Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Cafe Society
1

This finally popped up on my Netflix queue and I watched it last night for the first time (I was born the year it came out).

I have to say, I was a little disappointed. I mean, I liked it, and it had some funny lines and a few chuckles – but I guess I expected to be more impressed by a movie that won multiple Academy Awards and is usually considered one of the best movies of its time.

I liked the quips between Butch and Sundance, and their relationship to each other. The posse chase scene, ending with the iconic jump into the river, was also great. “Who are those guys?” Heh. I also liked the final scene, a lot. And as a train fan, I loved the scenes where they were robbing the Flyer, and I loved the RR employee, Woodcock.

But a couple of things made me go :confused: . For example, the bicycle scene was good at establishing the relationship between Butch and Etta, but we didn’t see any more of that relationship after that. There was no payoff. And I love Burt Bacharach, but “Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head” seemed very incongruous. Not only did the music not fit, but the lyrics of the song didn’t seem at all connected to the scene I was watching.

Speaking of Etta - the movie didn’t really know what to do with her. We never really saw Sundance being particularly nice to her. Once they were all in Bolivia, she was involved in bank robbery montage, but other than that she was invisible until she decided to go home. Where was she when they tried to go straight? You could take her out of the movie and not really miss anything.

Oh, and what was the point of the first scene being shot in sepia? Was it to establish tone/setting? It was pretty distracting at first, and just as I started to not notice it, they switched to color.

Can someone tell me what I am missing that makes this a Great Movie?

*Unfortunately this is the second Redford movie in a row that has disappointed me. I was also underwhelmed by The Natural last week, and I’m a huge fan of baseball movies.

2

Yeah, the song was a problem.

The sepia was, as you guessed, a scene-setting device. Quite well done, in fact.

Didn’t Etta go home before they decided to go straight?

This movie will be at the top of my list if for no other reason than it gave me a quote I use quite often with my debate kids:

“Morons. I’ve got morons on my team.” :smiley:

3

You have about the same reaction to it that I had when it first came out.

To me, it’s really two movies: the kickass first part, and the interminable hunt part, with the “Raindrops” thing as segue (and long enough to be a third movie by itself).

I seem to recall all that sepia crap having to do with budgetary constraints.

It’s not a great movie, IMO, or even close. Its principal strength, which I have to admit is appreciable, is the remarkable chemistry between the stars.

4

This type of dicsussion always reminds me of my ignorance as a “film critic.”
I really like the movie BC&TSK. But is it a great film? I dunno.
-It is a very enjoyable watch.
-A couple of darn fine actors at or near their peak, interacting extremely well.
-It succeeds very well as a buddy movie and as a western, tho perhaps not as well as a love triangle or other genre.
-And IMO very few movies are not entirely without flaws.
-It can be enjoyed equally by kids as well as adults.
-Doesn’t rely on excessive gore, sex, or violence.
-Many many memorable lines/scenes – Who are these guys? Too much dynamite. No rules in a knife fight – to name a few off the top of my head.
-Obviously capable of some emotional impact, as my kids were deeply upset by the ending.

I also like The Sting. Is THAT a great movie? Better or worse than BC&TSK? I dunno. But I could watch both of them every couple of years and enjoy it.

5

I have to admit that I never saw the attraction of this film. It didn’t work for me at all. I’ll take The Sting for my Redford/Newman fix.

6

Fortunately, we’re just being reviewers. If you want to be mistaken for a critic, throw in the word “filmic,” along with a reference to some cinematographer from the 1930s. I’ll wait here.

7

One of my favorite movies of all time, because of:

The phenomenal script: (by William Goldman, author of both the book and movie The Princess Bride, among others).

The great score: I love the music. Except for Raindrops… great song, but I have no idea what that scene is doing in this movie. There is no question that the film would be better without it.

Chemsitry: As has been mentioned already, Newman and Redford, in my opinion, are Butch and Sundance in this movie. There are very few acting pairs that I can think of that match the warmth and honesty of character that these two show in this movie.

The Ending: Perhaps related to the previous point, but the ending to this movie is definitely one of the best. Again, the dialogue is great, the interaction is great, and the way they filmed this scene was just wonderful.

Things I dislike about this movie:
The bicycle scene
The scene in which we first meet Etta
It drags a bit once they’re in Bolivia

8

I do like this movie, will watch at least part of it whenever I come across it on TV, but I never felt it was a “great film”.

Clearly it’s strength is the chemistry between Newman and Redford. Further, I think a big part of the film’s success was as the “breakout” film for Redford. He’d done Barefoot in the Park a couple of years before, but this was the movie where he became a capital S star.

Not being old enough to have caught it in theaters, I don’t know, but I suspect that it caught a certain late 60’s vibe that just resonated with the crowd; part smart-ass comedy, a little fumbling romance, but somewhat disenchanted and cynical at the core. It feels more like a 70’s movie than a 60’s movie to me. Reflecting back on what people were beginning to realize was a ‘golden age’ entering a new era of uncertainty where maybe the folk heroes of today weren’t going to make it.

I get the impression that it’s very different than what people still thought of as a typical Western at that time. I think Wild Bunch came out the same year, so it was a big year for non-traditional dark westerns.

All of the music, not just “Raindrops” seems very odd, i.e. the acapella singing during the Bolivian crime spree montage?! :confused:

Bottom line: great director, great screenwriter, two stars with a legendary chemistry. I do prefer The Sting for my Newman/Redford fix, but Butch and Sundance will always be a classic.

9

*“You call that running?”

“You call that shooting?”

I loved it, but then I first saw it when it first came out and had no preconceived notions about it. Also, Redford really wasn’t as big of a star prior to it’s release. This helped cement his place, plus it lent excitement about the future prospects of these two together.

