MovieChat Forums > Navajo Joe (1966) Discussion > Quentin Tarantino on NAVAJO JOE

Quentin Tarantino on NAVAJO JOE


In an interview in the latest Video Watchdog, Quentin Tarantino refers to NAVAJO JOE as "before THE WILD BUNCH, the most violent movie to ever have an American studio logo at the front. [United Artists]." After seeing NAVAJO JOE again this afternoon on the Western Channel, I’'m puzzled by that remark. It didn't seem particularly more violent than too many other Italian westerns I’'ve seen. Also, QT makes a point of singling out Burt Reynolds’ fighting style as being like that of a martial artist and waxes rhapsodic about it in the interview. While I loved watching Burt do all his own stunts, I doubt that I would call what he does a “fighting style.” He basically runs, leaps and pounds his opponents with sheer force, or sneaks up on them and stabs them. Not a lot of style there.

Any thoughts?

reply



this movie took the small elements that were bad in the Spaghetti Western genre and made them far worse.

Burt should have been shot (oh yea he was) for doing this movie.

They did to Sergio Leone what the chinese did to Louis Vitton luggage....

reply

I think you should have interpreted that sentence more literally: QT did say that this was the most violent movie to ever "have an American studio logo at the front" which is something that most other Italian westerns did not have, including Corbucci's own previous "Django". Many of such movies were released in the US several years after they were made and an awful lot of them never saw the big screen at all.

Tarantino tends to overestimate his personal taste for movies however this was the first western ever where you see a native American unashamedly killing a whole bunch of white guys and also being the hero of the story, this is something never seen before in any American western.
Curiously you can draw a parallel with QT's own "Django Unchained", with a black hero replacing the native (Fred Williamson got there before him back in the 70s actually , though with a different narrative and no predominant "slavery" element present).

reply

Indeed, not really a style like a martial artist. But what an athlete Reynolds was. Remember that in those days there was no computer animation, the stunts he did were real, and his horseriding was superb. Not many modern day actors could have pulled that off...Ten years later he became a major actor, and I'm still surprised about how he screwed up his career in the eighties and nineties. What a pity...

reply

Remember - Burt was a stuntman.

Or, rather, in the days of live TV drama, he was either an actor who could do his own stunts or a stuntman who could (adequately enough) act.

reply

I can't remember for sure, but wasn't the original "Scarface" pretty violent? And it would get extra consideration for being so much earlier.

reply

Yeah, cause that was released in the 60's....

reply

I'd love to know how your mind works.

USA 31 March 1932 (premiere)

It had no release anywhere on the globe in the 60s.

Maybe you missed "original."

reply

I think Tarantino used to watch those films while stoned. That´s why he liked them so much.

I liked NAVAJO JOE (but with a couple of beers on my side)

Uncle Sam don't give a *beep* about your expenses. You want bread, *beep* a baker.

reply

While watching this I couldn't help but notice that Tarantino used Ennio Morriconi's music from this movie in Kill Bill.

Snakes....I hate snakes

reply

This movie was very violent, but it was violent to the point where it was ridiculous. The filmmakers never heard of overkill before, I guess. Or the phrases, "Let's not overdue it," or "Let's not get carried away." Tarantino has been guilty of the same thing, so I could see why he likes this movie.

reply

[deleted]

I agree on both points.
Still I’d say it’s a really good movie.

reply