place at night or at least dusk (though it obviously was shot as 'day for night' meaning it was shot during the daytime with a filter over the lense to make it darker - a common practice in older movies). So being set at night helps Joe's scheme work. Even so, the Baxters mention that the situation does appear suspicious but the Rojos don't because it's nightime and their view is blocked by the gravestone. As soon as the shooting starts, it makes sense why the two soldiers, if alive, would remain sitting by the gravestone. Who in their right mind would stand up from their cover if a shootout broke out around them?
It's only a movie, and, after all, we're all grossly overpaid- Alfred Hitchcock
-
carlin4737 — 9 years ago(June 18, 2016 08:08 PM)
I love this film but there are a few thing about it that might not fully make sense but I dont let it spoil it for me.
One thing I never understood is why didn't he just shoot Chico rather then shoot at him then bring the canopy down onto his head, saying that it is pretty funny thou what he does and also rolling the barrel onto his later on was pure class.
The other is why did the Rojo Gang just let Piripero ride out of town at night while they are searching for high and low for Joe.
Still great fun this film with some wonderful one liners.
When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk -
leravalchuk — 12 years ago(July 02, 2013 12:50 PM)
The spaghetti westerns didn't pretend to be realistic, unlike the American ones. Creators didn't worried about the plot and realism, because they concentrated more on the visuals and characters. That's why spaghetti westerns seem a little bit fantastic.
I also like can not understand the graveyard scene or why didn't Ramon killed Baxters much earlier or why did Joe always had endless ammunition. -
ianws — 12 years ago(October 14, 2013 07:29 AM)
Yes it's supposed to be much darker than it appears to us. It's the same "dark" as you see in Jaws in the night-time scenes i.e. broad daylight with a filter over the lens to try and portray the sunlight as moonlight. Film stock until much more recently just could not handle dim lighting. However, even with a glimpse through the dark, you would expect the participants to have twigged. As mentioned by the OP, the Baxters actually did.
-
LubyleFou — 12 years ago(December 19, 2013 08:35 AM)
Hi folks,did anyone up here have a problem with the daylight/night thing?I mean is it bad editing or something?I particularly think about the scene in which Eastwood shoots the men before he let Marisol, her child and her husband go.It is night at the Rojos while it is just a bit dark where the shooting occursDoes anybody know something about this?
-
jvaughan2 — 12 years ago(March 06, 2014 10:25 AM)
On the original question of why he chose to attack the weakest;
Joe was not interested in causing an outright war but wanted each side to need him.
By giving a blow to the weakest he showed himself to be stronger than any of the strongest. (They did not have the guts to attack the basters on their turf in daylight) As Don Rojo later says we cannot afford to have him not on the parole (paraphrased)
Also this set the Baxters back a bit so that they could not immediately retaliate. It also put the Baxters in a position that they
needed
the info on the soldiers from Joe because they needed the Mexican government on their side. (Joe did not plan this exactly but by weakening the weak he was pretty sure they would be at his mercy later.)
If he would have knocked some flunkeys off of the strong side, he might have only leveled the playing field, or worse they still would be stronger. Joe would be the enemy, but not one they would feel they have to have.
He did risk that the Rojos would take advantage of this and just wipe the baxter's out but it worked out that Don Rojo was not up for this. -
MetalWorks — 11 years ago(November 01, 2014 06:54 PM)
Its not that complicated, "If you are the sheriff you better put those men underground"
Meaning either those men were wanted for crimes or the very publicity of Baxter being the sheriff and a smuggler at same time didn't favor his position
That's why the Baxter didn't do anything
Look the way he looks at Joe, he's a smart bastard -
Opwiz — 10 years ago(March 13, 2016 11:37 AM)
I just think he wanted to plant his flag and make everyone know who he was, and the Baxters just so happened to be the one who picked a fight with him first and he saw his opportunity. As for why there was no retaliation I thought the same thing - saw no reason for them to just let it slide like that. A complete stranger waltz in and kill 4 of their men and they do nothing.
The dead soldiers was a bit stupid as well. No one in their sane mind would think that plan would work out beforehand.
As for the husband hanging out next door. I just don't think the Rojos saw him as any threat. It served to point out how helpless the husband was.
So a few flaws but it all still served to advance the plot and played into the themes of the movie and as such I can forgive them.