1969


the_wild_bunch

Perhaps no other filmmaker explored violence in the same way as Sam Peckinpah. His films largely deal with the conception of violence in society and its corrupting influence. Nicknamed “Bloody Sam,” Peckinpah actually overestimated the morality of his audience on more than one occasion. On more than one occasion, the director stated that he felt violence was a byproduct of a corrupt society. Peckinpah didn’t view violence as part of nature, but rather part of humanity gone wrong.

This theme of humanity gone wrong peppers his 1969 film The Wild Bunch. More than that, however, The Wild Bunch is a motion picture about the changing tide in society. In that respect, it is as relevant today as it perhaps ever was. Our world is constantly evolving, yet there are those who refuse the evolutionary process and refuse to adapt to new philosophies and new ways of doing things. They are, in essence, “unchanged men in a changed land.”

Pike Bishop (William Holden) is the leader of a gang of aging outlaws. He’s ready to hang up his guns and boots after one last score. The land is changing and his old bones can’t keep up anymore. Pike’s idea is to commit a series of robberies and sell the loot to get enough gold on which to retire. Standing in his way is Deke Thornton (Robert Ryan), one of Pike’s former partners, and a crew of bounty hunters. Pike also has to contend with the changing tide of the land, as automobiles and machine guns change the landscape and threaten to render his way of conducting business obsolete.

The essential theme of The Wild Bunch is that of the end of an era. We witness what it feels like for a group of bandits to deal with the uphill climb against human progress. Pike tells his men about the necessity of change, of “thinking beyond our guns.” The violence is commonplace still, symbolizing a rule of law in the West that had yet to fade. Gunfights were still the way to solve disputes, but the presence of the military and advanced weaponry began to change the playing field in many respects. As such, we see Pike and his men attempt to adapt.

When most people talk about The Wild Bunch, the violence is almost always discussed. It is certainly a very violent movie and Peckinpah received more than a few pieces of criticism for it, as he did throughout his career. Yet Peckinpah believed that the violence had a place and that it could be used to instruct filmgoers. He viewed it as allegorical to the Vietnam War, noting that “The point of the film is to take this façade of movie violence and open it up.” Instead of being examined thoroughly by the audience and viewed for its ugliness, filmgoers were enthralled and celebrated each gunshot. Peckinpah was wrong and noted that he was troubled by the response.

The Wild Bunch is interesting on a few other levels, too. The performances are great, with Ernest Borgnine’s portrayal of Dutch Engstrom standing out. William Holden, one of the top stars of the 50s, was the perfect fit to play Pike. His aged face, his expressions, and his physical struggles all added to the sense of age and the passage of time that his character represented. Pike was a man trying to keep up, but his own limitations kept him short of the mark.

Peckinpah’s direction is worth noting, too. He uses a lot of interesting camera angles and quick edits, often darting back and forth in the midst of the action sequences. His intent was to show audiences what it would have been like to be in the middle of a gunfight, so his oft-disorienting camera angles and edits certainly serve the trick and immerse the audience in the events. The Wild Bunch was shot using a wide angle camera lens, allowing objects both near and far to remain in clear focus.

Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch is so much more than just a spaghetti western with lots of blood and guts. It is a powerful allegory as to the changing tide of society, the nature of violence, and the nature of man. We have choices in our lives: we can resist the natural ebb and flow of our world or we can learn to progress and change. The Wild Bunch demonstrates the potential for catharsis, especially in terms of violent behaviour, and how we can fail to live up to our expectations.

9.4/10

Trailer:

When it comes to westerns, few rival the span and spectacle of Sergio Leone’s epic spaghetti western Once Upon a Time in the West. Originally released in Italy in 1968 and released in the United States a year later, the movie wasn’t an immediate hit with the critics but has since found legendary status. It is also the first portion of a rather loose trilogy, the other two being A Fistful of Dynamite from 1971 and Once Upon a Time in America from 1984.

Once Upon a Time in the West is a masterpiece brimming with tremendous depth, character development, and dark humour. Leone’s creation was originally designed as a way to work with Henry Fonda, an actor who Leone had admired for a long time. After creating his epic masterpiece The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, Sergio wanted to quit doing westerns. However, the studios would only offer him film opportunities within that genre. When the chance to work with Fonda came up in a western format, Leone jumped at the chance. But he was going to do things his way and show the audience a side of Fonda never before seen.

Fonda stars as Frank, a brutal gang leader who guns down a whole family without flinching. He frames a bandit, Cheyenne (Jason Robards), for the killing and moves on. Harmonica (Charles Bronson) is on the trail of Frank, hoping to gain vengeance for the killing of Harmonica’s older brother. These three characters all swirl around Jill (Claudia Cardinale), who holds the key to important land on which her deceased husband, killed by Frank, was intending to build a small town to capitalize on the well water and the passing steam train.

Once Upon a Time in the West is the quintessential tale of land development and corruption in the early formative days of the American West. The story, put together by then-film critics Dario Argento and Bernardo Bertolucci, would use elements from typical westerns of the time. Argento and Bertolucci studied The Searchers, High Noon, and other classic westerns to get the flow of the story down pat. Mickey Knox, an American ex-pat, came along to write the dialogue for the film and editor Sergio Donati helped file down the runtime. Leone’s films were notorious for their immense length and needed to be cut down for a general box office release. This never pleased the director, of course.

