Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid
Brian
Recently in an NG debate over the merits of The Searchers, I wrote
something to the effect that I thought BC&SK was shallow, cutesy and
trivial in response to the other poster saying that it was a better film
than The Searchers.My criticism was from memory from seeing the film
many many years ago, but strangely enough it was on AMC the other
evening and I watched it. I can only say now that I was being kind.
What a truely awful film.It was more a musical video than a movie.Only
in the late 60's could a film with basically no plot and no direction
have been so popular.Its inclusion in the AFI Top 100 films must be
based strictly on the reputation of the two stars - Paul Newman & Robert
Redford and perhaps people have a vivid memory of how it ends.But the
surprising thing about this film is how poor their acting was. No
attempt at realism or creating character acting here - they were just
being Paul & Bob - their characters not much different than those they
played in The Sting - and they simply tried getting by by being
charming.
The worse thing about the film though was the lackluster direction.I had
stated that one of the things I loved about The Searchers was that every
shot had a purpose - nothing wasted and every shot perfectly thought out
in terms of angles and framing.In BC&SK there is none of this.Most of
the film is taken up by a 40 minute chase which has the suspense of a
game of tic tac toe.Tons of useless random shots of Butch & Sundance
just riding their horses with no sense of where their chasers were.Only
now & then do we see the chasers and never up close.Just dreadful
stretching out of a film with no where to go.
And I won't even go into how cutesy the whole thing was with Newman
riding the bicycle and much more and Katherine Ross - lets not even
discuss how bad she is. Hard to imagine that The Wild Bunch was made in
the same year and BC&SK was nominated for Best picture and WB was not.
Brian
ZonkOrbie
I agree, somewhat. I just watched that film recently too, and although it was
not a bad movie, it certainly didn't belong in the top100. I'm not sure it
would even make my top 1,000. It's mediocre - like I believe Fargo is. And the
direction was irritating.
If they wanted to include some films with superior, or at least innovative
direction, they could have included Howard Hawks' The Thing, The Big Clock, and
All The King's Men.
lst...@webtv.net
On the surface I enjoyed this movie, but couldn't overcome the fact that
real criminals were being depicted as the good guys, complete with good
looks, plenty of wit, and audience sympathy, while the cops were at best
faceless, emotionless puppets of the railroad co, and at worst, fat
drunken slobs.
Butch and Sundance were real people, and I'd wager that none of the
widows or orphans they left in their wake would have appreciated how
history glorified them through this film.
Jeffrey Davis
Mantra for the week: Art Isn't History, Art Isn't History....
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu>
Thank you, Madam, the agony is somewhat abated.
John Harkness
lst...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> On the surface I enjoyed this movie, but couldn't overcome the fact that
> real criminals were being depicted as the good guys, complete with good
> looks, plenty of wit, and audience sympathy, while the cops were at best
> faceless, emotionless puppets of the railroad co, and at worst, fat
> drunken slobs.
> Butch and Sundance were real people, and I'd wager that none of the
> widows or orphans they left in their wake would have appreciated how
> history glorified them through this film.
Ummm, have you ever seen a western or a gangster movie before this one?
John
ellensmith
One of my all time favorite scenes from any
movie is the one from this one where the
sheriff is trying to round up a posse and
then the guy steps in trying to sell the bicycle.
I'm new to this thread. Have you already discussed
favorite scenes or what?
Daniel R. Baker
Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> lst...@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> > On the surface I enjoyed this movie, but couldn't overcome the fact that
> > real criminals were being depicted as the good guys, complete with good
> > looks, plenty of wit, and audience sympathy, while the cops were at best
> > faceless, emotionless puppets of the railroad co, and at worst, fat
> > drunken slobs.
> > Butch and Sundance were real people, and I'd wager that none of the
> > widows or orphans they left in their wake would have appreciated how
> > history glorified them through this film.
>
> Mantra for the week: Art Isn't History, Art Isn't History....
The above is entirely too flip a response to a serious point. If
romanticization of a real-life villain can be excused merely by the mantra
"Art Isn't History," just how much abuse of history will we tolerate? I doubt
Mr. Davis would feel so forgiving toward a film that portrayed Hitler as a
warm, patriotic defender of Germany, yet his proposed mantra could be used to
defend such a movie.
