Category: Three Amigos

I thought this movie was really funny. It was very interesting how they made fun of all of the aspects that are normally present in western movies. Everything was exaggerated and people seemed to see things that were completely out of place as normal. This form of mockery was present for the Mexicans as well as for the Americans. Although the only western movie Ive seen is The Wild Bunch, it made fun of every single detail. At the same time, it followed the same structure that a western movie has, or at least the same as in the Wild Bunch. The same elements were present as well as the same characters. It seems that Western movies have stock characters, where the plot is on of the only things that is changed. I found it peculiar to see so many hens in the movie. They were everywhere, even inside a pot which someone shoots. Hence, they also make fun of the Mexican culture represented in this kind of movies. It is funny because since people know that this is not the way that Mexico really is, it is making it even more obvious that the representation is not as portrayed. The role of women has always been a topic of discussion for the previous movies. Here women also play a significant role. The Three Amigos decide to go back to fight El Guapo because he had the girl. However, the amigos, apart from one actually desired them. When one of them was asked if he wanted to kiss her, he replies, NOW? So they dont really have a contact with them since they relate all of their lives to the movies they have made. However, this part is probably not important compared to the fact that El Guapo saw the lady he took from the village as an object too. He said that if she didnt have sex with him on his birthday he would kill her. The way his friend talks about women is similar, since he says that men should just take the girls by force when he was talking to El Guapo. Certainly women are depicted as an object in the eyes of the Mexicans, while the american dont really have any experience with them.

In response to Hudson404: It was interesting how the women were portrayed in vast contrast with those women in previous movies we have watched. I think this, in fact humanized the villians because El Guapo talks about his emotions and his inability to talk to Carmen. Even though he is told he can just “have her” he rebukes it is different with women! In addition, another woman makes him a sweater for his birthday and so, I suppose the comedy found it this, is that the villians are just like the Three Amigos, or at least no different.
In response to Mario: I am not sure if this film did do anything to deflect the “stereotypes” it played off of. I think it only emphasized these roles in order to call attention to them, but besides that, the film, overall was no different than other films we have watched. The Americans – Hollywood gang- ended up saving the day. Like Vargas, who is supposed to be playing the role as a “Mexican,” he too, in reality is an American and ends up saving the day.

It has been a long time since I have seen The Three Amigos and I really enjoyed it again! It kind of brought a lighter side to the films that we have watched so far as many of them centered on difficult themes. I find that this film was the comedy version of the Wild Bunch because of the many elements that were in that movie found their way into the Three Amigos like the Germans being involved in the gun smuggling who are seen as tough gunslingers. The film also has some common plots like the villagers in distress who seek out the help of outsiders and also rescuing the girl in distress. But as they attempt to rescue her they’re plan at first fails and the girl seems to give some better ideas to plan the escape out. It was interesting to see the contrast of the portrayal of the women in the , which they seemed to be strong and respected, but at El Guapo’s they are not as respected and seen as object to El Guapo and his gang. The movie does exaggerate quite a bit with the Amigos wardrobe and also the scenes where they break out in dance, which obviously indicates the distance they are trying to make between a real western and the comical version. Another shot was the background that was obviously a canvass of a sunset during the scene where they are outdoors gathered around the camp fire joined by some animals.. As many of the westerns always have a character that is the ultimate bad guy in Three Amigos El Guapo is portrayed as the clumsy hardened criminal who is the leader of a gang who are just as clumsy. The villagers seemed to need direction and courage to stand up to El Guapo and are given a plan by the Amigos to confront their fears. A great part of this scene is when Martin Short delivers the battle cry to get everyone motivated about conquering an individual’s personal “El Guapo”.

This movie was funny but something someone said in class got me thinking. This movie is about three amigos that believe they’re in a show, because of a silent movie that shows them as being heroes. Now… they’re Americans. Carmen actually states that no one can help them, especially Mexican men who just seem lazy and drunk all the time. Now, this movie is making fun of the stereotypes in westerns like the wild bunch, were mexicans are actually shown as Lazy, drunk and well, corrupt and megalomaniacs. But at the same time it is showing the stereotype and promoting the idea that Americans are going to save Mexico, because in the end they do. Three americans come up with the plan and destroy a whole lot of bandidos. And in the end, it does show the stereotypes and does nothing to portray them differently. So because of this, does this work as the satire it is intended to, or does it fall under the category of movies about Mexico with bad stereotypes like The Wild Bunch or High Noon?
I think it falls under the category of movies about Mexico with bad stereotypes and this is why: We are in a spanish class studying about Meican cinema, and we see things differently. But this movie is not intended for college students in a class about Mexican cinema. Its meant for the Average middle class American that thinks of Mexico as what is shown in the big screen: dirty, full of bandidos, drug lords and mexican woman who can’t defend themselves. The movie does nothing to change the view of Mexico. It makes fun of the stereotypes, but does not show a real Mexico. Where in the movie does the director or writer try to change the stereotype? If a 10 year old watches this movie he is going to believe the things in the film, and still believe that Americans are the heroes and Mexicans are drunk and lazy. Yes, they exxagerate it and make fun of it, but I am not sure that a lot of people would read it the way we do. Now, if we talk about, it made a good presentation of stereotypes in Westerns and ridiculing them, but my point is that it did not try to change the expectations. El guapo was still a sick bandido, Carmen was the dame in need of help, the people got drunk, etc. I really think this is goign to be a movie to talk about because they exxagerated in such a manner that we could tell it was a farce, but maybe not everyone can.

