MovieChat Forums > Giù la testa (1972) Discussion > Critical plot point missed by many viewe...

Critical plot point missed by many viewers of Duck, You Sucker


Now that we have the full director's cut on DVD, American viewers can capture for perhaps the first time a very important plot point behind Duck, You Sucker (without cheating through first listening to the added commentary). We now have the fully-unedited flashback scenes.

Many believe that Sean after being tortured turns in his friend John, played by James Coburn. When Sean brings his captors back to the bar to capture John, John shoots them to save his own hide (A).

In reality, John is actually the traitor who has turned in Sean, not the other way around. Sean, after being captured and tortured, confesses John's role in the revolution. So when Sean brings back his captors, John is required to shoot them in self-defense (B).

John's haunting guilt that he was a traitor to his own, former best friend Sean overwhelms John throughout the entire film. This explains the flashbacks, a motivation behind his retreat to America, his hard drinking, and the fact he blows himself up at the end.

But to capture the real, intended plot (B) one has to carefully watch Leone's fully unedited film.

This is key. The final UNEDITED version of the flashback shows John's face turn from a big smile to regret and disappointment as he watches his friend Sean kissing his lover. He was a traitor to his friend Sean simply out of jealousy that he lost his girlfriend to him.

Many viewers of the previously edited version of Duck, You Sucker, including the final flashpoint, entirely miss this important plot point of Leone and the script.
More evidence is when Coburn/John tells Dr. Villega on the final scene in the train that he does not have a problem with him having turned into a traitor to his own people he is supposed to be representing. Coburn knows he would have been a hypocrite to condemn Villega.

That is why so many wrongfully believe in the above described (A) version of the plot. Understanding the real plot (B) is essential towards understanding the complexity and motivations of the John (Coburn) character. Villega shares in similar guilt, which explains why he refuses to jump off the train and save himself.

But the unedited version, including the full, final flashback, show Leone's genius. It shows why Duck, You Sucker is perhaps among Leone's most moving and complex of films.

It shows why Leone has made a film only for the most careful of viewers. He found a way to bring satisfaction to those viewers who pay attention to the smallest of details and a way to reward them, perhaps, with fresh information even after repeated viewings.
It shows why Leone's films have enduring power. They are still fondly-remembered and discussed decades after being released.

reply

But why was John smiling then when Sean was kissing his woman?

reply

That was confusing..for a moment there I thought Sean was going to kiss John..thats why I thought it was on IFC..but as that critic put it was a long to endure...just watching..but I still liked the movie.

reply

Why would Mallory have gone to the police to inform if he were wanted for murder? If he had, why would the police have let him go? If, again, they had let him go, why would they need Nolan to point out to them who Mallory was, since they already knew him? If they were really looking for Nolan and not Mallory, why would they have needed to beat Nolan to get him to tell them where Mallory could be found? And why would they have gone after him at all if they had the man they were really looking for? How can one assume that a murderer would inform on someone who was guilty of nothing worse than handing out subversive newspapers? How could it be anything but vice versa? Why do you call Mallory and Nolan "rivals"? And why do you think Mallory lost his girlfriend to Nolan? (The flashback seems to mean that they were both sleeping with her and all three were content with the situation.) Why does Mallory need a motivation to run away to Mexico other than the fact that he is being caught in a police dragnet? Why do you assume that Mallory would not have been haunted by killing his friend unless he had turned him over to the police first?

reply

I don't think Mallory/Coburn was actually wanted for murder until after the incident where he shoots Sean Nolan and the police officer, and possibly also for activities he engaged in afterwards.

They became rivals after Mallory became a traitor over jealousy from the loss of his girlfriend to Sean Nolan.
Yes, he smiles during the flashback when Sean kisses his girlfriend, but, as I already pointed out, careful viewers see the smile fade to disappointment at the end of the flashback.

My read of the film best jells with his line to Dr. Villega on the train. He doesn't have a problem with Villega being a traitor because he knows he himself was one.
This is a better fuller explanation to Mallory's motivations/character than he was "disillusioned by Sean turning him in" as suggested by wotamovie1.


reply

"My read of the film best jells with his line to Dr. Villega on the train. He doesn't have a problem with Villega being a traitor because he knows he himself was one."

