MAN OF THE EAST.

Italy, 1972, 125 minutes, Colour.
Terence Hill, Yanti Somer, Gregory Walcott, Harry Carey.
Directed by E.B. Clucher (Enzo Barboni).

Trinity fans will get a shock to find Terence Hill washed, tidy, quoting Walt Whitman and affecting a cultivated accent as Viscount Sir Thomas More, come to the West to settle. The film makers are again obviously having fun with Western conventions and cliches, audience expectations (and box-office takings). Somehow or other, they manage to have their cake and eat it too - plenty of fist fights and shooting (though no killings and practically no blood), but a message that intelligence is needed to succeed in the west. Fortunately, Sir Thomas - Tom - finishes by having everything. Light knockabout farce and some humorous satire.

1. The implication of the title - for a Western? was this typical for the humour of the film?

2. How interesting was it for Western fans to have Terence Hill do the opposite of his Trinity performance? How well did he portray Sir Thomas More? Was he a strong enough hero for the film? How did the film emphasize his style ? his posture, the trip in the train, his amazement at the West, his quoting poetry, his cultivated voice.. his behaviour towards the others in the town, his bicycle etc.? was he a convincing student from Cambridge? How ironic for Westerns was having an English cultivated hero in the West (portrayed by an Italian)? What laughs were being had at the expense of Western conventions?

3. Was the film in favour of intelligence in the West over brawn or was it anti-intellectual? Why? Which sequences could be used for either side of the argument?

4. How well did the film portray the background of Sir Thomas More's associates? How did this give the film a chance to have some humour and violence?

5. How straightforward was the romance? was it meant to be taken seriously? The romantic heroine and her father? The villain who was to marry her? Sir Thomas More and Byron's poetry? The sequences by the river? The slow motion riding ? what was being satirised here? The final fight? Was this a good satire on Western romance?

6. How interestingly did the film show the clash of values between what Sir Thomas stood for and in his education and the background of his associates and his father? His studies.. especially about insects and the lack of comprehension of his associates? Did the film take sides?

7. Why did Sir Thomas have to change into Tom? Was the change necessary? What did the month of change show about traditions of violence in the West ? of being a good fighter and good gun fighter?

8. Did the film have it both ways? By showing fights at length, in the saloon, in the streets? And then showing that brains should prevail over brawn?

9. The nature of the villain? Was he too sly? Was there satire in the presentation of the villain? The final showdown? Again did the film have it both ways? A strong stoush? And yet the good nun prevailing at the end?

10. What were the implications of the ending when Tom's associates found the sea and had to turn back? Did it prove he was right?

11. How seriously should films like this be taken? Are serious questions entirely out of place? or are they implied in the satire, even though it is meant to be good fun and box office success?