Racking my brain again…
Recalling all of these movies i’ve watched up to now (including Traffic) concerning Mexican culture, tradition, and custom, i have a vague feeling of the existence of a significant margin b/w the first 7 (Que Viva Mexico is counted) and the last 4. Obviously, Hollywood films present more sophisticatedly artistic, cinematic, and dramatic technics and devices, but once there is heterogeneous perspectives upon a specific object, it always comes controversy. North americans have different viewpoints with those of latinos, and even within the group of hollywood, directors always attempt to dig different aspects of a same object, or i should say it’s just because they have their own outlooks on it based on their personal experience. Although the first group of films have a sort of same tendency, but in general, they all incorporate both “good and bad” for a particular race (latinos), but hollywood apparently has an inclination of going to extremes – either barbaric folks or progressive outsiders, either uneducated mexican women or brave US women, and either tactful mexican cop or crafty US officer…I wonder which one is more onto the verge of the true representation of mexico? Of course i know that there is a cinematic device called “dramatization”, but as an audience who has no background knowledge about mexico, i always have a tendency to classify those properties either humanistic or ethical shown in the moive, so i guess if i only have a chance to watch only one of them, i might get biased idea.

Back to Three Amigos…
I like it simply because it’s funny. Wowww finally i’ve got to watch a movie without burning my brain cells or straining my heart. I like the light atmosphere it creats, and i’m not picky on comedies as long as it makes me laugh. Once again, characters have distinctive personalities that “didactically” presents me which group is evil and which one is angel; in this way, this seems unsophisticated, and i expect more complex traits of roles, which would be more attractive.

Three Amigos!
Comedy!
…for kids?
So much death, and yet such juvenile humour. Martin Short had the only distinct, interesting character so he stood out to me as the funniest of the three. It seemed like the film had been hastily edited down to a more reasonable time thus sacrificing the comedic timing necessary for the jokes. Either that or children need some sort of accelerated physical joke telling to keep them interested.
Anyways, regardless…
A film like this can easily be dismissed as “fluff” or unworthy of any academic discussion, but I think there are some interesting elements to the film that stand out.
The most noteworthy for me was this double removal of a film within a film, and the clear portrayal of the assumed actual reality as totally synthetic and ridiculous.
Immediately, during the old fashioned black and white film, we as the audience recognize Steve Martin, Chevy Chase and Martin Short as famous comedic actors. We then see the Mexican audience watching these three actors as if they were action stars, or strong, manly actors (This reinforced by the German who idolizes Ned). Of course, we know this isn’t true at all and that sets up the humorous misunderstanding that drives the plot.
Then, Steve, Chevy and Martin leave Hollywood for Mexico, and we never hear their actual character names as the actors who play the three amigos. They continue to call each other by their stage names.
It’s almost as if some fantastical reality has been set up where the Three Amigos escape the confines of the cinema and go to Mexico where they eventually discover that they truly are the Three Amigos, and yet all this is shown to us the audience within a film.
It reminds me of a children’s comedic rendition of David Lynch’s “Inland Empire” where the actor can never escape their act.
Even furthermore, I am tempted to read the entire film as a sick, hunger and desperation induced hallucinated adventure by Steve Martin’s character who so distraught about losing his job invents this story in his mind. That would be one way to justify the absurd “real” singing animals, bush and the invisible swordsman.

