Is the man with no name the same character?

Question

This is a question I tried to find an answer off of a comment by Napoleon on a different question.

The man with no name is the central character in what is commonly called the "Dollars trilogy", i.e., "For a Fistful of Dollars", "For a Few Dollars More" and "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly".

During the three movies, the central character as portrayed by Clint Eastwood is seen wearing the same clothing, and acting with the same mannerisms. He is referred to as Joe one time (And credited as such) in Fistful, "Manco" in Dollars More, and Blondie in Good/Bad/Ugly.

Are each of these three the same character, or are they different characters with the same (non) name? (Also note, which may be relevant, the director Leone did not intend for these to be a trilogy, that was a marketing decision, and Fistful is an unofficial remake of a Japanese film called Yojimbo).

Answer 1

For me he is not.

Yet I don't have a hard proof either. But until we get some definite affirmation or denial from Sergio Leone or anyone else acquainted with the project, let's take a look at what in particular might speak for the theory of him being the same character in all the movies:

1. They are commonly known as the Dollars Trilogy (or sometimes "Man with No Name" Trilogy) and The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is considered a prequel to the "Dollars"-movies. But as your question already says, this argument is easily annihilated by the fact that those movies were not intended as a trilogy initially, but this was rather a marketing decision developed after the fact by the American distributor. So not a trilogy but maybe still the same character?

2. Apart from the same director, with Clint Eastwood they share the same actor in all the movies. But they share even more actors in major roles, like Gian Maria Volonté or Lee Van Cleef, yet I doubt Col. Mortimer would be considered to be the same character as Sentenza (The Bad). And, as you said yourself, Clint's character is, while not having much of an actual name, referred to by different nicknames in the individual movies.

3. Then we still have the very strong argument that his character dresses and behaves similarly in all the movies. But this doesn't hold up very well in the context of this particular role. First of all, there is not much to build upon, since this character doesn't provide much exposition to his backstory or his motives. He is thus not only a Man with No Name, but even more so a Man with No History. So there isn't much to build a similarity on apart from his dress-code and his behaviour throughout the movie.

   But this behaviour isn't just shared by those three movies' heroes, but millions of others. Instead of depicting the exact same character in those movies, he actually embodies the stereotypical (and original) anti-hero of Spaghetti Westerns, from then on copied in a billion movies. And in fact many Spaghetti Western heroes share many traits with Clint Eastwood's character(s) in the Dollar Trilogy, yet they are of course entirely different characters. So rather than continuing the story of the man from A Fistful of Dollars, the filmmakers built upon this new and commercially and critically successful type of character, Leone as well as other directors of his time. (And it IMHO also fits to this kind of character and his complete lack of exposition that we don't know anything about his past and future, not even a prequel or a sequel.)

But I agree that this is far from definite evidence against him depicting the same character and some of my arguments might be a bit speculative, but I hope to have at least given some reasonable arguments for my point. To me, it is rather the interplay of smaller circumstantial evidence and the initial marketing as a trilogy that have lead to the theory of him being the same person in all the movies. But those individual hints IMHO don't hold strong and I think the burden of proof lies on the people claiming him to be the same character, for which a definite evidence I still haven't ever been provided with.

---

And as a last little (rather tongue-in-cheek) remark, the possible lack of a definite answer is to a large degree caused by the complete lack of any kind of background information about his character and the (maybe everlasting) question if he is the same person in each movie or not might add as much to the mystery of him as all the other nonexistent history. The unanswerability of this question might thus even be seen as by-design. ;-)

Answer 2

It's impossible to definitively say.

The film was only intended as a one off movie, with three films being created out of it. It was certainly suggested by the film makers that in the second film Eastwood was playing the same character as in the first.

Robert C. Cumbrow discussed this ongoing questions in "The Films of Sergio Leone", commenting:

We assume from the beginning that Eastwood, in For a Few Dollars More, is playing the same character he had played in A Fistful of Dollars. In fact, the advertising campaign for the film encouraged us to do so ("The Man with No Name is Back and the Man in Black Is Waiting for Him!"). But jarring points signal character dissimilarities. Eastwood's called "Manco" in the Italian prints (and in at least one American print), he's more mercenary than he was in the previous film, and he talks about wanting to use his money to (get this) retire! His character's morality is even more pragmatic than it had been in A Fistful of Dollars, where at least he does what he does in order to protect the innocent. There is a certain bond of honor with Colonel Mortimer; but most of what Eastwood's Manco does in the film is consistent with the bounty-killer amorality ascribed to him from the onset.

