CLINT EASTWOOD I / INTRO - BEGINNINGS - THE SIXTIES: SERGIO LEONE AND DON SIEGEL

On the 31st of May (2024), CLINT EASTWOOD turned ninety-four years old. No less. It is common sense to think that, despite his legendary good health, is a very advanced age we're talking about and the inevitable could happen any given day and no one would be surprised about it.

But while Clint remains devoted to his craft (he's currently shooting his fortieth movie as a director, called JUROR Nº2) with an iron will (and I wish him at least ninety-three more years of work), I'm going to write about him and his monumental career.

As a fun fact, and simply for the sake of putting his age and his titanic dedication to work into context, when compared to some of his peers, I have to say that, while writing about Eastwood, I learn that PETER WEIR, the great australian filmmaker, responsible for flicks like MASTER & COMMANDER (2003) and owner of a pretty amazing career, has decided to retire from directing, because, in his own words, has run out of stamina. Nothing out of the ordinary or remotely blameable, given he's about to turn eighty this year. Right, but knowing quite well that everyone has their own ethic of work and is unique when it comes to their nature, is only right to say that good old Weir not only premiered his last film (the very good THE WAY BACK) in 2010, fourteen years ago, but also his filmography as a director does not even reach fifteen titles (leaving shorts, etc, aside) and he is fourteen years younger than Eastwood himself, besides not having ever worked as an actor. Food for thought.

This is about paying tribute to whom I think might be cinema's most iconic individual, going over his life (briefly), his career and all the movies he's been involved in.

This started, unintentionally, a few years ago, when I made up my mind about watching all the movies of his that I had not watched yet (as a director, actor or both) before he died. Said and done. As decently as I could, for there are still some very old flicks in which he was part of, very modestly and most of the times without been credited for it, that I could not find, besides some TV stuff. If I haven't watched all those ones yet is because they are very difficult to find.

What I've just said places me in a suitable position to talk about his work, having seen almost all his movies (there is no movie of his that I have not seen after 1960), which comprises his most relevant work as an actor and, of course, his entire career as a director (barring a little TV foray).

*It needs to be highlighted that when I talk about his filmography I do it taking the famed reference web INTERNET MOVIE DATABASE (IMDB) into account. I guess that, in principle, there is nothing more reliable than that.

But before that, there are a couple of things that need to be addressed. The first one is that I don't know about filmmaking. I love cinema and I resort to it quite often, and I've seen lots of flicks. That is true. But I know nothing about the technical side of it and I could not talk about cinema in those terms. I'm a fan and that's all, and I talk about this subject as such, always based on what I like and what I don't. I can value some virtues in a movie (or that's what I think), but if said movie brims with technical virtuosity to end up being boring, that virtuosity is going to amount to nothing to me. A piece of work (be it a book, a movie or whatever) can go far beyond simple entertainment, by virtue of being thought provoking, conveying a message or stirring the audience's awareness one way or another. And in the proccess, it can be amazing when it comes about those technical mannerisms. But if said work does not do anything to entertain me, this is what is going to count for me, and not the previous stuff. That's why my opinions, as I've already said, are based on the fun I get from watching a movie (in this case), and from that on, I'll value the other stuff, if I can. But I won't say a film is good only because of its photography (if I can observe that).

And the second is that, regardless of how much I admire Eastwood, it needs to be made clear that his filmography is not perfect. Not even close. It's quite long, to begin with, what makes more difficult to keep a very high level. He's not the usual filmmaker keen on perfectionism, who shoots a movie every ten years (quite the contrary) and has a short and well respected filmography, like STANLEY KUBRICK, just to name one, and I'm not implying there are no better directors than him out there. Or actors for that matter. This is all about personal tastes. My point is that Eastwood's dimension goes beyond his work as a director or as an actor (great in both cases), spanning his influence, his charisma, his place in popular culture and, it goes without saying, the usual nostalgia factor. All those things which go hand in hand with the term icon.

His work has some minor entries (both in front of or behind the camera), and that does not mean they are not good (many of them are, and then some), but only they haven't achieved the status others have. Some of his movies are decent, at least when it comes to talk of good fun (only watching him on screen is already an asset, but somehow they end abruptly and not as coherently as expected. And is only fair to say there are some forgettable movies as well.