When I was around twelve, I recorded this movie off of the Disney channel on TV like I did other with a lot of other movies. I really liked this one though, I thought it was funny, I liked the music in it and I watched it a lot. Now it’s really hard for me to look at it from a different point of view, especially from an academic point of view for a class where we’re supposed to discuss the different perspectives of Mexico. When I watched this movie when I was younger, I didn’t care about the Mexico part of it, I just cared about the singing bush and the other humour. Now I still think that the music is well-composed for the movie’s purpose, but I can’t believe that I missed how ridiculous a lot of the humour really is. This time I pretty much only laughed when Dusty asked if they had anything other than Mexican food, but I didn’t laugh because it was funny, I laughed because it was pathetic. The truth is, I’m finding it really hard to come up with anything other than the word stereotype, but I’ll keep trying. I guess I’ll just point out things instead of coming up with a general statement about my opinion.
It seemed like the perspective of Mexico was just a few small towns, where the people were either poor or bad. The people in the poor towns were seen as uneducated, obviously when Carmen misunderstood what the movie was. I guess at some point, that idea could have been humorous, ‘A small town is desperate for help, so a woman mistakes a movie for an advertisement and sends for the actors.’
The actors of the Three Amigos in the movie were in apparently a lot of movies about Mexico, but they didn’t seem to know anything about it when they actually went there, which is why it was pathetic when Dusty asked about the Mexican food.
Overall, I thought that for this kind of parody, it was really well done, which is probably why I liked it when I was younger. This answer is probably really obvious, but due to the sentimental history that I have with this movie, I have to ask, what is it really trying to say? Is it trying to make complete fun of the relationship between the US and Mexico (a common theme in the movies of this course)? Or was it just a partial parody of Mexico with the intention of creating a comedy, so they added in more funny stuff with a Mexican theme? Or is there actually any difference between those two questions? I don’t know if I’m choosing the right words to say what I’m thinking.
I thought that the part where they were drinking water in the desert would have been perfect for a humorous environmental ad: don’t waste water, other people need it.

I think this is going to be one of the harder blogs to write, considering I can’t really take much of this movie seriously.
Seeing movies like this with Steve Martin in them make me really sad because he has the ability to be a very funny, talented man, but he’s in so many bad movies (ie Father of the Bride, Father of the Bride II, Young at Heart, LA Story, the list is endless). Chevy Chase is generally in this sort of mishugas slapstick comedy, so this wasn’t much of a deviation from the norm for him. Steve Martin, on the other hand, was once a very funny young white-haired man who did great gags on Saturday Night Live, and was in the only movie I’ve ever liked him in, “Parenthood.”
The point being, seeing him in such a stupid movie was, as it usually is, difficult for me to watch. I don’t like raining on others’ parades, but this movie was really stupid. Aside from maybe one or two gags, I just wasn’t into the humor at all. Granted I don’t find slapstick that funny usually (aside from Woody Allen slapstick movies), I still had a really hard time sitting through this. I expect I was probably the only kid in the class with this issue.
It’s hard to say too much about this film as any sort of Mexican commentary, as Jon called this a self-reflective “meta-film,” so I’m not sure what I can say that won’t just go back to the argument that it was meant to be stereotypical and stupid, a spoof of all those old westerns. If the plot line weren’t so ridiculous and the whole script didn’t wreak of trying to be funny, maybe I would’ve enjoyed it as it is more.

I did not know anything about this film previously. Therefore, when I first heard the title, I thought it would be another one of those cliche Western movies. Instead, it was a refreshing change from the films we have seen previously, especially as of late. It actually had more of an impact on me after seeing The Wild Bunch. It was clever because it used the image of Mexico, dreamed up by Hollywood directors and this in turn, drew on the absurdity, especially that fantasy world created by actors. There were many tropes used in the film and as a result it played with the audience’s expectations. There were many elements in the film attributed to older films, specifically that of The Wild Bunch. The Three Amigos gave me a breath of fresh air because it emphasizes and exagerates those worlds that have been speculated upon by the U.S. film industry. The film remained neutral, but still calls attention to Hollywood and how silly their characterization of other cultures has been and more importantly, the Gringo protagonists, made a mockery of themselves. Even though the film initally seemed to have a senseless plot, in reality it was clever and made social commentary about the ridiculous nature of Hollywood.
The film had a Disney quality to it, as The Three Amigos dance, sing and laugh alongslide a slew of desert animals who speak, oh and I forgot to include, a talking bush. This film seemed to parody many older films. It also reminded me of Singin’ in the Rain because this film also makes commentary about Hollywood, when silent pictures were getting the boot and talking picture were becoming popular. Like the celebrities in Singin’ in the Rain, The Three Amigos are also glamorized by Hollywood, but when they are placed in real society, they are practically unable to function, let alone, understand what is going on around them.
As we talked about at the end of class, the movie takes place within a movie, which is also similar to Singin’ in the Rain. Reality is blurred and even when Steve Martin realizes he has been shot by a “real” bullet, the group still acts like they are in a film as they sing, dance and use their moves they have learned, while playing their roles in films. Also in contrast to The Wild Bunch, the women have power and overall, have litte to do with the men. In the end, the character who seems to be the most effeminine wins the “hot” girl, who seems to show up out of no where. Once again, it is the absurdity and unlikeliness that the The Three Amigos would win that makes this film so enjoyable and funny.