Yet poncho and cigar, stubble and squint persist through all three Eastwood/Leone films. If the characters portrayed by Eastwood are not supposed to be the same man, it is at least fair to treat them as variations on a theme. What theme? Screen Western heroism stripped of all pretension and motivation and forced to look inward to see a truth: Show me a hero and I'll show you a villain with good excuses. There's good and bad (and ugly) in all of us, and Eastwood was the key player Leone used to mold traditional Western-movie heroism into something with darker roots - it not Hell, then at least purgatory.

It must be noted however that The Good, The Bad and The Ugly was the final film released and if applying logic to the trilogy, as it is set during the Civil War, it would only make sense to be a prequel.

If we assume it is a prequel, then almost the only piece of evidence which could be used to suggest the film features the three characters is that Eastwood slowly builds up his "costume" for the first two films throughout The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, finally completing the look when he dons the poncho near the end of the film.

So in conclusion I would argue this:

It was meant to be a one off film. They created a second and played on Eastwood being the same type of character, without really caring too much if he was the same character (hence the character differences). Then for the final film, they chose to make it as a prequel and did intend for the character to be the same as in the first film.

As with @Napoleon Wilson's answer, this is all just conjecture, but I doubt we'll find anything better on the topic.

Answer 3

As a kid I thought they were but I bought the trilogy a few years ago and was struck with that question, not because of the name differences, that can be explained away as he is a drifter and using the same name too much may build up a reputation for a man who ultimately wants to remain anonymous, element of surprise and all that.

What got me was his personality/character differences; the age variation between movies is not that great to have what I consider significant psychological changes, given 10 years a person may change that much, but that kind of time frame shows on a man. In the first one he seems to be about money, but that is just a ruse; no one would have trusted him if he didn't come off as a mercenary, he was really all about reuniting the mother and son, and later he learns she has a husband, he is a complete Angel of mercy.

In the second one he actually is all about money, but he has a sense of "honour amongst thieves" thing going with Van Cleef, and he is a pretty nice guy. In the Good, the Bad and the Ugly he has another significant shift of personality where he actually partners up with a rapist/murderer, the Angel of the first movie would never consider doing that, not for money and not even with an ultimate plan to leave him for dead in the desert, his character from the second movie may have done that but there is no chance that Van Cleef would do such a 180 on him after their bonding over the watch and daughter, again not in a time frame anything short of 10 years do you see changes of character like that.

So overall I consider there to be enough character inconsistencies for them to be unrelated but very thematic similarities across the 3.

Answer 4

I would say he is the same person just because i think the films fit nicer if you believe Clint's characters are the same person. And regardless of whether the poncho from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is proof of it linking to A Fist Full of Dollars, there is definitive proof that Clint Eastwood plays the same character in both A Fist Full of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More.

In For a Few Dollars More There is a part in the film where both the bounty hunters do some research on one another. Clint Eastwood goes to the funny guy next to the railway and Lee Van Cleef goes to a library or public records office. In Lee Van Cleef's scene he browses through a newspaper until he finds an article describing the events of the ending of A Fist Full of Dollars complete with a picture of Clint Eastwood standing over the dead body of Ramon. Now if I'm not mistaken, I can't imagine Lee Van Cleef would go and research someone only to look up an article about someone else.

As for him being known by different names in the movies, I think because no one knows his name they just make one up to call him. I think this can be supported by observing that its usually one person who calls him by such a name and even they don't mention it often. in fact the only time I remember someone else calling him the same name is the undertaker from A Fist Full of Dollars who probably knew to call him that because he has already overheard it from Silvanito the bartender/hotel owner.

Interestingly because he is the man with no name he could be thought of as a John Doe. Other variations of this particular name include "Joe Public", "Joe Bloggs" and even "Average Joe"...get it?

In For a Few Dollars More he is known as Manco and according to this Wiki link:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/manco

The Italian word for "Manco" is "first-person singular present indicative of mancare" which according to this next Wiki link (sorry about this by the way):

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mancare#Italian

The verb "Mancare" can mean "missing" or "absent".