My intention is to go over all of them, chronologically, and to say something about them, besides giving my own opinion and telling my own stories about them. And in an unbiased way, if possible. I'll have to go back in time in many cases, and also provide me with some info (this is also about giving important info and there is much that I don't know), because there are many movies and some of them were seen a long time ago.

Like a kid with a new toy during the shooting
of his latest film, Juror Nº2

Clint Eastwood was born on the 31st of May, 1930, in San Francisco, California. He never enjoyed studying and, despite being aware of his physical condition (mostly displayed at swimming) and his musical talents, he was interested neither in team sports, nor in music bands. He wasn't even attracted by acting at school's plays, individualistic as he was and mostly enthusiastic about (in his own words) fast cars and easy women. But he ended up learning about aviation mechanics and to play the piano. As for this last bit, he even has his own discography and has composed the score of some of his movies.

It is unlikely that he finished high school and he was drafted at the beginning of the fifties. During those days he visited the californian town Carmel By The Sea for the first time, and he said he wanted to live over there one day. He did much more than that, for in 1986 he became the town's 30th mayor, keeping the job during two years.

A very young Clint

During the first half of the fifties he combined some jobs and studies with his relentless and quite famous passion for chasing skirts. He married for the first time in 1953, while being involved with other women and being one of them pregnant, something he supposedly did not know at the time and which meant that the baby was given in adoption. That baby girl, first of Clint's enormous offspring (that we know of), was called LAURIE and she eventually met her dad like six years ago, starring in a story worthy of a movie.

Concerning his acting career, the most remarkable thing is that, also during this time, he met director ARTHUR LUBIN, who soon after would give him some of his first roles. Lubin admitted being impressed by Eastwood's appearance, but his demeanor in front of the camera (unlike what he usually showed when with women or in some physical brawls) was poor, not very much inspired and laconic. Quite amateurish. That led Clint to take some acting lessons. He tiptoed unsuccessfully over some auditions (including one for BILLY WILDER's very famous hit, THE SEVEN YEAR ITCH, 1955), until director JACK ARNOLD gave him his first chance in REVENGE OF THE CREATURE (1955). Later I will list all the movies he took part in during the fifties that I haven't been able to watch, just for information sake. But I have to say I could watch one of them, called TARANTULA (1955), also directed by Arnold, in which Eastwood plays an uncredited pilot. That one is an horror flick which may even look childish for today's standards, given the means of those times, and which I saw only out of curiosity for Clint's role, although you would not even notice him if you did not know it was him the one on the screen. Probably, the best thing he took away with him from this decade was an ongoing learning, also behind the camera. Eastwood himself deemed the end of this decade the worst moment of his career and a very gloomy time, having even considered to call acting quits.

His luck was finally about to change, thanks, once again, to his looks, because his height was noteworthy to some executive, who got Eastwood a screen test which landed him his role as ROWDY YATES in the TV show RAWHIDE, which started shooting in 1958 and ran from 1959 to 1965, give or take. Clint was not as happy with his role, or at least with its features as expected, because Rowdy was a young, clumsy and foolish kid (although he got tougher) whom the actor embodied already in his thirties. And also, his tenure in this show did not mean an improvement in his acting, according to critics and fellow actors, who remarked his lazyness, his lack of enthusiasm and depending too much on his appearance. Be that as it may, the show was a hit (although very demanding phisically) and also allowed him to direct some of its trailers (he could not convince the producers to allow him to direct an entire episode). Although it has nothing to do with his developing as an actor, it was during this time when his passion for music (mostly jazz, but blues and country as well) was born, and led him to starta a musical career which does not need to be told in detail. But those who struggle picturing Eastwood as a musician, let alone a singer, have to know that he is, and profesionally since the end of the fifties.

The bumbling Rowdy Yates
in Rawhide

But Eastwood's career really starts (so to speak) thanks to the trilogy which was never meant to be one, comprising the three movies that italian filmmaker SERGIO LEONE directed between 1964 and 1966. Those movies established spaghetti western (subgenre found in Europe which goes against the current of the traditional american western, and which is moslty developed by italian people) as a subgenre of the tried and true traditional western and made the both of them reach stardom (although Eastwood was far from being the first choice for his role in the first movie). That trilogy would end up being known as THE DOLLARS TRILOGY or THE MAN WITH NO NAME TRILOGY and was composed of  PER UN PUGNO DI DOLARI (A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS), PER QUALCHE DOLLARO IN PIÙ (FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE) and IL BUONO, IL BRUTTO, IL CATTIVO (THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY).