How about that he says he doesn't have a problem with Villega being a traitor, but does somewhat, since he sets him up to be killed on the train? I say "somewhat" because he has had time to think about his friend turning him over to the police and his killing of him. He now realizes that most people are weak, that it is too much to expect most not to cave in under police pressure or torture, that by being so unforgiving of his friend--after all, he could have just shot the police and ran without shooting his friend as well--by being so unforgiving, he lost the man he cared most for in his life.

reply


"How about that he says he doesn't have a problem with Villega being a traitor, but does somewhat, since he sets him up to be killed on the train?"

I don't follow your argument. The Coburn character tells Villega to jump off the train to "save himself," just as he himself jumps off the train prior to the crash.

My understanding is the planned train crash was related to the ensuing battle between the revolutionaries and the peasants.
I don't believe Coburn set up Villega to be killed on the train or why would he warn him to jump.
Villega does not jump out of guilt of having been a traitor to his own people, a guilt shared by Coburn. Villega's death foreshadows Coburn's own death.

reply

He gave him that out, but he knew that the doctor wouldn't take it.

reply

Mallory could very well have informed anonymously on his friend (assuming he did this at all), without actually talking to the police personally. His friend realized who had set him up and talked under torture. If this is the case, then Mallory would be wanted for murder by both the "IRA" and the British. So he really isn't welcome in Ireland by anybody.

reply

all this talk about careful viewers see the smile turn to disappointment is funny, i think. Because after it fade from a grin to a small smile, he starts grinning just like before. So obviously he doesn't have a problem with it.

reply

[deleted]

what movie are you talking about?

reply

I don't think John/Coburn was the traitor at all. Just look at Coburn's expression on the reflective mirror in the bar. It's not one of guilt-->self-defense look. It's more of an anger/disdain for Sean for selling out. Otherwise, if it was just self-defense then he wouldn't need to have killed Sean as he already have shot and killed the cops. He made a decision to kill his friend there in disgust and shuns everything from that moment on as he says with utter conviction later on in the movie my favorite line in the movie,"When I started out I believed in many things...oh all of it...now all I believe in is dynamite." He is a man completely disillusioned. He can't even believe in himself anymore.

I suppose one can say the anger in his face was because of jealousy in losing his girlfriend but you can't look that angry after witnessing your friend get beat up like that by the cops.

I used to think John's character was beautiful, full of ideals and conviction and never waivering. But the fact of the matter is that in that pub sequence he can't put all the blame on Sean. John at that moment, had he been in Sean's position might have been even more cowardly than Sean. John had not been battle tested at that point. He is young, fiery, full of passion but can't see the whole picture. He did Sean wrong out of ignorance and lost his best friend...and ultimately took himself out of what was important in life. But he completely redeems himself in America and sacrifices his own neck for Steiger. He has become a beautiful character. When he blows himself in the end, he is a man at peace with himself, no more anger, feelings of hatred/betrayal. Final flashback is him remembering the good times and even the time he felt angry/ jealous at Sean/his girlfriend and reflecting how he has come a long way from that young jealous dude as he smiles now before he blows himself up.

reply

You guys seriously read way too much into this. And now we have people who say how this is "their" theory. This has been talked about for quite a while.


Sean and his friend shared a woman, and a dream...the dream of revolution. Somehow along the way Nolan was taken in by the Brits and was forced to turn in his revolutionary friends including Mallory. Mallory is pissed, and kills his friend.

This whole jealousy over the girl and him turning in Nolan stuff is BS. Leone himself said so.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym2xF6Wv-5E

reply

Did Leone say so? I would be glad to know that this could be put to rest. As for the "jealousy", I don't see it at all. The whole point of the lengthy flashback at the end seems to be that this was a happy menage a trois. If we just had the other flashback to go on, we wouldn't know that Nolan wasn't a chaperone, a relative or just a friend, but the second flashback makes it clear that he is also a lover of the same girl. I don't know how people can claim that she transferred her affections from Mallory to Nolan. If she had been faithful to Mallory at first and then dumped him for Nolan, the former would not have been smiling at all; he would have been shocked when Nolan kissed her, but then, she wouldn't be kissing Mallory any more in the first place if their relations were over.

reply

[deleted]

Hi dmm nyc, glad you find validation within my points.