BUTCH CASSIDY isn't nearly that bad of course; the two lowlifes it glorified
weren't Nazis. It also may be significant that it's set a pretty long time
ago. Butch and Sundance's victims and their families are fading memories, so
romanticizing them isn't as callous as, say, glorifying Pol Pot when real life
survivors of the killing fields are still walking around. I suppose that's
why most people don't get upset at THE CONQUEROR; since Genghis Khan's
millions of victims are so long dead, the movie's unbelievable twisting of
historical facts does little offense to us today.
My reaction to BUTCH CASSIDY was much like Lstrue's (sp?). I was disturbed by
these professional thugs being drawn like good guys. I particularly disliked
the scene where we see Redford points his gun at the schoolteacher and force
her to strip, only to find out at the end that she "really wanted it." Yet,
despite these problems, I just couldn't help but be charmed by the movie as a
whole. I didn't want to like it, but I did. It was just too funny and Newman
and Redford too likeable to resist.
As for the lawmen being shown in a negative light, there's nothing
historically inaccurate about that. Lawmen in the 19th-century American West
were often corrupt and worked both sides of the fence, Deacon Jim Miller and
Jim Courtright being two examples that leap instantly to mind.
Some historical inaccuracy is forgiveable (otherwise I could never have
enjoyed BRAVEHEART or BECKET), but should not be lightly ignored either.
Respectfully,
Daniel R. Baker.
(Disclaimers ad nauseam).
ellensmith
On Thu, 02 Jul 1998 17:02:47 -0500, "Daniel R. Baker"
<daniel...@hg-law.com> wrote:
<something that I snipped>
Well pardon me Mr. Baker but
I think someone needs to "el ligh-tunay-upsay"
about BC&TSK. I may not be an expert on much
but I happen to know perhaps more than the
average joe about this particular film :)
Anthony B. Gilpin
lst...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> On the surface I enjoyed this movie, but couldn't overcome the fact that
> real criminals were being depicted as the good guys, complete with good
> looks, plenty of wit, and audience sympathy, while the cops were at best
> faceless, emotionless puppets of the railroad co, and at worst, fat
> drunken slobs.
> Butch and Sundance were real people, and I'd wager that none of the
> widows or orphans they left in their wake would have appreciated how
> history glorified them through this film.
Screenwriter William Goldman wrote that he had studied the life of Robert
LeRoy Parker (a.k.a Butch Cassidy) for about ten years before he wrote
the movie. He hadn't intended to write about Butch at all; it was just a
part of history that interested him. When he decided to write a
screenplay, he knew there were large parts of Butch's life that would not
play well on screen because the were too unbelievable--even though they
did happen.
One part of the legend that is true: In all the banks and trains he
robbed, Butch Cassidy never shot anyone.
Correction, Butch did shoot a man once. During an attempt to go straight,
Butch once worked as a payroll guard. He shot a robber.
Goldman wrote that Butch Cassidy was not the biggest, the strongest, the
meanest, or even the smartest member of his gang. But he was the leader,
simply because Sundance and the others liked him. Butch was one of those
hard-to-explain individuals that people like without needing a reason.
You suggest that bad people can't be good looking or charming. I wonder
how many of Ted Bundy's victims would have gotten close to him if he had
been ugly and gross?
Stephen Wellington
Daniel R. Baker wrote:
(snip)
> My reaction to BUTCH CASSIDY was much like Lstrue's (sp?). I was disturbed by
> these professional thugs being drawn like good guys. I particularly disliked
> the scene where we see Redford points his gun at the schoolteacher and force
Ahhh, yes: no means NO, doesn't it? Either you first saw the film in
the past ten years or you were PC long before its time. I guess it
escaped your attention that she "really wanted it" because her and
Sundance had been romantically involved for a long time. It's a cute
scene. Too bad you were too enlightened to understand that.
Regards,
Steve
Douglas Bailey
>Butch and Sundance's victims and their families are fading memories,
>so romanticizing them isn't as callous as, say, glorifying Pol Pot
>when real life survivors of the killing fields are still walking
>around.
One worthwhile point to make here: in his ADVENTURES IN THE SCREEN
TRADE (a study of Hollywood in general), BUTCH screenwriter William
Goldman notes that:
"The remarkable thing...was that Butch was no gunman
at all--he never killed a man until late in life, when
he was serving as a payroll guard in South America."