Clint was eager for a change, fed up as he was of playing a kind hero in Rawhide, and he embraced the chance as soon as he saw it, contributing to the global success of those films not only with his acting, but also being paramount when it came to create the features of said man with no name (Eastwood thought that, the less he talked and the more the character would be defined by sheer attitude instead of words, the bigger the attraction of the audience for him would be), a morally ambiguous antihero of the highest order, something more usual in this subgenre than in its older brother across the pond.

Sergio Leone with Eastwood on the film
 set of The Good, The Bad And The Ugly

Regarding the lack of intention of these films to become a trilogy, Leone had not envisioned anything like that, but the success of all three and the shenanigans of the man with no name, who had the same looks and behaviour in the three movies, made american distributor UNITED ARTISTS invent those names in hindsight, so it could sell the three flicks as a trilogy. In fact, Eastwood's role has a name in all three, or a nickname at least, and is different in each movie, and there are alsoother actors who perform in more than one of these movies (some of them even in three), and they play different characters. This saga (I don't know whether this word is suitable in this context or not) does not even follow a chronological approach, although this is quite difficult to notice at first sight. Apparently, the european success of these films, and also the distributors fear of being sued by a certain japanese director concerning the first one (more on this in no time), led to a very late premiere of all of them in the States, already in 1967, with an enormous market success, mostly by the third one.

Legendary italian composer ENNIO MORRICONE scored all three films (the main theme of the third movie probably lives rent free in the head of every living human of a certain age), peaking with the marvelous piece L'ESTASI DELL'ORO (THE ECSTASY OF GOLD), which can be listened to in one of the most pivotal moments of the third film and which is one of cinema's best known pieces. Morricone's contribution to the legendary status of this saga is unquestionable and, as one of the many comments that can be read on YouTube about the previous piece says, said song is not only epic. It was made for epicness itself. It's almost impossible to not feel moved when listening to this, and the moment italian singer EDDA DELL' ORSO's vocals come up is gold.

THE ECSTASY OF GOLD

Few things can be said about this involuntary trilogy that haven't been already said, for all three movies are cornerstones of the genre and cinema's history at large, capping the whole thing with the masterpiece  that The Good, The Bad And The Ugly is. In the first one, the man with no name (known as JOE and Eastwood's first main role) gets involved in a violent fight between two smuggling families in a border town between Mexico and the States, and is an unofficial remake of AKIRA KUROSAWA's YOJIMBO, premiered in 1961. I don't know about Leone's motivations back in the day, but is very likely he was said about being a very good idea adapting that film to a western environment, and he followed suit. Even Eastwood himself admitted having identifies that movie when he started reading the script, besides having thought about the possibility of turning that film into a western when he saw it for the first time. This meant a successful lawsuit at the hands of Yojimbo's production company and money had to be paid (it is said that Kurosawa made more money with the lawsuit than with his movie).

As I said before, a few actors aimed unsuccessfully, one way or another, for the main role before Clint did (even HENRY FONDA himself as the first choice), until (after Clint's partner in Rawhide, ERIC FLEMING, rejected an offer as well) Leone set eyes on actor RICHARD HARRISON, who suggested Eastwood instead, and the rest is history. Later on, Harrison would joke about this, saying that said advice had been his biggest contribution to cinema's history.

Iconic pic, poncho included, of the
actor in the legendary trilogy
 

One of the biggest charms of those flicks, which also made them more appealing to the spanish audience, is the fact that they were shot in Spain (leaving interiors aside), and the first one, specifically, between Madrid and Almería. Concerning Eastwood skills as an actor, despite his contributions to the character, were not deemed as very remarkable. Leone himself, in the vein of what has already been said about those skills, said that more than an actor, he needed a mask, and the actor, according to him, only had two registers back in the day, with or without hat. Not too kind the italian director, but spot on and funny. He would not end up well with Eastwood. It's also true that Leone hardly spoke any english and the set was full of italians, so the communication between both parts could have been more fluent than it was.