But what's with these other recently posted claims above that "Leone himself said so." Don't make claims you cannot back up -- and instead provide a link to some irrelevant Christmas video.

What's more. I hear the claim, but I don't see the evidence, of a perverted three-way, sexual relationship between Sean, John and the girlfriend. There's much more evidence to support my theory.

Some ask why then is John/Coburn smiling at the kissing couple at first, before his smile changes to one of disappointment? (Only careful viewers capture this, and Leone probably meant it that way).
If Coburn hated the loss of his girlfriend, he would not be smiling at first?

It's easy to explain. John is simply happy that his good, lifelong friend Sean is happy, but then recognizes his perhaps bigger loss of his girlfriend to him. That is why his smile turns to disappointment.

Some of us have faced the inner controversy of wanting to continue liking a friend, even after he has taken away our girlfriend. That dilemma is all the scene represents.



reply

Who said anything about a perverted, three-way relationship? Both men could be sleeping with the girl without also having sex with each other. I don't see why you think there is "much more evidence" to support your theory. The only thing I see in the final flashback is evidence that both men were intimate with the same girl. That is enough information already for one short silent scene to convey. I find it hard to imagine that Leone and his scenarists also wanted the audience to grasp that Mallory didn't know about Nolan's relations with the girl, that the girl had transferred her affections from the former to the latter, and that the smile on Mallory's face is actually hiding his jealousy.

reply

Claims I can't back up?

Read "Something to do With Death", Frayling's official Sergio leone biography. In it he pretty much shoots "your" theory out of the sky. First off, Leone and Frayling refer to Mallory as Sean. Second of all, on page 330, Frayling describes how the final flashback was excised and that irritated Leone. He quotes Leone as saying "This wasn't just libertarianism and free love; there was also a symbolic dimension. This woman represented the revolution everyone wanted to embrace."



Don't believe me, read the book. It's in the chapter "Keep Your Head Down." And as for my video, well, how else do you expect an amateur film maker to get started?




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym2xF6Wv-5E

reply

ah, I see, she's the lady of liberty

reply

She doesn't look anything like the statue though. =D



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym2xF6Wv-5E

reply

Yes, I wondered if some bizarre proof had surfaced that Mallory wasn't named Sean!!! Which I understood his name to be the very first time I saw the film, when Juan says something like "Hey Firecracker, what is your name anyway?" And Mallory quietly says "Sean", when Juan didn't hear him clearly he more firmly says "JOHN".

reply

ahah! I really did think it was a threesome.

reply

Kinda makes me see everything differently when I think about it like that, but I'm not so sure that you're right...

Liberty Valance is the toughest guy south of the Picket Wire, next to ME

reply

Actually, the intended plot is still A. I think you missed the point.
The resentment of John towards his friends causes him to shoot him in the bar.
When John tells Villega "He already judge once", he's talking about judging his friend's betrayal and shooting him.

The final flashback does show something important, but it doesn't change the plot!

reply

What is your interpretation of the line, 'I already judged once', clint2442000?

reply

Yet Coburn/Mallory could also have meant he had already judged himself, or judged his friend as a man and not as a fellow revolutionary. Or he could have meant he had already judged once in terms of his overall views of right and wrong, which had been shattered. He could be referring to his friend's betrayal, but he could also be speaking of his betrayal of himself or his ideals.

reply

The bottom line is that the movie was complex enough without somebody making up an entirely new plot twist that changes the whole movie. C'mon, look at Sergio Leone's other movies. Is he really known for complex plot twists based on the last half second of the last scene in the movie? No, he is known for his great camera shots, his close-ups, the use of Morricone's scores to complement his characters. No way he killed his friend out of jealousy.

reply

Apparently it isn't enough for some people that Mallory was cornered by the police and saw his friend giving a nod to the officers indicating that he was the man they were looking for. No, I guess that isn't a good enough reason to shoot someone--even if you have to think fast. We have to go digging in his psyche to find out that he was really secretly jealous of his friend, although he never complained about his sharing the same girlfriend. And it would seem that Leone and his scenarists expected the audience to figure that out from two short and silent flashbacks that would be interpreted as idyllic by anyone who didn't have a crackpot theory and a book to market.

reply

I remember hearing somewhere, I think it was on a documentary on the restored DVD, that the girl was a symbol of the revolution, or liberty, as someone already have said here on this board. Then the relationship between John, Sean and the girl is not a "perverted threesome" but rather a sharing of ideals of some sort. When John eventually shoots Sean, it might have been because Sean had deserted the revolution.