(There's more material, all on p.284 of my paperback edition, about
what a personable and honourable guy Butch was.)
This is pretty obviously one of the things that fascinates Goldman
about the character: whether or not the fact I quoted is accurate,
Goldman *believed* it was when he wrote the screenplay, and that may
help explain why he treated the outlaws so nicely. Certainly the
people that Butch robbed were victims -- no-one enjoys being robbed --
but I think comparing him to Pol Pot or Hitler is a little strong. He
wasn't even in the same league as Bonnie & Clyde or Al Capone.
(The obvious flaw in this argument, of course, is that Goldman doesn't
say anything about Sundance being non-violent. But he *does* point out
that there isn't much material about Sundance at all. It's at least
plausible that Sundance also did no killing until his South American
misadventure.)
doug
--------------douglas bailey (trys...@ne.mediaone.net)--------------
don't you let my letter get you down...
--david bowie
Daniel R. Baker
ellensmith wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jul 1998 17:02:47 -0500, "Daniel R. Baker"
> <daniel...@hg-law.com> wrote:
>
> <something that I snipped>
>
> Well pardon me Mr. Baker but
> I think someone needs to "el ligh-tunay-upsay"
> about BC&TSK. I may not be an expert on much
> but I happen to know perhaps more than the
> average joe about this particular film :)
Um. (Poster checks IMDB). I don't see an Ellen Smith in the credits.
(Poster checks Ellen Smith's e-mail address). Okay. Is your name Ellen
Smith or Etta Place? If the latter, I can at least understand what
you're talking about.
Anyway, if you feel I need to lighten up about this movie, please feel
free to "enlighten" me.
ellensmith
On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 08:42:21 -0500, "Daniel R. Baker"
<daniel...@hg-law.com> wrote:
>
>
>ellensmith wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Jul 1998 17:02:47 -0500, "Daniel R. Baker"
>> <daniel...@hg-law.com> wrote:
>>
>> <something that I snipped>
>>
>> Well pardon me Mr. Baker but
>> I think someone needs to "el ligh-tunay-upsay"
>> about BC&TSK. I may not be an expert on much
>> but I happen to know perhaps more than the
>> average joe about this particular film :)
>
>Um. (Poster checks IMDB). I don't see an Ellen Smith in the credits.
>
>(Poster checks Ellen Smith's e-mail address). Okay. Is your name Ellen
>Smith or Etta Place? If the latter, I can at least understand what
>you're talking about.
>
>Anyway, if you feel I need to lighten up about this movie, please feel
>free to "enlighten" me.
>
I'll respectfully decline.
I've grown tired of people saying they
want to discuss something and then
they don't.
If you seriously wish to discuss this film
than that's another matter.
JHOLLIS517
Besides being in love with some of the locations used in this film, I always
enjoyed the lighthearted look at the end of outlaw era depicted. There were
three other films that came out in this same venacular that were ignored
The Wild Bunch (now a classic)
The Ballad of Cable Hogue
The Good Guys and The Bad Guys
Thurston
> jholl...@aol.com (JHOLLIS517) writes:
> Besides being in love with some of the locations used in this film, I always
> enjoyed the lighthearted look at the end of outlaw era depicted. There were
> three other films that came out in this same venacular that were ignored
> The Wild Bunch (now a classic)
Ignored?
> The Ballad of Cable Hogue
> The Good Guys and The Bad Guys
McCabe and Mrs. Miller
The five Leone westerns
Bad Company
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ellensmith
On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 22:39:20 GMT, Thurston Rus...@teleport.com wrote:
>> jholl...@aol.com (JHOLLIS517) writes:
>
>> Besides being in love with some of the locations used in this film, I always
>> enjoyed the lighthearted look at the end of outlaw era depicted. There were
>> three other films that came out in this same venacular that were ignored
>
>> The Wild Bunch (now a classic)
>
>Ignored?
