Saw it in a class in film school. Kind of sordid, QT only dreams he could do something like this.
Yeah, Tarantino’s wet dream would probably transpose “Peckinpah” for “Tarantino” in the credits sequence, but in reality, he could never pull it off … and hopefully, he never gets the chance to try.
But anyway, I LOVE this film and it’s not only my favourite Peckinpah film but one of my favourite films period. Oates just plays a character which I simply love (one which Kurt Russell has also played successfully numerous times) and that is the typical Peckinpah protagonist who puts on a front of being cool and “in”, but secretly knows that he’s outmatched … he KNOWS he’s an outsider. And Oates plays the character perfectly (apparently patterning the performance after that of Peckinpah himself).
It’s a dark film really (even before we get to the scenes involving the head…). I love the two hitmen who are trailing Benny (Oates’ character, the protagonist) and their seemingly homosexual relationship that’s never actually confirmed but hinted at throughout the film. Also, something that is a recurring theme in Peckinpah’s work, is that nearly ALL of the males characters have this misogynistic streak in them (even one of the hitmen elbowing a woman in the FACE and knocking her unconscious just in the first 20 minutes of the film … how that ever got past the censors I have no idea) and yet the female characters always retain their dignity (such as Pat Garrett’s wife in Peckinpah’s Garrett film or the nurse in Cross of Iron) – and not in a cheap, Hollywood way, but realistically.
And of course there’s the fantastic way the action is edited which is what Peckinpah is most known for. I always find watching action in a Peckinpah film to be breathtaking – Tarantino wishes his editing was this effective.
By all means, buy the DVD, there’s some interesting commentary and the film looks fantastic. Well worth the money (it’s only like $10 too).
I don’t know about Tarantino redoing this movie. After the Wild Bunch I became a big Warren Oates fan. this movie in particular was my favorite Oates performance, I read somewhere also that the character had a lot of Peckinpah in it. I just loved his I don’t give a shit attitude after the girl dies.
“something that is a recurring theme in Peckinpah’s work, is that nearly ALL of the males characters have this misogynistic streak in them (even one of the hitmen elbowing a woman in the FACE and knocking her unconscious just in the first 20 minutes of the film … how that ever got past the censors I have no idea) and yet the female characters always retain their dignity (such as Pat Garrett’s wife in Peckinpah’s Garrett film or the nurse in Cross of Iron) – and not in a cheap, Hollywood way, but realistically.”
But is it a critical point of view on his part or just recycling macho cliches? That is the thing i can never figure out about Peckinpah.
As for his editing, it’s great in action films, but less effective when it’s trying to be dramatic. at least in my opinion anyway.
This thread startled me. Reading through it quickly, I thought it was actually suggesting that Tarantino was going to remake it.
“But is it a critical point of view on his part or just recycling macho cliches? That is the thing i can never figure out about Peckinpah.”
The great thing about Peckinpah is how he ambiguously straddles the line between embracing them and critiquing them. Warren Oates is one of the most underrated Hollywood actors and this is his greatest role. And Peckinpah said that this was the only film that he made exactly as he wanted to without any outside interference.
Excellent thread topic; I have really enjoyed reading these posts. I do think you guys are being awfully rough on Tarantino. I’ll grant you that he and Peckinpah tread much the same territory but I think they are coming from vastly different places psychologically. Peckinpah was exploring stuff about traditional masculinity and honour in a 1960’s society that had declared them passe. Tarantino isn’t really working out anything just making genre pictures (that’s not a dis at QT just a statement of fact). I found Inglourious Basterds to be his most philosophically complex film to date so maybe he will start to explore some more complex ideas also.
But I don’t think he could improve on Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia if he were ever to remake it. Firstly, it was far and away the most personal film Peckinpah ever made reflecting more of his inner demons than any of his other pictures and I think that is what pops the film up to a whole different level of intensity. Secondly, you could find a great modern performer to reprise the Bennie role but you ain’t never going to find one to turn in a better performance then Oates did. And thirdly, its pretty close to perfect as is. Any attempt to remake such a masterpiece is just setting oneself up to Shite the proverbial bed. Don’t believe me? Gus Van Sant’s Psycho, ’nuf said.