Answer 5

For me, I see the character as being the same man, it's already been mentioned that there are many links between the characters in AFOD and FAFDM particularly to do with the characters injured hand. Since Joe's hand is injured in AFOD it is only fitting that due to his choice of wearing a leather cast in FAFDM draws is a subtle link to the first film.

The name Manco draws further attention to this by essentially translating to one armed and considering his injury he would have likely used one hand for a period of time and got into a habit of using his uninjured hand more prominently which is particularly evident where Colonel Mortimer gives Manco a glass offering it to his right hand yet Manco uses his left hand to take the glass from Mortimer.

The name Joe in itself I've always believed to be taken from'Average Joe' which his character is no one seems to know who he is and would consider him just another normal drifter. I'm sure you can come to the conclusion of 'Blondie' as a nickname by yourselves. The link between AFOD, FAFDM and GBU all rests on that ending where Blondie dons the poncho and as said above you see the character work up his outfit in the film to what his classic look is throughout and if you think about it the poncho isn't all that crosses over the films, the sheepskin jacket and shirt do as well in fact the whole costume does I can't be sure but if they are all different characters why the exact same choice of clothes which brings me onto his revolver.

It is the same revolver throughout which further proves they must be the same person given the characters mystery and general interaction with people it is obvious he is a bounty hunter and a drifter so he won't stick around too long in one place. Therefore he won't get to know people that well which means he wouldn't leave it to anyone in the event of his death and what are the chances that the person who kills him is going to steal his gun and all his clothes and masquerade as him. Given his occupation it is more likely he would be killed if the characters are indeed different and that would be the only way the character would pass on his belongings. Also if he wasn't the same guy what would be the point of casting Clint Eastwood in all three.

I mean yes, Gian Maria Volonte and Lee Van Cleef play two different characters but their characters are vastly different. Gian's though both in charge of gangs are different due to their deaths and the amount of backstory revealed surrounding El Indio as well as their choice of outfit and the two characters possessing two different names that of Ramon and El Indio and being very different personality wise let alone the fact FAFDM follows on from AFOD. Lee Van Cleef on the other hand has a more obvious difference between his characters. Angel Eyes is cold hearted and doesn't care who he kills in order to achieve his objectives he exploits situations to his advantage including being a part of the Union Army his focus is purely on the money and as he attempted to rid himself of Tuco I doubt he would have let Blondie get that far after they found the grave. Colonel Mortimer on the other hand is out for revenge which Manco sympathises with to a point, allowing Mortimer to kill El Indio while he collects the bounty, if they were related I think Mortimer would have taken the money as well. On top of that Van Cleef's character in GBU is killed and if it is a prequel to AFOD then its obvious they are unrelated. If Clint was playing a different character each time there should be greater differences in character between each version they should dress differently own different weapons and have different personalities but all that remains fairly consistent across the films.

I read in previous comments that the fact Blondie is willing to team up with both Tuco and Angel Eyes in the film is something that would not sit well with Joe in AFOD, don't forget Blondie kills Angel Eyes and abandons Tuco twice. The first time in the middle of nowhere, in effect the middle of a desert and doesn't appear to care what happens to Tuco. Again Blondie abandons Tuco at the end when he shoots the rope he has hung Tuco from while he leaves with his share, he leaves Tuco alive, but to be fair he did help Blondie recover the money and was useful in distracting Angel Eyes during the final duel but nevertheless Blondie leaves Tuco's hands bound in territory where there is both high concentrations of Union and Confederate troops with a lot of money so Tuco isn't left in the best of spots at the end of the film.

There is also a supposed ten year gap as some of the previous comments have stated between GBU and AFOD if indeed it is a prequel it leaves plenty of time for Blondie's character to develop into Joe and we don't know what happened to Blondie's share of the gold whether he lost it, spent it or whatever. Maybe that led to a slight change of character which changes him from a cold hearted bounty hunter into a person who begins to care or at the very least sympathise with another's personal cause in his bounty hunting pursuits. Then again he may have that money stored away and the amount he has accumulated over his career leads him to make one final bounty in FAFDM. Now though I haven't provided any links and I've drawn much from previous comments from my observations I believe Clint Eastwood's man with no name is the same person throughout the Dollars Trilogy.

Answer 6

For me, they are the same person and Leone leaves clues throughout. Towards the end of GBU, he finds the poncho he wears in the other two films when taking care of that dying solider.He also wears a leather cast over his left hand in For a Few Dollars More after it was broken in the first film. Of course there are inconsistencies, such as why does he need to become a bounty hunter after he finds all that treasure with Tuco?