>
>> The Ballad of Cable Hogue
>> The Good Guys and The Bad Guys
>
>McCabe and Mrs. Miller
>The five Leone westerns
>Bad Company
<----agreed
Plus don't forget The Apple Dumpling Gang
seven_...@my-dejanews.com
In article <359bea1c...@news.swbell.net>,
I think the best scene is after they blow the train and they're picking
up the money and the other train comes up from behind. it stops...a second
or two goes by and then the whistle goes, the posse comes flying out.
that was great.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Jeffrey Davis
Daniel R. Baker wrote:
> Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> > lst...@webtv.net wrote:
> > >
> > > On the surface I enjoyed this movie, but couldn't overcome the fact that
> > > Butch and Sundance were real people, and I'd wager that none of the
> > > widows or orphans they left in their wake would have appreciated how
> > > history glorified them through this film.
> >
>
> The above is entirely too flip a response to a serious point. If
> romanticization of a real-life villain can be excused merely by the mantra
> "Art Isn't History," just how much abuse of history will we tolerate? I doubt
> Mr. Davis would feel so forgiving toward a film that portrayed Hitler as a
> warm, patriotic defender of Germany, yet his proposed mantra could be used to
> defend such a movie.
Allow me to make five points. [laughter from both fans of Fierce
Creatures]
First, the movie you're describing would probably be some form of
propaganda. Butch Cassidy didn't. It passed itself off as a larky star
vehicle for Redford and Newman.
Second, I have no objection to twisting history into knots for the sake
of art. Richard III, for example. If I want History, I'll read a history
book.
My friend Adrian Malone will supply points 3-5.
Brian
seven_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> I think the best scene is after they blow the train and they're picking
> up the money and the other train comes up from behind. it stops...a second
> or two goes by and then the whistle goes, the posse comes flying out.
> that was great.
>
Which was then followed by the most interminably boring chase in the
history of the cinema.There were no good scenes in this film until the
freeze frame and then the film mercifully was over.
Brian
Stephen Wellington
Brian wrote:
> Which was then followed by the most interminably boring chase in the
> history of the cinema.There were no good scenes in this film until the
> freeze frame and then the film mercifully was over.
No good scenes?!? The entire cliff scene is a _classic_!
"Hell, the fall'll probably kill ya!"
Regards,
Steve
ZonkOrbie
Ummm... I hate to invoke the
"what-would-we-think-if-the-same-film-was-made-today" euphemism, which opens
all kinds of doors, but I will anyway if we are talking about specific scenes.
Jumping from the cliff in BC & SK was far weaker than Harrison Ford jumping
from the
drainage pipe in "The Fugitive" - mainly because the suspense was watered-down
with "humor."
And, speaking of scenes, what was supposed to be going through the minds of the
two fugitives at the end of BC & SK? Every word they uttered indicated they
thought they would survive the ordeal, when both characters were intelligent
enough to realize such an option was impossible. Humor? If so, it escapes me.
IMHO, a recklessly directed film that strained to be "arty" but only succeeded
in being a vehicle for two 60's pretty boys.
pet...@ms.com
In article <35A190...@netcom.ca>,
The scene where the try to rob a bank somewhere in
South America and can't speak the language was pretty
funny.
Pjk
John Harkness
>
> Brian wrote:
> > Which was then followed by the most interminably boring chase in the
> > history of the cinema.There were no good scenes in this film until the
> > freeze frame and then the film mercifully was over.
>
> No good scenes?!? The entire cliff scene is a _classic_!
> "Hell, the fall'll probably kill ya!"
>
> Regards,
> Steve
Not to mention "Rules? there's no rules in a knife fight!"
John
William Denton
: Which was then followed by the most interminably boring chase in the
: history of the cinema.There were no good scenes in this film until
: the freeze frame and then the film mercifully was over.
The whole movie is a chase, isn't it? It's been a while since I've
seen it, but I think the riders bursting out of the train car (a scene
stolen by _Posse_, IIRC) had been after the gang already.
I liked it; it was good fun, Goldman really knows how to write a
script, and I didn't even mind the "Raindrops" interlude in the
middle.
Bill
--
--
William Denton : Toronto, Ontario, Canada : bu...@interlog.com
http://www.vex.net/~buff/
David Kaiser
enjoyed the chase. It didn't belong on the list at all. The Hustler belonged on
it. The Sting is a far better movie (although it wouldn't have made my top 100
either.) I don't know what any one was thinking on that one, except that they liked
Newman and Redford.
That reminds me, Ordinary People was another dreadful omission from the list. In
fact, none of the great family dramas--Long Day's Journey, Ordinary People, Running
on Empty --made the list; sad.