What I noticed most about this film was the playing upon tropes by the film’s portrayal of Mexico. Like we said in discussion, the film parodies the Western genre, but what I noticed most was the playing upon particulars within Mexican representaion.
For one, I couldn’t ignore the presentaion of modern versus antiquity in the first scene. Like Los Olvidados, this shows a Mexico in transition, and sets the time and place for the film’s plot. Unlike Los Olvidados though, this film shows the people riding donkeys and in ponchos fully aware of their backwardness… they are shown in contempt for themselves almost.
Another trope of Mexican representaion was the constant presence of tequila. It was so present that it became materialized. The bottles were always clean and plentiful. Even though anyone agrees that they are a part of Mexican characteristic construction, they presence was so played upon that they seemed out of place almost. But I guess it could also be said that they were so present to be deemed an extension of their arms. I guess that discrepancy will be decided by each viewer.
The third trope I wish to reflect on is that of the chickens. There were chickens everywehre. I’m pretty sure that they shot a pot once that was hanging down and from it came a chicken. This play became tired out in the end, but I suspect that it is to personify its cliche.
The last trope which noticed in the movie was that of Germans. Their characteristics are overexpressed and so prevalent that again, this lends to the falacy of German representations in Western genre.

Three Amigos provides a satire of the portrayal of Mexico in cinema. Beyond all the gaffes and seemingly silly acts in this movie, a lot of insight can be gained. This movie was definitely an extreme parody, everything was overdone, overblown and overkill. I’ll bet it’d be pretty hard to find a town in Mexico where everyone drinks their own entire bottle of tequila (hmm maybe we should try to find it..). There’s also the oversized hats of the three amigos, the 6 shooter guns who can shoot a million bullets, the giant piñatas, the handful of sand in the water gourd, the extremely strong accent with which the Mexicans spoke, and the list goes on. But that’s exactly the point of this movie: it parodies those very ste***types in movies which attempt to portay a “real” Mexico.
I was taken aback during the first acts of violence in the bar with the German. The movie seemed to be very lighthearted until that point, and I found myself not expecting the high level of violence. However, I guess I’m kind of naïve in expecting that, since it is after all a western style movie. The light heartedness helps along with that parody though, making some violent scenes funny and ridiculous.
Maybe I’m stretching this too far, especially since its the movie is meant to be a spoof. But it’s definitely interesting to see how the three American gringos are praised and relied on by the peasants. The Mexicans have a problem in their village and their course of action is to seek help from Americans, not from within their country. I guess the girl and young boy go to the neighbouring town and get laughed at… but it’s kind of a pathetic attempt. However, it does go along with the lawlessness that is typically associated with the western genre.
I guess I can say I enjoyed the movie… but even though it’s meant to be cheesy, I found it way too cheesy.

Another movie set in Revolutionary Mexico. The 1920’s violent scenery, virginal and vulnerable women and chaotic macho society living in the leftovers of colonial times are all portrayed in the movie. Even though by 1970 most of the Mexican society shown in the movie was almost inexistent it seems like I represented the true Mexico to Americans and therefore the movie is set in the 1920’s instead of in modern Mexico.

The three Amigos parody Mexico and its ignorance as well as Americans and their materialistic world. It makes fun of actors who think of nothing but easy money and who can’t think beyond their perfect bubble world. I think of the movie as a comedy that makes fun of everything related to America and the Mexico-United States relations without developing a particular point or argument. The story line is original and absurd and that makes it funny. The Three amigos are like the three musketeers of Mexico except they are Americans. It is ironic that foreigners trying to be Mexican become heroes of Mexico instead of real Mexicans . It was funny how all the bandits at the cantina could speak perfect English. I was not sure when we (audience) were supposed to think that they were speaking Spanish and when English. The cantina is the place were most hilarious conversations and incidents happen. Also it is the place of all the homosocial interaction. For example when the women looking for help enters the bar everyone pauses and gives her unfriendly looks and one of the men almost rapes her. That scene is contrasted with the act of the Three amigos who dance very soft feminine music and moves at the cantina.

The dialogs are smar t funny .. like beer is like tequila ! or do you have anything bedsides Mexican food? or What are we doing in Mexico? I already got shot!. Also I noticed that the Germans were the bad guys which seems logical after half the world blame them for word war I and II. Like in many of the other movies we have seen women are shown as providers of pleasure for men and objects to fight over.

My final impression of the movie is that it did not mean to be revolutionary it was not ambitious like Touch of evil, Que viva Mexico, Los olvidados or The wild bunch. I really felt like the movie just wanted to entertain. For instance, all the atrocities committed by el Guapo in Santo Poco like the burning of the church and the kidnapping of Carmen? lost seriousness inmedialty after the three amigos entered the desert.