The reviews were not exactly raving at first, but quick commercial success led to another movie, For A Few Dollars More (1965), which was again a coproduction among Italy, Spain and West Germany mostly shot in Almería. The main role's name was MANCO, being a bounty hunter who crosses paths with another, played by LEE VAN CLEEF. Italian actor GIAN MARIA VOLONTÉ stars again, and even well known german star KLAUS KINSKI got a secondary role. This second installment, was it thought as such or not, ups the intensity of the first one and has legendary moments, like that one regarding a wagon full of dead bodies.The plot is also better and more intricate, and everything about Volonte's haunting dreams is great.

Main role, Manco, who only uses his
 right hand to shoot

The story was the same this time, with not very good critical consensus (quite the opposite), mostly focused on the violent nature of the movie, but with audiences welcoming it with open arms and from the get go. It did even better than A Fistful Of Dollars at the box office.

Gian Maria Volonté played El Indio

So, all this led to the last movie, the larger than life The Good, The Bad And The Ugly (1966), much more ambitious concerning its shooting (Almería and Burgos) due to the involvement of more scenery and situations. The plot takes place during the american civil war and the man with no name (the good one off the title and called BLONDIE this time) makes a living together with his partner in crime TUCO (ELLI WALLACH), the ugly one. They will have to face some guy called ANGEL EYES, again played by Lee Van Cleef, who will be the bad one. Stress on violence, even gratuitous one, carries on, and also the antihero subject, which become three in this movie, after being one and two, respectively, in the previous two films. They are greedy here, and even cruel, unlike those in the american westerns of the day. But at the same time there is an unconcealed repulsion towards war and all that it means.

Lee Van Cleef, pictured here as colonel
Mortimer in the second installment, played
a very different role in The Good, The
Bad And The Ugly
 

This movie ended up being deemed as a game changer within the genre and its quintessential expression and, despite the usual lukewarm initial reaction, became another box office success. The amount of great moments and tall tales in this production, both in and out the movie itself, is enormous, and adds to its legendary status (an 8,8 rating on IMDB, after more than eight hundred and thousand votes is not something many movies can boast about). From the feelings about war that the almost non speaking Manco shares with Tuco, to Wallach's dangerous moments while shooting the film, going through Clint's memories of said shooting (related, I guess, indirectly, with Spain's dictatorship at the very moment and the country's image abroad), everything pertaining the famous bridge in the film and the tense relationship between the star and the always perfectionist Leone, with whom he would never work again.

But nothing like the unequalled final scene at Sad Hill cemetery (built in the north of the spanish province of Burgos by several hundreds of spanish soldiers), combined with Morricone's unbeatable song I mentioned before, which is one of those great moments in all cinema. On top of that, said location underwent a few years ago a careful rebuilding by the locals, something which was brilliantly documented in GUILLERMO DE OLIVEIRA's essential documentary film called SAD HILL UNEARTHED, from 2017. I visited Sad Hill (it has since become a touristic attraction) once, at the end of 2021, and I can say is touching to be there. I went over there after I had already watched the documentary and I watched it again as soon as I could.

Sad Hill. I took this picture myself

SAD HILL

DESENTERRANDO SAD HILL

SAD HILL UNEARTHED / TRAILER

And all this without even mentioning the film's impact on populat culture (who does not remember Eastwood's funny statement about people being divided in two categories, those with loaded guns and those who dig), plus the importance of the trilogy itself  as a whole (with its very peculiar depiction of a desolated and unfriendly west) and the roles played by Eastwood in particular, to the whole western genre.

It does not get more iconic than this: the threes
 guys enjoying themselves at Sad Hill

I've said before that these films, besides not being a proper trilogy (or at least not one conceived as such at first), don't even follow a chronological order. I also said this fact is difficult to notice and I, for one, did not know about this and I have read about it afterwards. As much as you can notice that the main role has three different names, is also true that, at least in two of the movies, he's addressed with a nickname and not with a proper name, so you could think about him as the same person. But if it was like that, even if he really was the same guy, Blondie, the guy in the third film, little by little gets the looks he is shown with from the very beginning in the other two films. That would mean he's a younger person in the thrid film than in the other two. But more important than that, the third installment takes place during the american civil war, which lasted from 1861 to 1865, while A Fistful Of Dollars has a scene where the year 1874 can be seen on a tombstone. That's why the third movie would be (in the case that all three are considered a trilogy) a prequel, actually. If we take this fact as a starting point, and you are an historian or an scholar in certain matters, you can notice that the weaponry used in the first two films are more up to date than that in the third one. I am no expert, so I had to read about this to be aware. In fact, Lee Van Cleef's role in For A Few Dollars More, seems to be a veteran from the aforementioned war (which in the trilogy takes place in the next movie), something which reinforces this messy global vision of the trilogy. On the other hand, having several actors playing different roles in more than one of those movies, could be an indication (not a final one, of course) that not even Eastwood's role is the same person and these three movies are just isolated films which share some traits and take place in different times but very close to each other.