David Kaiser
Stephen Wellington
> I have to agree about the overall weakness of the movie, although I actually
> enjoyed the chase. It didn't belong on the list at all.
Well, to each his own. But the naysayers in this thread clearly didn't
understand simple plot points, so I can't expect them to see what a
terrific _movie_ BC&SK is. (Heck, here's an example of what a terrific
movie it is: nobody has yet commented on the masterful cinematography by
Conrad Hall. Had somebody said, "Well, it's a pretty movie, but...",
then I would have assumed that they were at least paying attention.)
> The Hustler belonged on
> it. The Sting is a far better movie (although it wouldn't have made my top 100
> either.) I don't know what any one was thinking on that one, except that they liked
> Newman and Redford.
BC&SK is a great example of star power. Newman was a confirmed movie
star and Redford became one _because_ he played The Sundance Kid. (I
suspect there's going to be a dissenting voice on that opinion, but
Redford was not a "movie star" before that film, yet he certainly was
_after_.) I think that THE STING is a lesser movie that trades on the
established star power of the two.
> That reminds me, Ordinary People was another dreadful omission from the list. In
> fact, none of the great family dramas--Long Day's Journey, Ordinary People, Running
> on Empty --made the list; sad.
Your examples show your limited perspective. There are a number of
great family dramas on the list, e.g. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, IT'S A
WONDERFUL LIFE. You cite ORDINARY PEOPLE as a great movie (you think it
belongs on the list, right?) but it hasn't aged well. When I first saw
it, and noted that Judd Hersch's sweater was being worn by Donald
Sutherland at the film's end, I realized how lame the movie is. Not
unlike a recent movie which has been overestimated by audiences and
critics alike ("It's not your fault." Yeah, sure. Sheesh.)
Regards,
Steve
Stephen Wellington
> Ummm... I hate to invoke the
> "what-would-we-think-if-the-same-film-was-made-today" euphemism, which opens
> all kinds of doors, but I will anyway if we are talking about specific scenes.
> Jumping from the cliff in BC & SK was far weaker than Harrison Ford jumping
> from the
> drainage pipe in "The Fugitive" - mainly because the suspense was watered-down
> with "humor."
Puh-lease. BC&SK was primarily a _comedy_. If you can't see that, then
your name is well chosen. The cliff scene had _nothing_ to do with
suspense - it was played for _laughs_. As for the scene from THE
FUGITIVE, if you thought that it was suspenseful, then (a) you somehow
missed the multitude of trailers for that film, all of which featured
that specific scene, and (b) THE FUGITIVE must have been your first
movie. (Did you really think that the hero was gonna get caught or
killed an hour into the movie?)
> And, speaking of scenes, what was supposed to be going through the minds of the
> two fugitives at the end of BC & SK? Every word they uttered indicated they
> thought they would survive the ordeal, when both characters were intelligent
> enough to realize such an option was impossible. Humor? If so, it escapes me.
No, the plot escaped you. The two thought that they were fighting about
a half-dozen men. They had _no_ idea that an army regiment had
subsequently arrived and taken positions completely surrounding the
two. They had no reason to think that they wouldn't survive as the odds
(as they saw them: 6 to 2) were not dissimilar from odds they had
previously faced.
> IMHO, a recklessly directed film that strained to be "arty" but only succeeded
> in being a vehicle for two 60's pretty boys.
"[A]rty"??? Sheesh. I am about to use a phrase that I used last week
and that I might now become permanently associated with: "fundamental
misunderstanding". As in, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of
BUTCH CASSIDY & THE SUNDANCE KID. It is a comedy and it is a movie. It
is _not_ an art film.
Your turn. And, yes, you _can_ move. ; )
Regards,
Steve
ZonkOrbie
for this film or you wouldn't take it so personally.
Anyway, I disagree that the two bandits were unaware of the odds against them
at the end of the film. They were both in poor shape after being shot, and
their previous excursion out of the building was met with a lot of firepower.
seven_...@my-dejanews.com
ns...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> seven_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > I think the best scene is after they blow the train and they're picking
> > up the money and the other train comes up from behind. it stops...a
second
> > or two goes by and then the whistle goes, the posse comes flying out.
> > that was great.
