It always seemed like the author set up the foundation for a sequel. How the men life’s turned out in the years afterward. Who begins to crack first and can’t deal with what happened. Do they turn on each other? Could have been a very good sequel. I’m not sure why it didn’t happen.
Just re-watched this a few weeks ago, and I kept thinking-- what I well made movie it was! By that, I mean the technical aspects of the filming, editing and the pacing.
As for the OP, I’m not so sure the Hillbillies were going to kill the two guys. In the movie, they were stalking them, and surely they knew there were 4, not just 2.
You are one sick, sick puppy. Keep up the good work.
Bark,
burpo
…and the “quick like a bullet!” executioner in The Green Mile.
The movie also implies there was more than 2 mountain men.
Unfortunately, the movie has become identified with the rape scene. I’ve recommended it to people who haven’t seen it (usually younger people) and they’re not interested because, in their minds, it’s just a story about homosexual rape.
IIRC, he got the job when, in the interview, he was asked to read the line “Take off your pants” and ad libed it as, “Pull them panties down!” and when told what he’d be pretending to do to poor Mr. Beaty, quirked an eyebrow at them and replied, “Aw hell, I guess I done worse before.” Odd man indeed.
I think Deliverance is a pretty good thriller, but I have no idea what makes it so acclaimed. Seems like a lot of hyper-macho bull shit pushing an outdated view of masculinity, but then, the movie is about 40 years old, so I guess I can’t fault it too hard for that. But take that away, there’s not a whole lot to it, besides an exceptionally memorable rape scene.
ETA: It’s also really beautifully shot. So there’s that.
I think it’s critical of that view of masculinity. They bumble around, possibly kill an innocent man, then escape the whole situation more by sheer luck than anything else.
All of that largely to protect the masculine reputation of Ned Beatty’s character.
The movie is good, but the book is something else entirely. I enjoyed the book predominantly because of schadenfreude; I enjoyed watching these city slickers lose to the forest, in particular Lewis. I didn’t like the rape scene, but it really wasn’t the focus. The focus was the fear of the forest, the same fear humans have had since the dawn of time. Lewis in particular is a survivalist, who more than a little bit hopes for the end of the world so he can prove his MANLINESS, and he is pretty broken by the forest. Bobby is the sacrificial lamb, but it’s the viewpoint character, the one who thinks he can’t hack it, who really rises to the occasion and does what is necessary in the end - the cold-blooded stalking and murder.
I can see that interpretation of the movie, mostly because of the previously mentioned “crying over mashed potatoes” scene, and the nightmare dream sequence at the end. But about 95% of the movie is more in line with, “Burt Reynolds is the MAY-UN! He kills rapists with a bow! Jon Voight wants to be a MAY-UN! He’s not at first, because he can’t kill a deer, but then he climbs a cliff wall freehand and kills a hillbilly. What a MAY-UN! Ned Beaty’s lost his MAY-UN card. It’s gone, bro. He can’t do bad ass stuff like his buddies.”
It’s that last bit that gets me. I spent the movie waiting for Beaty to off the second hillbilly, but as I recall, he doesn’t really do much of anything after his career defining scene. Voight ends up doing it all for him.
I’m not saying it’s a bad movie. I liked it, and thought it was exciting. But I didn’t see a lot of satire there, save for a scene or two.
LOL
You folks are forgetting these men were trying to get out of those woods alive.
Masculinity had nothing to do with it. The movie is about doing *whatever *is necessary to survive. Survival is the most primal human response we all have.
This was a Lord of the Flies moment for these men. Brief, but still very raw and primal.
Obviously workplace sexual harassment standards were a bit more relaxed back in the day.
Ned Beatty got even less money, but he had a much more memorable back end deal.
I assumed the mountain men rob and kill rich city folks for their money (this being before the credit cards were as big they’d have had a lot more cash) and their gear. The rape is just an extra.
This? This right here? This is why you have to be killed.
I’ll admit it - I laughed.
They don’t make movies quite like it anymore. If you think about it, there isn’t a whole lot of action and violence in the movie. The rape scene and the killing of the second, possibly uninvolved, hillbilly are only a few minutes. The dangerous whitewater canoeing scenes are only a few minutes more. Mostly, it is talking. More recent man against nature films that I have seen tend to be a lot bloodier and a lot less believable. One exception to that was the one about Robert Redford taking hours and hours to not quite drown.
Masculinity had everything to do with it, whether you think the movie had a straightforward or satirical view of masculine ideals. Look at character with the biggest arc in the film. Ed (Voight) is a successful suburbanite with a wife and child, but that isn’t enough. He’s not a leader. He lets Lewis (Reynolds) take the lead at all times. He wants to kill a deer, but can’t. Leader, hunter, killer. Traditionally masculine ideals. Ed is witness to Bobby (Beatty) being ‘feminized’ and is threatened with it himself. Lewis rescues him in the most testosterone fueled way possible. He kills the rapist brutally. Once Lewis is hurt, Ed takes on a leadership role, and acquires more masculine abilities (by magic, presumably). He becomes a killer, a protector, a leader. According to the culture of the time, he becomes a man.
The fact that Ed is eventually at least somewhat traumatized by these events does support a satirical read of the movie, though. It would be interesting to double feature this with Fight Club and compare the two.
I don’t remember anything suggesting they were stalking them. Please remind me.
As they are leaving the village for where they will put into the river, we glimpse some other locals (not clearly enough to know for sure if they are the rapists) piling into their own vehicle to follow.
Your last statement is just as important, I think, as the rest. The book goes into more detail about the mark it left on Ed, and it left marks (obviously) on all of them.
One dead
One raped
One man severely physically injured, but more than that, his faith in himself as being the Uber man is kind of broken
One man who became a Man, but lost his sense of who he was and shows the beginnings of detachment to society
I would not be surprised to see Ed on a clock tower in the future.