Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)

[drinkanddestroy]

It's a movie of moments even in its best cuts. Lots of great individual scenes that goes nowhere. I completely agree with Drink about Dylan. Wretched performance and inappropriate score.

I don't have a problem with Dylan's performance, I thought his performance was fine. It's just that his music was inappropriate for the movie.

[stanton]

I like both.

What Dylan does isn't really acting, but being there.

[Groggy]

What Dylan does isn't really acting, but being there.

Or wasting time.

[Jill]

"Beans" 

Was there any hidden symbolic meaning to that scene or Pat just felt like trolling?


By the way, there is also a Billy the Kid version from 1930, is that available ANYWHERE? I can find nothing. It's so old it must be in public domain...

[mike siegel]

Of course. I only watched the 2005 one once and it was confusing. They cut a lot of good lines and there were only 2 new scenes. Couldn't they just put those in the Turner and leave it alone otherwise? (Ok, maybe cut the Poe scene where he beats up some dudes for information since the Ruthie Lee scene has the same function and honestly, I want to punch Poe in the face every time he's on screen. (Isn't he also one of the guys who eventually kill Pat?)

That comes close to my opinion. The cutting of some of these lines is unforgivable. Also the choice of some wrong music (which was right in 1973 & partly in the Turner cut) and some sloppy sound editing. .  A lot has been written about the three flawed version now existing. The only thought that softens down my feelings is that it somehow all still is in the tradition of this troubled production.  A big chaos. BUT there was a reason why the film (one of MGM's last productions before they turned completely to Vegas and their Grand Hotel there) was such a mess during shooting and distribution. There's no real excuse for the 2005 restauration mess. A missed opportunity.

[stanton]

Ah no, a masterpiece in either of the 3 versions.

[mike siegel]

No Sir
BUNCH is a masterpiece. RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY,
STRAW DOGS, JUNIOR BONNER ...
PAT just has too many flaws.

But since it was made by the master, and since it has
so many great scenes, moments and unique little details.
And also one of my all-time favorite soundtracks..
Yes, I guess you're right in the end

[stanton]

Yes, the score is great, and yes it has so much incredibly beautiful scenes, so much stunning stuff, and for all that it is a masterpiece for me. Also for others.

The storytelling is more episodic, which is the reason why even the 106 min version works. It is less complex than the other versions, but who wants to see can see the whole picture.

And unlike other Peckinpah films it is an extremely fatalistic film, and cause of that fatalism some looser directed scenes don't hurt the film. But I still think that the editing is also in the Seydor cut not always optimal. Some scenes are not cut in the way Peckinpah did them in his other films.

[Groggy]

And unlike other Peckinpah films it is an extremely fatalistic film, and cause of that fatalism some looser directed scenes don't hurt the film.

Not sure I follow the editing logic. I probably wouldn't grant the premise anyway, if only for Alfredo Garcia.

[Jill]

The main flaw I see is not giving the supporting characters enough time. They look interesting, but we simply can't get attached to them, they are killed too fast. And they have potential. Bell is a nice guy, Sheriff Baker is someone I just want to hug, Alamosa Bill is someone I want to know more about. Who are the family of redheads, random Tullys on the West? And Billy's various friends everywhere, we know nothing about their past together. Everyone just seems to like him.

Why couldn't this be 3 hours long.

[drinkanddestroy]

I also don't feel that the movie devotes enough time to Billy and Pat's past friendship. As soon as we meet them, they are already antagonistic toward each other (even though Billy says, "he's my friend," they are in the beginning stages at least of the antagonism). If the movie had seriously dedicated a large portion to their friendship, then perhaps we'd feel the depths of Pat's betrayal more. But as it is, though we are told that they're friends from the past, we never really see and feel the friendship; hence Pat's betrayal is not nearly as devastating as it can be.

I don't know if perhaps this issue was explored more in scenes that were cut. (I've only seen the TCM version).

[Groggy]

The main flaw I see is not giving the supporting characters enough time. They look interesting, but we simply can't get attached to them, they are killed too fast. And they have potential. Bell is a nice guy, Sheriff Baker is someone I just want to hug, Alamosa Bill is someone I want to know more about. Who are the family of redheads, random Tullys on the West? And Billy's various friends everywhere, we know nothing about their past together. Everyone just seems to like him.

Why couldn't this be 3 hours long.

I agree, perhaps even more so. I've explained before my indifference towards the film's big emotional set piece, Slim Pickens' demise. It's a nice little self-contained scene, but we've only met the character about three minutes ago. Why care if he bites it? I don't much care either for Juan's casting argument, or else I'd weep when all those character actors get wasted in cruddy '70s John Wayne vehicles (poor Christopher George! You could take down a grizzly bear, why not wormy extras in Chisum?).

[Novecento]

Cause the 88 version was a rough cut, and the 05 version is a try to make a fine cut.

It's rough cut or nothing for me. To quote my own thoughts from a separate thread:

I'm definitely not a fan of this kind of tinkering unless the instructions by the director are very explicit (as in the case of Orson Welles' "Touch of Evil" for example) and at least some kind of approximation can be made. For me the definitive version of Pat Garrett is Peckinpah's rough cut (i.e. the TCM '88 version with the scene with Garrett's wife added back in).

[Novecento]

Not sure where I stand on the issue of the lyrics to Knocking on Heaven's Door.

Did Peckinpah originally want them in or out?

[stanton]

I also don't feel that the movie devotes enough time to Billy and Pat's past friendship. As soon as we meet them, they are already antagonistic toward each other (even though Billy says, "he's my friend," they are in the beginning stages at least of the antagonism). If the movie had seriously dedicated a large portion to their friendship, then perhaps we'd feel the depths of Pat's betrayal more. But as it is, though we are told that they're friends from the past, we never really see and feel the friendship; hence Pat's betrayal is not nearly as devastating as it can be.

I feel it.
It is not a betrayal, it is a changing of positions which Billy accepts, as he accepts his death.