> >
>
> history of the cinema.There were no good scenes in this film until the
> freeze frame and then the film mercifully was over.
>
>
The first couple of times seeing the movie the chase was interesting by
the simple fact that we never got to see the posse up close. I also liked
the way they were tracked (over rocks, at night). maybe it wasn't the best
chase, but there were some interesting things about the chase that I thought
were cool. I liked it, you didn't, no biggie! -Man
Stephen Wellington
> Personal attacks don't prove your point, Steve. You obviously have a great love
> for this film or you wouldn't take it so personally.
I like the film, but I wouldn't call it "a great love". The movie is
almost 30 years old now and remains a favourite. As for personal
attacks, I was attacking your opinions, which seem to be based on some
fairly significant misconceptions about the movie.
> Anyway, I disagree that the two bandits were unaware of the odds against them
> at the end of the film. They were both in poor shape after being shot, and
> their previous excursion out of the building was met with a lot of firepower.
Well, you might think it's a matter of opinion, but it's not. The
simple fact is that BC&SK charged out of that building, guns drawn, not
knowing that they were facing a friggin' regiment.
Regards,
Steve
Stephen Wellington
> Well, I stand by my opinion that this is a film of top to bottom
> mediocrity. (snip)
> I really didn't like this film and there must be a 100 westerns that
> were more deserving to be on the AFI list.
Awww, fugedaboutit. For the last time, BC&SK is not a "western". I'm
not even going to bother asking if you've even _heard_ of Conrad Hall.
Regards,
Steve
Brian
> Well, to each his own. But the naysayers in this thread clearly didn't
> understand simple plot points, so I can't expect them to see what a
> terrific _movie_ BC&SK is. (Heck, here's an example of what a terrific
> movie it is: nobody has yet commented on the masterful cinematography by
> Conrad Hall. Had somebody said, "Well, it's a pretty movie, but...",
> then I would have assumed that they were at least paying attention.)
Well, I stand by my opinion that this is a film of top to bottom
mediocrity. When I saw it on AMC a few weeks back I was amazed at how
poorly directed it was - no sense of discipline at all - scenes that
went on forever - horrific use of musical interludes that are laughable
- wooden or mailed in performances - no sense of tension at any point -
even in the last scene - comedy that is just plain stupid - and the one
scene that I had remembered as being good - the final shootout - was
done in a ridiculous poorly choreographed manner . Instead of going out
of the house to get ammunition and killing large numbers of Mexican and
then going back into the house - why didn't they just try to get on the
horse and get the hell out.What was the point of bringing the ammo back
into the house where they were trapped. And no one talked about the
cinematography because it was not worth talking about.
I really didn't like this film and there must be a 100 westerns that
were more deserving to be on the AFI list.
Brian
Moviephile
are not a lot of new movies you can say that about.
D.W. Atkinson
Clear and Present Dylan
>ZonkOrbie wrote:
>> Anyway, I disagree that the two bandits were unaware of the odds against
them
>> at the end of the film. They were both in poor shape after being shot,
and
>> their previous excursion out of the building was met with a lot of
firepower.
>
>Well, you might think it's a matter of opinion, but it's not. The
>simple fact is that BC&SK charged out of that building, guns drawn, not
>knowing that they were facing a friggin' regiment.
Correct. Anyone who's paid attention to the final scene knows this to be
true. Immediately prior to their deaths, Butch asks Sundance if he'd seen
lawman Lefours (sp?) among the shooters. When the latter says that he
hadn't, the former comments that "for a minute there I thought we were in
trouble."
Dylan
Robert Knowles
Brian wrote:
Obviously you didn't like the film and I agree that there are many other
westerns more deserving of being on the AFI list, but your criticisms almost
make one wonder if you watched the same movie. Poor direction? Scenes that
went on forever? Cinematography not worth talking about? Not that awards
mean all that much, but Butch Cassidy was nominated for Best Picture and Best
Director oscars and won Best Cinematography and Best Screenplay. And that was
in 1969, which was arguably the best year for American movies since 1939.
George Roy Hill has never been among my favorite directors - I find him too
slick and efficient (ie. a good craftsman, not an artist) - but I think tha
Butch Cassidy is the most artistic of his films probably due to the influence
of his cinematographer, Conrad Hall. Hall's choices for photographing the
central chase sequence kept that sequence original and tense - using zooms and
long lenses to bring the posse closer to Butch and Sundance, yet keeping them
distant enough to be an ominous force rather than individuals.
