Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Posted: August 22nd, 2011, 8:33 am
Er, I think they remade "King Kong" twice, once in the Seventies and once in the last decade.
https://www.silverscreenoasis.com/oasis3/
https://www.silverscreenoasis.com/oasis3/viewtopic.php?t=4503
The Bunch are hardened men who lost their way long ago, yet they believe in a code, even if they don't always hold to it. In comparison with the other characters in this film, they are actually the only people who understand the difference between right and wrong and have some moral values, whereas those that surround them have none.pvitari wrote:This is one of the greatest movies I've ever seen about people I really don't care about. Every time I begin to feel sympathetic towards the bunch, they say or do something that makes my skin crawl, mostly notably Angel, who murders an innocent woman because she defies him, and Dutch because he grabbed a woman and used her as a shield during the final shoot-out. And yet the way the final sigh leaves Dutch as he dies knocks me flat. Argh.
Oh, the Bunch wallow plenty in their self-absorption. To achieve that humanity, they engineer a massacre which results in the destruction of a village and the survivors going into exile. This time the Bunch knew what was going to happen. There was no way Mapache would give Angel back to them, except in pieces. That brilliantly rendered long march into the village, with the soldiers watching -- there is only one way this is going to end.The Bunch take on an entire army and town, not for riches or power (which is everyone else's motivation in this film), but their friend. Perfect men? Heroes? Hardly, but they do find their humanity, while the rest wallow in self-absorption.
Here we have a difference of philosophical outlook. You seem to indicate that any conclusion that results in the death of another is wrong. Fair enough, I respect your views. Personally, I (as I said previously) do not see the Bunch as heroes, but Pike as a flawed human being who finally is willing to live up to his principals.pvitari wrote:I did NOT miss your point in your posts. I read them carefully and I understand what you are saying. I am talking specifically about the Bunch's decision and what it really means.
My argument is that the Bunch really did NOT find redemption because their moment of humanity meant the negation of others' humanity -- so what is the Bunch's decision worth? For them personally -- a moment of glory, and then gruesome, but swift enough death. For everyone else -- death or loss, trauma, suffering. It's not reduced down to just one women, or two women, it's about humankind in toto. The Bunch made an existential decision that led to a short chain of events which they had to know would occur. If they want to sacrifice themselves, that is their decision, but to take so many with them...? Mapache and his lieutenants of course play no small part in this. They are even worse, because they have political power and an army to back it up. The Bunch do not have power, except in their individual guns.
That society is rotten or immoral is no excuse for what the Bunch perpetrated (or what Mapache perpetrated). The people in the crowd may have been perpetrators of bad deeds too in their own lives but in the end they are victims.
Peckinpah lays bare the hollowness of all these characters which is actually one of the reasons why I think they resonate so strongly and the movie has such meaning.
JackFavell wrote:In The Wild Bunch, isn't it more of a choice between lesser evil and greater evil, rather than good and evil?
Me neither, but I don't think like The Bunch.There is no glory in any of this--at least I don't see it.
Of course it is, that's why it was so revelatory back in 1969 -- when that kind of thing was on the TV news live from Vietnam for the very first time -- and still is. And Hollywood still doesn't get it, to judge by the latest batch of super-hero movies, even if Iron Man is suffering from PTSD.Getting shot in the back by a woman and child? Using people as shields? If anything, Peckinpah's film is closer to real life combat than many are willing to admit.
No, that is not what I said. Actually I don't think the Bunch could have done anything other than go back for Angel, at least Pike couldn't, and the others knew it was the right thing to do. The real crucial moment in the movie for me isn't really that decision, but what happens AFTER they get to the village and confront Mapache. And this goes back to JackFavell's question about isn't it really a choice about the lesser and great evil? I would dispute that. The choice actually still is between good and evil, but in each case the evil decision is made. Angel could have made the choice not to shoot Teresa and to leave her to the tender mercies of Mapache -- but he shot her. Mapache could have arrested him and had an actual trial, or even just let him get away with it, but he tortured him and then used him as a bargaining chip instead. When Angel returned to town (stupid decision, but not an evil one), Mapache could have just let him leave instead of capturing him again, torturing him again and using him as a bargaining chip yet again. When the Bunch marched into town, Mapache could have decided to just let Angel go -- he was of no use anymore, but instead he cut his throat. Pike and his men could have decided at that moment not to retaliate, and who knows what would have happened then. Either Mapache would have captured them and probably tortured/killed them, or he could have let them go. If the former, the end result would have been the same for the Bunch, but with only their blood shed and it would be only on the hands of Mapache and his men.I don't see their decision as one of taking on the whole town, but they were willing to do whatever was necessary to retrieve one of their own. Your earlier post suggested that Angel was going to be killed anyway, so just let him get killed--If the death of another is wrong, where is the value in such a decision?
EXACTLY. Look what went undone -- in every instance, mercy or a turn away from violence went undone. The Bunch and Mapache were spoiling for a fight. The war this movie brings to mind isn't just Vietnam, but the one that is literally imminent in the film -- World War I, where the nations of Europe were bristling with weapons, and Angel is Duke Ferdinand.Evil is not just what a man does, but the good that he leaves undone.
Actually Pike initiated the massacre, by shooting the general. The crowd as far as I can see is mostly scrambling under tables and behind barriers, but if any of them joined in the fight, it's because Tector, then Lyle, and then Pike, are mass killing with the Gatling gun, and those not using the Gatling gun are still inflicting major damage with their guns.The crowd actually joins in the battle and we see them attack the Bunch first.
I am sure you are not equating the Bunch's march into the village and subsequent massacre to the fight to defeat Hitler and his monstrous regime.While we all (or at least I) would like a society where everyone respects the sanctity of life, Peckinpah shows us that we do not live in such a utopia, much like Powell reveals in The Life and Death of Col Blimp, where a man is confronted with the fact that unless he is willing to fight the enemy on their ground, his country might end up speaking German. While I think the death of any human being is a very serious matter, I also believe that there are principals and ethics worth fighting (and in some cases dying) for.
I am trying to have a conversation and agree to disagree and you seem to be trying to bait this discussion into something else. Everybody in this film is a bad person (except maybe old man Sykes and Ryan and we don't know enough about them). When Angel kills his lover it is horrible and shocking and that is precisely the point. Here is the person with the purest motives in the film--even linked to deity by name--and he does the worst possible thing. If that was all there was to this story I would not find any value in it. Many people are evil and never realize the evil they do. That Pike DOES realize it--and attempts to do something right (although it certainly doesn't turn out well), is what makes the film interesting to me. Do I realize the wrong and evil I do to others everyday? Am I doing anything to fight injustice or stand up for someone who cannot speak for themselves? I would say that is the idea that Peckinpah wants us to leave with. So many of us never question who we are, or why we do what we do. His movie is a mirror to our hearts and makes us examine not just our actions, but underlying motivations.pvitari wrote: I am sure you are not equating the Bunch's march into the village and subsequent massacre to the fight to defeat Hitler and his monstrous regime.