But then again, making the girl a symbol for anything other than love might prove silly. In the credits the girl is known as "John's girlfriend", which can bolster the jealousy theory. However, when I saw the film I though and can't say otherwise than that Sean is the one to blame. At the pub he doesn't seem to have much regret written in his face when he points out John, just a little – maybe regret for himself, knowing he either would be killed by John or had to live the rest of his life in prison. John however, seems to me quite reluctant to kill Sean, and angry over what Sean is doing. He is however not surprised, and has even brought with himself a gun. Then he kills Sean out of necessity – he has to survive.

I also think it would be more likely by John's character to have these flashbacks to the old days because he felt bad for killing Sean. He could be wondering what made his friend point him out, a kind of disbelief. Maybe that's why the soundtrack goes humming "Shom shom shom" (Sean, Sean, Sean). Then he remembers the girl, which is both John's girlfriend and his reason to stay in Ireland. And Sean's main motive to betray John. I don't think one who had killed someone out of jealousy would have remembered "the old days" with such nostalgia, or even bothered to remember at all.

I also doubt Sean has been tortured. I rather think he got a punch in the face by John instead, and therefore had another reason (except the girl) to betray him. I regard John as a wholehearted good character, as opposed to the antihero Juan.

But of course, nothing is certain, and for all it is worth maybe John and Sean where best friends forever and never had a twist between a girl. Sean was by chance caught by the British, was tortured or whatever, and chose to turn John in. By doing so he knew he were going to be killed, therefore the expressionless face. The fond memories where nothing but fond memories, and hopes of how it could have been.

That's my thoughts atleast. Hey, by writing this I got alot more love for this movie. Just the fact that we are discussing this makes it a much better film than "The Good The Bad and The Ugly".

reply

I just came up with another theory! Yet I don't believe in it myself I have to write it here – I've not seen it mentioned before.

What if John and Sean was not members of the IRA? John was an irish bloke and had a friend named Sean. He also had a girlfriend. Later Sean and John's girlfriend got involved, and naturally John didn't like that. John goes berserk and kills his former girlfriend and beats Sean up real good. The police arrives at the murder scene, finds Sean bruised and Sean shows the police where John might be hiding. They find John, John shoots his possible captors. THEN he joins the IRA, ergo the girl "is the revolution", the reason why John fights, in a sense.

I must however say again that I don't like that theory, and that it doesn't fit to my view of John.

reply


I agree with everything you said. If anyone disagrees, they are wrong. :)




- The Truth is Out There, and I found it in Christ!

reply

Honestly, I think if John hadn't taken them all down at that bar then he would have gotten it. Sean was giving him the nod..wasn't he? So in the end..well, every man for himself. The quickest draw. I just found those flashbacks way romantic compared to the rest of the film.

Like would it have been better to just stand there before the shooting squad or take off running?

reply

Watched the original cut - I'm going to refer to 'John' as Sean (which is the same thing, Sean is Irish for John) and the friend as Nolan based on the credits.

I'm sorry but you're fisting the Muse's anus and coming out with *beep*

The flashback shows Sean kissing the girl first, then Nolan. Coburn's big freakin white teeth are very prominent and even when the picture goes out of focus, you can still make out a big a$$ed buck toothed smile to the very last second.

You say that this is a reward of close inspection, but ironically, closer inspection to other scenes reveal more, they reveal the truth.