I don't believe you can fault the director if you feel the scenes went on too
long - I can't recall much from the movie that wasn't directly spelled out in
the screenplay, including the musical interludes, which hardly seem too long.
(I don't like the music, but that wasn't your point.) I think that most of
the movie's faults lie in the screenplay, rather than in the execution. The
dialogue is anachronous to the setting - too modern, too cute. Too much is
telegraphed - Katherine Ross saying, "I don't want to watch you die", followed
by her leaving ten minutes before the movie ends. (Hard to really fault that
in as much as foreshadowing is the single thing that modern screenwrites seem
to have learned - wish they'd learn about characterization or dialogue.)
Your analysis of the faults in the final shootout remind of the kind of
nitpicking that X-Philes do on each episode. I thought their decisions were
logical given that they believed there were only a few gun-men. Once they
understood what the situation was, they were pretty shot up. At that point,
it seemed to me, they decided to go out on their feet rather than just
bleeding to death in that house. Oh, by the way, they were Bolivians not
Mexicans. (just to be nit-picky)
I do, however, concur with your conclusion about their being many worthier
westerns. Just in 1969, there was The Wild Bunch and Once Upon A Time In The
West, both of which are far better movies (and westerns) than Butch Cassidy.
Robert
MEPeterson
and it did things that have been ripped off again and again and again through
the years ... notably the jumping-screaming-swearing-off-the-cliff scene.
The musical interlude was part of a quickly killed fashion of the moment --
similar to the multi-screen montage stuff, as seen in "Charly" and some others.
They came out of the Czech film school, particularly as seen as Expo 67 in
Montreal, I believe. (Unless it ws the NY Worlds Fair in 64, but I'm pretty
sure it was Montreal). Raindrops is a dumb song, that was a dumb scene. The
rest of the movie is really good.
Western? Comedy? Why does it matter? It was a movie. It was a damned amusing
movie, with some nice cinematography, some very funny scenes, some quick cuts
between laughter and horror. The mineowner, for example, becomes a comic
character and then is suddenly shot and killed, and, a short time later, Butch
and Sundance gun down the bandits and killing isn't much fun anymore. It's not
like blowing up Woodcock and the boxcars.
Bonnie and Clyde tried to show that kind of bravado-turns-nasty thing, but the
contrasts weren't light enough. Bonnie and Clyde was kind of depressing. Butch
and Sundance leaves you with a much more interesting cluster of emotions to
play with.
That is, if you don't mind that the chase scene is on horseback and takes
awhile ... the slow dread of pursuit by a silent, never quite seen, implacable
Javert instead of the panic of an attack by an exploding, super-octane,
in-your-face Mad Max. Yes, it's boring. Terribly boring.
Sigh.
Mike Peterson
Plattsburgh NY
Steve Reed
>Butch and Sundance leaves you with a much more interesting cluster of
>emotions to play with.
>That is, if you don't mind that the chase scene is on horseback and takes
>awhile ... the slow dread of pursuit by a silent, never quite seen, implacable
>Javert instead of the panic of an attack by an exploding, super-octane,
>in-your-face Mad Max. Yes, it's boring. Terribly boring.
>Sigh.
I certainly don't mind. Style versus gassed-up motorized bravado. No contest.
Beyond that, Newman as Butch enlivens the chase with one of the best examples
in cinema of investing a quite ordinary, short line with comedic panache, over
and over and over again:
"Who ARE those guys?!?!"
It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally
faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing,
or in disbelieving, it consists in professing to believe what
one does not believe. -- Thomas Paine
KAREN EMMICH
they knew, too. i thought he was being facicious when he said "for a
minute..."
that's the beauty of these things; we saw it differently.
Stephen Wellington
Just a suggestion, Karen. When you see something like this (but in
bold):
> just because the SAID that doesn't mean...
that's a _quote_ from a previous post. Using quotes provides context to
your own post. You have obviously responded to a previous post, but
without a quote I cannot determine which post. As such, your post has
no context and is meaningless to me (and others). So, in future, try to
use quotes.
Pedantically Yours,
Steve