Tuco, a mexican bandit

Wallach, who died in 2014, and Clint, reunited
 many years later. Van Cleef had passed away
in 1989

Nothing I could say is going to add to these films' gigantic status, or do them any justice (they have to be seen) and, if I got so much distracted with them is because they are remarkable entries in Eastwood's filmography (I'll do the same with his most relevant flicks) and in cinema's history, besides launching Clint into stardom. Before shooting the third one, he took part in another italian production, LE STREGHE (THE WITCHES), premiered in 1967. That was an anthology comprising five stories, with italian star SILVANA MANGANO starring in all of them. Clint played CARLO in the fifth and last episode, called AN EVENING LIKE THE OTHERS, which was directed by VITTORIO DE SICA, and, despite not having anything to do with his Eastwood's usual latest roles, Carlo had the idea of disguising himself as a cowboy to try impress his bored wife (Mangano). I saw this film not a very long time ago, and yet I don't have many memories of. It was entertaining and I only saw it out of curiosity for Clint's role and, of course, to complete the viewing of all his movies.

An at ease Carlo and his uncomplaining wife,
 in a picture that, nowadays, would make
 some people's heads explode

In spite of Leone's films and the sudden success, Eastwood carried on waging his particular war against the critics concerning his acting. Those films were improving in the eye of the critic, despite the performances of the actors, which were not praised at all.

His next film was the revisionist western HANG 'EM HIGH, from 1968, which also was the first movie produced by Eastwood's brand new film production company, called THE MALPASO COMPANY (today MALPASO PRODUCTIONS, also known by its almost exclusive relationship with major distributing force WARNER BROS. PICTURES ever since). Said company was founded, with the help of IRVING LEONARD, then Clint's financial adviser, thanks to the profits earned after Leone's flicks. Also in 1968, Clint starred in two more films, COOGAN'S BLUFF and the awesome WHERE EAGLES DARE, with him getting mad during the shooting of the latter due to what he considered a useless expenditure of money in big productions. That's why he decided to have his own production company, to gain complete control over his productions, and he's been known ever since for his tight shooting schedules and also for sticking to the expected budget, when he does not get to shoot under said budget or before scheduled.

The company's name is linked to some kind of creek called Malpaso Creek, which went through a property Eastwood had bought in 1967 in Monterey County (California), and with the fact that, when he accepted his role in A Fistful Of Dollars, his then agent had told him that that would be a misstep (english for mal paso) in his career. The rest is history.

Concerning Hang 'Em High, the plot is about the revenge exacted by a man called JED COOPER, who became sheriff after having been wrongly linched and left to die. It was directed by TED POST. Good flick, although my memories of it are vague, beyond Cooper's linching. I saw it during a time when I saw some more of Eastwood's westerns in a very short time and I think they somehow overlap in my head. It was a hit, in any case, being United Artists' most successful opening back in the day and getting very good reviews.

This was the first time Clint produced a movie, something he carried on doing with Malpaso's films, although uncredited as producer until 1982.

Jed Cooper doing the math about how many
 blows he will need to hit to exact his revenge

Coogan's Bluff was more important. Maybe not because of its qualities, but for the fact that it was the first of Eastwood's five movies with director DON SIEGEL, who he became friends with during this shooting. Clint plays WALT COOGAN, some kind of modern cowboy within the police force, who has to escort an assassin and put him back in custody. The film's name plays with the main role's own name and his penchant for bluffing, and also with the name of a very famous spot in New York city (where the whole thing takes place), called the same way as the movie. Eastwood's role is a brute like not many others (the film is quite violent once again) and it could be some sort of HARRY CALLAHAN in the making. I remember vividly Coogan's behaviour, and some of his lines, and they would shock today's stalest feminism, and most likely the most rational one too.Those were different times. I also remember Clint sharing some scenes (besides the ones he had with famed actress SUSAN CLARK) with a most gorgeous actress called MELODIE JOHNSON, a few years younger than him and whose acting career seemed to fade in the seventies.