Answer 7

Being an ardent fan of the Clint trilogy, I just felt that for many years they were the same type of character (Drifter With No Name), but not really the same, especially given the English version never mentions "Manco" in "For A Few Dollars More". Of recent though, and I must admit I have owned the G,B,& U Soundtrack for decades, my youngest son brought up that in the choruses of the galloping sequences on the soundtrack, they are chanting "Go, Go, Manco" and to my astonishment after replaying over and again, it is true. They are. I've never seen anybody comment on this anywhere on this site. Given this fact, obviously they DO cross over, with Blondie (and of course, Joe) being just friendly name calls, and not meant to be his true names.

Answer 8

his isn't worth arguing over, there is controversy over what order is the trilogy movies! If you watch Josey Wales you should be able to tell real quickly that Josey is the same character. High Planes Drifter again is the same character that is drifting from one area to another across the old western frontier. I'm not the first person to come up with stuff either, there was huge Clint Eastwood film movie buff that had these films all pieced together that I read some years ago, but I can't find it now, been searching like crazy for it because I want to see the order myself.

The trilogy chronological order should be this: At the end of The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, The Man With No Name covers a dying young Confederate soldier with his duster, then takes the young man's blanket. The next time we see him, he's wearing the blanket as his iconic poncho. He wears the poncho at the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars. In that movie, his hand is damaged during a savage beating by Indio's men, and at the end of the movie he has adopted a leather glove for the injured hand. At the beginning of For A Few Dollars More he is wearing the glove when he beats up one of his opponents in the bar shoot-out. I think that establishes the timeline.

Josey Wales shows him wanting to retire out in the plaines but comes out of retirement, but at the end of the movie, he is told by the Colonel it was time to forget the war and to retire, then that film leads to Unforgiven. Then at the end of Unforgiven, there is a huge hint about him moving on to San Francisco, and out of his family comes the law enforcement person, that stuff is all mentioned at the end of the movie, watch it again. Josey Wales was a Missouri farmer, at the beginning of The Unforgiven William Munny ran a pig farm. It becomes apparent as the film progresses Munny is originally from Missouri.

The elderly woman Josey Wales rescues comments that she doesn't trust him because he is from Missouri, where "they kill women and children". That quote ties in directly with Gene Hackman's assessment of Munny in the final scene of Unforgiven. The woman and her daughter are from Kansas. Wales seems to have begun a relationship with the daughter by the end of the film. It seems likely that he could move to Kansas with the girl and marry her. The pig farm run by William Munny, who is widowed, is in Kansas.

Josey Wales is a keen Whiskey drinker but Munny has apparently stayed clear of the liquor for some time in an effort to distance himself from his drunken and violent past.

the Book of Revelations puts it, ''Behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, the name of him who sits on the pale horse is, simply, the Stranger, also called Preacher when he chooses to wear a turned collar. However, no matter what his costume is, he's still Death, and it's death that comes to town after getting some booze in Unforgiven, that is why the entire scene of Death gunning down all those town people turns reddish in hue representing blood and death.

the Stranger (from the movie High Plains Drifter), and that he somehow came back after his death, becoming a (likely self-proclaimed) pastor and taking on a mission of justice. The latter part comes from the enigmatic statement from Eastwood that the Rider was “an out-and-out ghost” — when watching the movie with this in mind there are various clues that the Rider is, indeed, dead. For reference, the first line of the Preacher in Pale Rider is a reference to the first line of the Stranger in High Plains Drifter. Obviously, a dead man cannot physically kill someone, but he was left for dead and everyone thought he was dead, but obviously was not.

I think there was a subtle but deliberate effort on Clint's part to portray Munny as an aged Josey Wales, and all of those are linked to the Trilogy and maybe Plaines Drifter and Hang em High, which I think they are all related. Just a theory, don't get to excited, but Clint Eastwood is a very intelligent person and it wouldn't put past him to somehow link all of those films.

Answer 9

Joseph What's-His-Name says in Hero of a Thousand Faces that there is really only one hero whose exploits are merely recounted in different forms throughout the millennia. So, yes, all the incarnations of the Man With No Name are the same character, as are all the other roles Clint Eastwood ever played, as well as those of Charlie Chaplin, and Achilles, and Rama, and...