At Captial New York, Simon Abrams wrote a piece lauding Corbucci’s second movie in what you might call the “Django series.” Sergio Corbucci had a habit of remaking the same movie over and over if it were successful. After Django (1966), he essentially made two variations on the plot/character/theme in The Great Silence (1968) and The Specialist (1969).
The Great Silence is an atypical spaghetti western in the sense that Corbucci doesn’t emphasize black humor and surreally sadistic scenes of violence as much as he does in a film like Django. . .
. . .The Great Silence is an unconventional spaghetti western that takes place, as an intertitle imperiously announces, one “Winter [in] 1899,” in Snowhill, Utah. This is, in other words, a film set in a specific historical moment. And yet it has no more respect for rules than any other spaghetti western: Amorality and a fatalistic air of pessimism dominate Corbucci’s film. . .
. . . The Great Silence stands up as well as it does today because it takes that intense cynicism we’ve come to associate with the spaghetti western and given it a new context. Tarantino would do well to draw on as much of that sort of innovation as he can.
However, Abrams misses the point when he writes that in The Great Silence “Corbucci doesn’t emphasize black humor and surreally sadistic scenes of violence as much as he does in a film like Django”. The Great Silence plays as though it is an intense, serious, cynical tragedy. And, in some ways, it is. . . almost. When you look at Corbucci’s entire oeuvre, you will find that he makes irreverent burlesques of the Western genre that almost verge on spoofs. He is always putting the audience on. In fact, that is what I think that is going in The Great Silence. I will not ruin the experience with spoilers, but I will ask to think about what Corbucci is actually up to after the impact of the movie passes over you.
In a future podcast, I will cover the movies of Corbucci. It may be awhile, however, as I have a lot of topic I would love to talk about.