Coogan notifies Millie (Johnson) the need
 for a more inclusive language

Where Eagles Dare was a brilliant war flick with nazism as background, in which Clint (who portrays lieutenant MORRIS SCHAFFER) was directed (as a supporting role) by BRIAN G. HUTTON and shared the screen with no less than RICHARD BURTON, the very famous welsh actor whose name was so very much linked to ELIZABETH TAYLOR, the very well known actress he married and starred in CLEOPATRA (JOSEPH L. MANKIEWICZ, 1963) with. The film is based on a novel by ALISTAIR MACLEAN (published in 1966), who also wrote the script, and tells the story of an special group of parachutists whose mission is to infiltrate a nazi fortress called Schloss Adler (Adler is german for eagle, although the title is taken from SHAKESPEARE's RICHARD III) and rescue an american general. A most entertaining movie (enjoying today a classic status) overall, brimming with action, with the very remarkable cable car scene. It was a big success and even Clint's performance (among others) was praised, who benefitted from having beside him a fatherly figure with theatrical background like Burton, despite Burton's ongoing binge drinking, which got him away from the set for days on end. Clint asked to trim his lines (some of them ended up in Burton) because he thought there was an excess of rubbish, and Hutton focused on every star's best qualities. That's why, to cut a long story short, Burton did the talking and Eastwood and his usual quiet demeanor handled most of the physical action.

Schaffer and Smith (Burton) discussing
 how to infiltrate the nazis

Eastwood with the bike he got as part of
 his deal with the film's distributor,
 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

 

The sixties finished for Eastwood with his involvement in one of the most peculiar movies of his whole career, PAINT YOUR WAGON, a likeable western musical whose main attraction (at least for me, despite being a good film), mostly in hindsight, was watching two of the toughest and angriest looking guys in cinema's history, like Eastwood himself and the great LEE MARVIN (there was only Lee Van Cleef left), singing, something they did themselves. And speaking of attraction, appealing as few was the third protagonist, french actress JEAN SEBERG, an idol in her country thanks to her participation in the movies of the very famous director from France JEAN-LUC GODARD.

This film, directed by JOSHUA LOGAN, was a very loose adaptation of a musical of the same name from 1951, and tells about a small town born out of scratch during the gold fever. Clint plays SYLVESTER NEWEL (nicknamed PARDNER, a role with some things in common with that of Rowdy Yates), who survives an accident and is taken under the wing of drunken and troublemaker gold searcher BEN RUMSON, played by Marvin. Any long lasting THE SIMPSONS fan could identify this movie, despite not having seen it, for being the starting point of one of the stories in the musical episode ALL SINGING, ALL DANCING (ninth season's episode eleven), first broadcasted on the nine of January, 1998. In said story, HOMER and BART, eager for strong emotions, rent the film expecting to find a violent western (given the two actors reputation, and even more when there is also someone who looks exactly like Van Cleef), only to end up shocked and discouraged every time the actors seem to be about to start a fight but they begin to sing and dance instead. That one is not Eastwood's only apparition in the legendary show, something which is not weird, given he is a character so iconic, american and, let's say, worthy of caricature.

Eastwood and Marvin annoying Homer

It was an overall failed film, given the initial budget had to be doubled and the shooting was full of problems, and even if the figues were good, they could not make up for all the expenses. Musicals were also out of fashion during that time and the lengthy running time did not help either. Clint got fed up with the long delays, but the whole situation increased his willing to become a director himself.

There is something related to Marvin that needs to be remarked though, because this fella, involuntary actor and also known as one of the toughest guys in all cinema, had a performing chops inversely proportional to the ones he had as a singer. And yet, Logan talked him into singing in this flick, and the song he sang alone, WAND'RIN STAR, became a hit in several countries, something which astonished everyone, including Marvin himself, who competed in the charts with the most popular songs, bands and singers of the time. Journalist MANUEL ROMÁN told that Jean Seberg, when asked about it, always joked by saying that when Marvin sang it sounded as if his voice came out of a rusty pipe.

WANDERING STAR / LEE MARVIN

The leading threesome. What about Marvin's
legendary sideburns?

End of the first chapter