The real point of this flashback is apparent with close attention to the previous flashbacks. The first flashback we see pans out from the mole on Nolan's head (foreshadowing his bullet injury at that very spot later on) and shows the three driving in a car. Their clothing is the same as the last flashback, so the tree where they kiss is their destination that they're driving to in the car, so the last flashback fits in (chronologically) as the second flashback, and the second flashback we see in the movie is of Nolan handing out copies of 'The Patriot' or whatever it was - and Sean looks surprised and a little taken aback and unsure. SO Nolan is the one who thought it would be a good idea to get involved in the revolution, and he brings Sean into it. Third flashback shows the betrayal. The pub is obviously a 'hot spot' for revolutionary activity, so they expect to find several revolutionaries there and they do. Nolan points out at least two other people before getting to Sean, which he's not sure about. Now if the cops knew he was a revolutionary already, why would Sean be focused in suspense waiting to see if Nolan is going to betray him? He ostensibly was let go by the police after 'informing' (which would be the ticket to his own freedom) so why would he then don a gun and go hang out at the local headquarters of the revolution he just betrayed? Nolan was the betrayer, this is also made clear when we see the fourth flashback, the one where he actually shoots his friend. When he is thinking about this, he's on a train, and he's trying to get Villega to stock up the boiler engine and become one of the workers of the revolution, not just a thinker. He wants him to work towards his own death like so many others had. Then he has an epiphany. He realizes that he could have left his friend alive and this is the source of his regret and self-hatred. He says "I did that (judged) only once in my life" referring to his judgement and summary execution of his friend. Why would he 'judge' his friend if he (coburn) was the traitor? After his epiphany his rage for Villega has dimmed and he says (with disgust) "Oh, just close yer eyes and jump!" So he's not willing to take out another life just for revenge, but he still despises Villega. Here's another thing I think people missed. There's the bridge scene, then the grotto sequence, and then there is Villega's betrayal. But he actually betrayed before the trucks in the rain scene because he's the one that told Gunther Ruiz about the hidden base in the grotto. That's how Juan's family gets killed (among others) and why Sean is so disgusted with him, because he caused the death of his NBFF's family.

So we have a dying man at the end, his gut shot out, and sitting in the middle of a battleground, the consequence of a chain of events that started with his friend Nolan getting into the revolution. His dying thoughts are of a happier time, THE happiest time maybe, BEFORE he was even involved in a revolution (this is why I pointed out the chronology of the flashbacks). When he was obviously a well to do bourgeois (how else could they afford a car in the beginning of the 20th century?) a very liberal one, of the type that evolved after Victorian England, a man with a freer sexual sensibility and a zest for life, all of this is apparent in the flashback. The point of it is; he wasn't just betrayed by a friend, a good friend, or a friend-in-arms. He was betrayed by a BROTHER who he would share anything with (and did - the girl, Nolan's patriotic zeal) without reservation or judgement. Ostensibly, he loved Nolan more than the girl, and THAT'S why Sean is drinking himself to death, untouchable regret.

A great F'in movie, though
.-'-.-'-.-Once it was death for prophet - now it's death for profit-.-'-.-'-.

reply

when you've got someone like the OP smugly saying the rest of us peons missed what a "careful viewer" like himself caught, you know it's going to be BS all the way....probably another first year film student with waaaay too much time on his hands

reply

It's in my top 5 IMDB board pet hates - The "I'm a special person who appreciates this movie in a special way." attitude or the "Only clever people or non-mainstream viwers can understand this film like me."

And besides. Sean IS John. He uses the Irish "Sean" after being caught off guard the first time by Juan and referring to himself as the English version "John". It's as if he is denying himself his Irish identity due to guilt of his past. (which isn't fully revealed till near the end)

Revolution is confusion as Sean/John says.

reply

I think he didn't kill his friend because of his betrayal. He killed him because of the jealousy he felt for his girl friend. He killed his friend. The visible cause is "revolution" but the real cause is "jealosy". Because of that reason his smile disappears in the end.

reply

What I feel a lot of people miss is that the betrayal was NOT out of spite but out of fear of one's own death.

Villega and Nolan were obviously beaten severely before they agreed to cooperate with the enemy. Sean/John either completely overlooks this or considers this weakness. He shoots Nolan; a choice that ends up haunting him. He almost makes the same choice with Villega, but remembers Nolan and changes his mind.

It has nothing to do with the woman. The flashbacks are used to created a parallel between Nolan and Villega. Two men that betrayed their loyalty to save their own lives.

reply

Exactly, the OP is way off

Also, something that I noticed this time, the final nod Nolan gives to John is masterfully ambiguous, as he sees John in the mirror, and he knows that he knows

It could be him nodding to John, saying: Do it, kill me
Or it could be Nolan nodding to the soldiers, identifying John as a revolutionary, and betraying him and the cause

Brilliant flashback!

reply

Bump

reply