“As for his editing, it’s great in action films, but less effective when it’s trying to be dramatic. at least in my opinion anyway.”
There’s a scene in Cross of Iron where Coburn’s character has just been hit with a grenade and it cuts between these hallucinations he’s having of jumping in the water with his pjs and bandages on and knocking over tables and whatnot and it’s such a brilliant piece of editing, there’s no “action” per se and it’s a very psychedelic sequence. But there’s more of a subtlety to how Peckinpah treats drama through the use of editing, it’s very simplistic.
@Django: The reason I personally brought Tarantino was because QT often cites Peckinpah as a major influence in his own work, so whether it’s actually true is some other discussion; Tarantino claims to see that link therefore it often comes up when discussions on Peckinpah (or QT) arise. You’re very right though, their films are very different, especially in the approach to the material.
Well I doubt if it would turn out anything like Peckinpah’s, because 1) he’s not a paranoid alcoholic and 2) Tarantino’s love for film would overwhelm the more darker elements of human nature that Peckinpah’s movie relished in.
That said he’s also got a western or gangster or if Wikipedia is right a remake of Come Drink with Me which has been in the talks forever. Not to mention a third Kill Bill (possibly). But this would be an interesting fantasy to have actually played out.
Also he tends to want to take completely unorthodox approaches to every project he takes on.
70’s cinema.
Don’t you love it?
Don’t be hard on QT. He’s a film geek who went for his dream and succeded. Who can’t be envious ;-)
Confident he will deliver again.
Don’t tempt him with this though. Watch “Point Blank” and calm down.
He’ll distill it again some time.
I’d rather see the head of Quentin Tarantino.
QT is a worthless human being that makes worthless movies.
That being said, I’ve never been able to really get into Peckinpah, because I don’t like his editing style. I think his editing lacks rhythm. Its like he always cuts a beat too early. As an aspiring editor and filmmaker, this irritates me to no end, to see a film as well acted and written as “The Wild Bunch” that is ruined by bad editing.
Wow, I can’t understand that at all. Certainly in his day, Peckinpah railed against conventionalism and that is evident in all his work, especially post-Wild Bunch (with the exception of tripe like Convoy, which is actually more of a Coburn film than Peckinpah from what I’ve read…). As far as “cutting a beat too early”, I think this criticism has some merit but “why oh why” is this such a bad thing? I mean you call QT a worthless human being and then criticize Peckinpah’s editing style (which is the very thing he is consistently praised for by modern critics). It sounds very contradictory to me, especially when there’s such a BEAUTIFULLY edited opening sequence in the Wild Bunch (not to mention the iconic and visceral end sequence!). I mean, Peckinpah’s editing is something that is almost universally recognized as his most valuable contribution to modern cinema. So, are you criticizing his “unconventionalism” or is it just simply a disagreement in approach and sensibility?
Well, I don’t have a very high idea of ‘modern cinema’, and Peckinpah’s editing annoys me to no end.
QT is just a hack and a bad copy cat.
dp.
Not to press this point beyond all endurance, but you mentioned Peckinpah taking a “beat too early” which implies that you have (or regard) some standardized way of editing that Peckinpah doesn’t adhere to. I’m not trying to incite argument, but merely arrive at some form of clarification (which can only strengthen your point by the way) beyond, “I don’t agree with it, therefore it isn’t good.”
“QT is just a hack and a bad copy cat.”
On that point we agree entirely, heh.
Seriously, this thread became about Tarantino too?
I don’t know about a standardized way, but I think that editing is based on feeling. Its almost musical, and as an editor you are wedded to the shot, and have to cut according to what the shot and sequence ask of you. Peckinpah actually probably cuts 2 or 3 beats too early, because an editor does have some leeway, and if an editor cuts a beat too early or a beat too late, its usually not detrimental; but Peck has his editors cutting two or three beats too early, and that is where I have the problem.
I don’t like the way he edits, and since it is something that he does constantly throughout the movie, it is something that is detrimental to the film, or to my enjoyment of the film.