Stylistically, Leone captured this film in a different style than some of his other westerns. The pacing is not upbeat or lively. Instead, Once Upon a Time in the West is a rather sombre tale with constantly changing characters. Cheyenne, Harmonica, and Frank often change their views and become increasingly hard to define by the normal western stereotypes, creating a complexity to the film. The character of Jill is especially challenging, as she is prepared to do just about anything to save her own skin.

It is this style that helps Once Upon a Time in the West become one of the all-time great westerns. Its slow and deliberate gait help increase the suddenness of the violence and the calamity of its more chaotic moments. The gunfights are sudden, brief, and violent. This approach gives a real sense of danger to the characters, demonstrating that a moment is all that is needed to change the entire course of events in the story. The rituals preceding the violence are given far more time here to develop, as Leone’s interest lies not with the gunfight but with the prelude to it and the aftermath.

Once Upon a Time in the West is one of the best westerns I have ever had the pleasure of seeing. The characters are bold and have tremendous depth. The cinematography is excellent and often quirky and surprising, giving way to some compelling shots. The music from Ennio Morricone is tremendous, as always, and builds on the film’s almost-mythic qualities. Fonda, Robards, Bronson, and the beautiful Claudia Cardinale are all fantastic in their roles, too, especially Fonda, whose turn as a terrifying villain serves to highlight a wonderful career. Leone’s Once Upon a Time in the West has all the ingredients of a masterpiece.

10/10

Trailer:

The Wedding Party

The Wedding Party is mostly noted for being Robert De Niro’s first film appearance, but that all depends on how you look at it. Released in 1969 but made in 1963, The Wedding Party certainly would seem to mark De Niro’s first film appearance had you been able to watch The Wedding Party in 1963. With a release of 1969, however, De Niro’s first “appearance” would be in Brian De Palma’s Greetings. Greetings would mark the first time Robert De Niro would “appear” on film released to the public. So there may be some debate as to when De Niro actually debuted, but in terms of theatrical release, Greetings is his first film.

Using the same dateline techniques, one could assume that The Wedding Party was Brian De Palma’s first feature film after having made a collection of shorts. Using the theatrical release dateline, however, this would mark De Palma’s third feature film. Whatever. The direction of The Wedding Party was, in fact, a joint collaboration between De Palma and theatre professor Wilford Leach, as well as another fellow student of De Palma’s, the wealthy Cynthia Monroe. Monroe bankrolled the film and helped with the direction, giving full directorial billing to the trio. The trio also shared credits as writers and producers. De Palma’s style can be seen in the film rather clearly through it’s technical aspects and it appears that Leach’s style is mostly scene through the direction of the performers. The film was made on a budget of $43,000.

Another interesting component of The Wedding Party is that it was distributed by Troma Entertainment. Troma Entertainment is one of the world’s longest running movie studios. The studio mostly produces low-budget genre-bending films, many of which have developed broad cult followings internationally. The DVD of The Wedding Party featured an extended “introduction” cut featuring Troma Entertainment and some “goofy hijinks” before the film began. Troma Entertainment is probably most known for distributing many of the “slapstick gore” contributions to film, such as The Toxic Avenger, Class of Nuke ‘Em High, and Poultrygeist to name a few. It’s too bad The Wedding Party didn’t include any of that slapstick gore because this project is a complete and utter mess.

De Palma directs this film like he’s having a seizure. The first seven-to-ten minutes are so dizzying and scattered that it becomes hard to watch. It’s hard to pick up on any performances or actors or actresses here because De Palma’s direction begins with such a strange feel, speeding up the opening segment and then suddenly slowing it down again. I thought something was wrong with my DVD before I realized that was how it was supposed to be and that was De Palma’s “style” for the scenes. Essentially, I gathered that we were witnessing the arrival of a wedding party to a large and incredibly overcrowded home. The groom, played here by Charles Pfluger in his only film role, arrives unsure of whether or not he should go through with his commitment to marry his bride-to-be.

Along the way, the groom gets the advice of two groomsmen. One of them is Cecil (De Niro, here billed as Robert Denero to cover embarrassment) and the other is Alistair (William Finley). Basically, the film features the men running around and trying to help him with the jitters while, at the same time, offering him a way out of the situation. The film is designed as a farce, yet it lacks any humour. Instead, De Palma seems convinced that speeding the film up and then slowing it down to a crawl is the best way to gather some big, big laughs. He also seems to think that the voices shouldn’t really match any characters and that the dialogue should simply flow like wine. I’m not even sure there was a script, but if there was, I’m dying to see it because I want to know what happened.

De Palma’s direction does present some interesting insight into how things would arrive at their present state with this overhyped director of films such as Carrie, Scarface, and Carlito’s Way. We can see De Palma making tons of quick, sudden cuts, for one thing. Characters reappear in different positions, hopefully on purpose, after spouting a line or two of dialogue. The whole thing works like a “what not to do” manual for aspiring directors, as the scenes unfold with such crazy energy via De Palma’s direction that it becomes impossible to tell what’s happening. It would be funny in a sort of unintentional way had it not been so dizzying. And it is very dizzying, especially the opening seven or so minutes.

All in all, it’s hard to say anything about The Wedding Party without drawing back to the inexorable slide of nonsense that De Palma’s direction takes this film on. De Niro or not, this film is pretty much a heaping turd. I read one review from a young woman who commented that De Niro was magical and humourous. He may well have been, but for all the chaos and madness – not to mention the shoddy sound editing – I didn’t notice a thing. This film is worth seeing if only for a sign of things to come from Brian De Palma and a strange vision of performance from De Niro. Other than that, skip it. I couldn’t stand it.

0/10