Cinema Blind Spots: The Wild Bunch (1969)

We all have films we really, really want to see, but many of them never make it from our Blu-ray shelves to the television and simply remain on a list for years. As an aspiring film historian, I have read so much about, and seen so many signature scenes from, several important films that, honestly, I sometimes forget to actually watch them from beginning to end. And in other cases, there are pop-culture hits that I have yet to make a priority. So I have decided to use this column as motivation to check off many of the titles I’ve wanted to see for so long. These are my Cinema Blind Spots.

For this week’s cinema blind spot, I chose to watch Sam Peckinpah’s “The Wild Bunch” (1969). I noticed a new Sergio Leone Blu-ray box set was coming out, and it inspired me to seek out a Western; what better blind spot to choose then Peckinpah’s tour-de-force contribution to the genre? Instead of simply focusing on how well it holds up and a general overview of what it has to offer, I would like to look at more specific elements. But we’ll get there…

Known as one of the all-time great Westerns, 1969's “The Wild Bunch's" outrageous violence, sexuality, political themes and use of grittier antiheroes as protagonists was just three years fresh out of the dreaded Production Code, and it shocked audiences left and right with its New-Hollywood take on an aged genre. The film has earned quite a bit of praise and built an impressive résumé of accolades, including a spot on three different AFI lists: Top 10 Westerns (#6); 100 Most Thrilling American Films (#69); and the 10th anniversary of AFI’s Top 100 Greatest American Films of All Time list (#79). When he was alive and writing the series, Roger Ebert chose it as one his Great Movies, and it currently has a 98% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. So regardless of where you put your faith on the critical spectrum, “The Wild Bunch” covers the gamut; it’s a blind spot that needs to be checked off the list.

The plot of “The Wild Bunch” isn’t anything special by itself. We follow a small group of outlaws as they flee to Mexico after a bank robbery. While running from a posse hired by a railroad company they’ve robbed many times, they find a militia of banditos that leads them through a series of scenes testing their morality, loyalty and end goal. As we know, it’s not the complexity of a plot that makes a movie special but rather how that plot is executed.

William Holden plays Pike Bishop, the leader of the bunch. He’s a classic anti-hero, but still able to retain some semblance of a moral code. He tells endless stories with his expressions, and more with his actions. Ernest Borgnine plays Dutch Engstrum, Pike’s loyal right-hand man. He’s not afraid to give Bishop a piece of his mind, and certainly doesn’t hesitate to act on it. Warren Oates and Ben Johnson play Lyle and Tector Gorch, respectively. They’re more traditional outlaws, doing everything for the money and glory. They’re followers, not leaders, even though they like to act otherwise. Strother Martin plays Coffer, a man who looks like a moonshine-drinking coal miner, uses heated words and carries an eccentric disposition. And Jaime Sánchez plays Angel, a Mexican outlaw riding with Bishop and his gang. Angel’s weakness is his loyalty to his village back home, and his love for his promiscuous fiancée. Let’s just say Angel is a catalyst for many of the major plot points.

Instead of talking about the technical aspects of the film — which are all pretty spot on — I’d like to look at a few things the film is known for:its political agenda, its sexuality and, most famously, its violence.

About a year ago, I had the privilege of teaching a class entitled “Controversy in American Cinema” at a local university in my hometown. During the class we watched films deemed controversial for their time, spanning from 1967 (post-Code) to 1989. It was fascinating listening to students’ feedback, many of them wondering why the majority of these films —including “Midnight Cowboy” (1969), “Taxi Driver” (1976), and “Do the Right Thing” (1989) — were controversial. Based on their responses, I realized that post-millennial movie-goers have been spoiled, by and large, with gratuitous violence, explicit sex and mind-numbingly surface level filmmaking to a point where many of them cannot see beyond the screen. Now, I’m not here to discuss desensitization because I believe both forms of “violence,” or “controversy,” in the movies have a place in film history. However, it’s interesting to see how little people react to some truly horrific imagery.

In the opening scene of “The Wild Bunch,” we find our outlaw protagonists robbing a bank. The aforementioned posse hired by the railroad company were hired to capture these robbers dead or alive. This results in a major shootout in the streets of a small, early-20th-century town. Coincidentally, there is a parade progressing down the streets just as the outlaws leave the bank, and the massacre begins. Innocent bystanders are killed at every turn; men, women, and children in the midst. Peckinpah cuts between an image of two young children watching the massacre take place, and civilian after civilian dying in a hail of gunfire. As the children wince and eventually turn away from what they’re being forced to witness, we, the viewer, realize this isn’t just another action-packed shootout, but it’s affecting real people. It’s a truly powerful moment that has been burned in my memory, and resonates with me as I write this commentary.

Furthermore, the violence not only conveys Peckinpah’s critique on the state of cinema at that time, but it also provides an interesting political commentary. America was in Vietnam in 1969. It was the first “television war,” where people could see the horrors abroad from their living rooms. The children in the scene mentioned above represent those watching the gruesome outcome of the race to end the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. Watching “The Wild Bunch” through a historical lens makes the film that much better, and arguably timeless. Beyond these more subtle commentaries, it was strange to see characters denounce the American way so blatantly. In a later scene in Mexico, for example, a commander asks Bishop, “It would be very useful to us if we knew of some Americans who did not share their government’s naïve sentiments," to which Bishop replies, “We share very few sentiments with our government.” Although the 1970s would introduce us to many protagonists who criticize politics to such a degree, this was early enough to feel unexpectedly fresh, even today.

The film holds up beautifully when looking at it in the way I’ve described, but some may be put off by its old-fashioned feel at times. The film masterfully combines old Hollywood, new Hollywood, and Italian Westerns (specifically Sergio Leone’s) to form a beautiful cocktail of Western machismo. There are moments when the main characters sit around talking, and it certainly feels more old-fashioned compared to the rest of the film, based on their dialogue and acting techniques. However, the sexuality (which has a shocking amount of nudity for 1969) often takes place during those scenes, reminding you this isn’t some old, stale studio flick. When looking at “The Wild Bunch” as an amalgamation of the genre nearing the 1970s, it seems fitting to me. Otherwise, I really don’t know what one could say against it. It’s an exceptionally powerful and effective masterpiece, and its editing really is the star, knowing when and how to achieve maximum potential.

“The Wild Bunch” is a must-see, both from a film history perspective, but also as an influential work of its time. If you don’t like Westerns but appreciate Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez and the like, you might be surprised how much will seem familiar. Even looking past “The Wild Bunch,” Sam Peckinpah is a filmmaker to be studied and enjoyed. His films were ahead of their time, even if certain technical limitations and acting norms show their age. He understood the power of cerebral manipulation, and although his controversy is glaring, his subtlety cannot be overlooked. I love “The Wild Bunch,” and I hope you take a chance to watch it for the first time, or take a couple of hours to gain new perspective. It really is worth it.

Next week, I will talk about David Lynch’s “Blue Velvet” (1986). Feel free to get caught up and let us know your thoughts on “The Wild Bunch,” “Blue Velvet” or movies you would like to see me check off the list in the comments below.