- Peckinpah’s editing is something that is almost universally recognized as his most valuable contribution to modern cinema-
Yes, he took some things from what Kurosawa and Penn had done and worked out the multi-camera, multi-speed style that was arguable the most revolutionary thing in editing since Eisenstein’s use of montage.
Exactly, Matt. Perhaps the reaction against Peckinpah now would be how that style has become associated with, on one hand, most bad action films (less people influenced by Peckinpah but influenced by John Woo being influenced by Peckinpah) and music videos.
Exactly, Matt. Perhaps the reaction against Peckinpah now would be how that style has become associated with, on one hand, most bad action films (less people influenced by Peckinpah but influenced by John Woo being influenced by Peckinpah) and music videos.
I went back and started re-watching The Wild Bunch last night.
His editing and camerawork during his action sequences are what annoyed me, but also there are other things about the film that I did not care for. Some of the acting and dialogue is really bad, and I don’t care much for his framing and overuse of long shots during the non-action sequences.
I think that he makes a lot of bad choices.
That’s a good point, Ari.
I’m getting deja vu in this thread. Ari, didn’t you say that already just recently about Peckinpah? ;-)
As for his editing style, i must admit it doesn’t always work for me. there were moments in both Straw Dogs and Pat Garret where it just felt clumsy. e.g the rape sequence—which everybody seems to love—and the final scene in P.G
Not that I can recall, Joks, but I sometimes get the feeling I’m repeating myself!
But I’m not sure you can say that the rape sequence in Straw Dogs is clumsy – I recall reading it took a week to film. Susan George was resistant to the scene (and the lack of specifics in the script about it and apparently Peckinpah was pretty nasty about it and to George (maybe not his fault, she’s not a very good actress). Peckinpah said that he was going to film the best rape scene ever – Gaspar Noe would obviously later attempt to outdo him there. I think all of that comes through in the scene. In other words, if it appears clumsy, than it is the way Peckinpah intended it to be. Not to say he wasn’t clumsy at times. It’s hard to watch Convoy or The Killer Elite without seeing it as the (for me still enjoyable) work of someone who was losing his touch.
@Jason: overuse of long shots during the non-action sequences is exactly what makes The Wild Bunch so great. I love the frenetic bursts of violence juxtaposed with the quiet ruminative sequences. The first time I saw The Wild Bunch was when it was rereleased in the early 1990s. I had to sneak in to the theater, I recall, because the MPAA slapped it with an NC-17 rating even though all of the previously unreleased scenes were quiet, non-action scenes that were taken out only to reduce the running time. The cast in The Wild Bunch is uniformly fantastic. If you want to call the acting bad, you better name some names!
Not Borgnine, or the two leads. Its the smaller roles that I think are just over the top.
“Over the top” is part of the point when it comes to Peckinpah. They’re basically “pulp” films, just done properly (as opposed to films by someone else mentioned in this thread).
(and you better not be dissing my man Oates).
So Peckinpah edits a little off the beat. In other words, he swings.
Now any jazz fan is going to tell you that ain’t bad.
That ain’t bad at all.
That rape scene in “Strawdogs” is so tautly constructed as to be unbearable. The suspense builds to a horrific conclusion. There can be no argument with the selection of shots, angles or placement of characters. Peckinpah exerts masterful control even as the scene itself spins out of it. Don’t try this at home.
i am sick to death with you guys with your knitting needles poking at each otheir privte part, some do have a vaild point, otheirs talk about them selfs to much , you have to lose the ego, ego is what kill any film. mistake are never to be make twice, and if they are who is to say it is, a mistake, what so good about perfected, what is the anwser to why, Why Not of course. art4anyone@yahoo.com
QT (or anyone, really) remaking a Peckinpah movie, NOT a good idea.
Craig Glennon
this would be a great film for quen to do. it is such a great film, but noboby knows about it, u can watch it on u tube , would look a hell of a lot better on utube, the actor warren oats wasnt a lead man hollywood type guy, they would have wanted a pretty boy to do it,. also check out quentin on utube when he came to dublin, victor28charlie