*I was really pulling for ya’, Butch."

“I know that, News. It’s what gave me strength in my time of need.”

Heh.

10

You need to watch this movie again because you are missing, perhaps, some of the more subtle aspects.

What you may not realize is that, back in 1969:

  • this movie was BY FAR the “hippest” western to ever come along. Up until Butch and Sundance, most westerns were generally of a much more serious tone. I think that you can credit Butch and Sundance with the amount of humor injected into spaghetti westerns (“My Name is Nobody”, “Good, Bad, and The Ugly”). And you can certainly credit Butch and Sundance for the tone/feel of later westerns like “Young Guns”.
  • including a “modern” song like “Raindrops” into a western was very innovative at the time. It is dated now, and perhaps does not age well. And though it may have been “gimmicky” at the time, it was certainly innovative.

The movie is a classic. It depicts these two outlaws not as these desperate, cruel, evil bandits, but as a couple of relatively young guys having a blast (when they’re not being shot at).
The chemistry and dialogue is arguably the best of any buddy movie:
“Australia…Deep down I knew you secretly wanted to know”

“When this is over, and I’m dead, kill him for me”
“Love to” (smiles at Logan)

“You just keep thinkin’, Butch. That’s what you’re good at.”

“They already HAVE their hands up !!!”

As for Etta, though perhaps not developed well, certainly their relationship is established. It is clearly a very close triangle with Sundance being the one she is physical with. But she clearly loves them both, and they care about her greatly. You may have missed it, but perhaps the best indication of how they were together (all three) is in the stills montage on their way down to Bolivia. She went from a schoolteacher to being swept up into this “gang”, and like the rest of them, had a blast while she could.
One scene that sticks in my mind is during the montage of them robbing in Bolivia. There is one ploy where she plays a nervous wife, and Sundance has to convince the bank manager to show her how safe her money will be. After the manager has taken her down to the vault, they pull a gun from Etta’s purse and proceed to rob him. Etta cracks this huge smile and starts to laugh. It’s unclear whether this was a goof or not, but to me conveys the fun.

Watch it again, but remove the memories of all the westerns made in the last 20 years.

11

I love this movie, man. And I love all the incongruous elements (the “Raindrops” scene, the Swingle Singers, etc.) as well. I hope people recognize that the incongruity was intentional; it was also innovative for the time, and in my opinion, quite effective.

Period movies often confuse themselves (and their audiences) into thinking they’re authentic. They never are. Period movies always are, and can only be, a contemporary vision of a period scene or setting. The incongruous elements of BC & the SDK provide a backdrop of humor, lightness of touch, and general awareness of how the movie is a 60s vision of a western. For me, that makes the action, and motivations of the characters, that much more poignant.

I think many of the above posters expressed well why this is such a great movie: great script, great chemistry between the actors, great scenery, etc. Sure it’s possible to nitpick and find flaws–there is no movie that can long withstand ruthless nitpicking–but why bother when the whole thing is so much fun?

If you don’t like it, de gustibus non est disputandum.

12

Actually, the Dollars trilogy was made before BC&tSK, so if anything, it owes a debt to Leone for having unconventional humor and anti-establishment anti-heroes (though Butch is much “cuter” in its buddy relationship vibe).

And this is a good thing? :confused:

This is probably Butch’s worst legacy–the intrusion of pointless, anachronistic, musical numbers over cutesy montages that add nothing to the story or character development and seem gratuitously shoehorned in to either (a) sell tons of records, (b) win an Oscar, or (c) both (which is what “Raindrops” did). This is not something that I would even remotely consider an “asset”.

There’s no doubt that the film was instrumental in creating a jokey, “hip” attitude to a genre that had been dying a slow death within the American film industry, but all one has to do is look at Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch from the same year to know which is a timeless classic and which a harmless trifle. Butch may have set the standard for buddy films (and Newman and Redford have terrific chemistry), but Bunch is better written, better acted, better directed, has a better score, and is much less dated, in both its themes and its sensibilities.

13

So either I agree that it’s great, or I don’t like it, is that it?

14

Like I said in the OP, I did like it, and I would watch it again if I happened to see it on TV or something. It’s just that I expected to love it. The Newman/Redford chemistry was great, but as others have said, I’d rather watch The Sting.

I sort of got that this was a revolutionarily lighthearted western, for Hollywood, and I appreciate that. I guess it just comes down to my expectations being too high. It did have some great lines, though. :slight_smile: I’m sort of relieved to know that a bunch of others had the same reservations that I did.

15

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t I hear that the actor they originally wanted to play opposite Newman was Steve McQueen, but that they wouldn’t give him top billing so he said “No”?

16

“If he’d just pay me what he’s payin’ them to stop me robbin’ him, I’d stop robbin’ him!”

Yes. Yes it is.

17

Have to say I love this movie, even with all its faults. Butch, Sundance, Etta, Woodcock, Harvey Logan, and others depicted in the film were real people, and the film shows many events that actually occurred. Redford and Newman were magic together and I look forward to seeing this movie at least once a year.
Of course, The Sting is in a different world, cinema-wise, and is one of my top five all time favorites.

18

According to Wikipdia,

19

I love this movie. Is it life-changing, history-making, world-saving cinema? No, of course not. But I can watch it a kajillion times without getting bored, which also goes for a bunch of other movies that aren’t any of those things. So, the question is: What is great cinema? If it’s a film so good you never stop watching, then Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is it.

If nothing else, the fact that we’re still talking about it almost 40 years later certainly means something.

20

It’s interesting to contrast the anachronistic background music of Butch Cassidy with the extensive use of Scott Joplin’s ragtime in The Sting (which I guess was also anachronistic, since ragtime’s peak popularity was apparently well over at the time the movie was supposed to take place).