Western Retrospective – Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid Review

Hi, this is Jim Meskimen, and you are listening

to The Cinema Geeks. Hello, and welcome to episode

261 of The Cinema Geeks. I am one of your Cinema

Geeks optimists, Solo, and joining me as usual

is the comic concierge. Hello, Dan. Hey, how's

it going? Going well. It is to date the podcast

a little bit. We're getting ready for what is

typically the stormiest part of the year for

us, but knock on wood, we haven't had much yet,

so here's hoping that we can... sail through

this one as well well we're in the brink of a

potential northeaster that's supposed to hit

so you know it's like changing where it's going

to be so i guess we'll we'll get it this time

maybe yeah we'll see but i'm hoping we can go

through october with uh no major hurricanes or

craziness so we'll see how that goes we're also

in that uh time period where like all the sports

try to converge on you at once so you know we

got baseball getting close to the playoffs we

have football in full swing we got you know the

Preseason basketball should be starting, I think.

Football is, I think it's a college sport, Dan,

that people play. Yeah. I think you and I can

just take this year off and pretend that it doesn't

exist. I'm just going to watch Little Giants

on repeat. That's my football Sunday. I'm going

to watch Ace Ventura, I guess. I love that one.

probably wouldn't do me any good either all right

so um we are back at it today we're gonna be

as we bounce back and forth between uh westerns

and apes today we are back with the westerns

so we're continuing our journey through the revisionist

western block we had six films outlined for that

block and we are on our second one having covered

the oxbow incident last time And now moving on

to 1969, one of two films from 1969 we're going

to cover back to back. And this one was entitled

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Dan obviously

gave some feelings about Butch Sundance and the

Cassidy Kid. That's not right. Butch Cassidy

and the Sundance Kid. I'll get the title right.

The Cassidy Kid. We're making it. We're making

a new one. Yes, it's about their kids. but Dan

talked about a little bit at the end of last

episode. So if you haven't checked that out,

make sure you do as you kind of go along, hopefully

for the ride with us. What, how many Westerns

have we covered now, Dan? We're like at least

a couple of dozens so far, right? Yeah. Oh, I

don't know. Let me get the final number. It's

been a, it's been a few. I don't know if I can

count that. I, I think we're on 23 ish somewhere.

We're right around. Yeah. I think so. Cause then

we also, cause we have the episodes where we

did two in one. So yeah, that's, that'll be.

at least two dozen so you know be interesting

to see how this revisionist block goes we kind

of talked about a little bit about that last

time like what we thought was revisionist maybe

in present in some of the films we had talked

about before but we definitely got full -on revisionist

last time with oxbow so we'll see how that translates

to today and if that carries through but before

we kind of give our thoughts and opinions after

we've watched the film As usual, we're going

to let Dan lay the groundwork and give us some

facts about Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

I got it right that time. So Dan, take it away

with the facts. Wait, so the fall didn't kill

them. As this week, we continue our Western retrospective

with a look at Butch Cassidy and the Sundance

Kid from 1969, directed by George Roy Hill. It

takes place in Wyoming around 1900, which Cassidy,

played by Paul Newman, is a clever, charismatic

leader of the Hole in the Wall gang. His partner

Sundance, played by Robert Redford, is quiet

but extremely skilled as a gunslinger. After

successfully robbing the Union Pacific train,

they attempt to rob the same train again, but

the second robbery goes rather wrong. heavily

armed posse is waiting for them and butch and

sundance find themselves relentlessly pursued

across the countryside they eventually are able

to escape by jumping from a cliff into a river

and survive despite Sundance's inability to swim.

They reunite with Sundance's girlfriend, Etta

Place, played by Catherine Ross, and realize

that the American West is becoming too dangerous

for outlaws like them. Butch suggests that they

escape to Bolivia, where they imagine they can

start over. After traveling through New York,

the three arrive in South America. Butch and

Sundance initially struggle because they don't

speak Spanish, but Etta, the Duolingo of her

day, helps them learn enough to begin robbing

banks. Eventually, however, they become increasingly

paranoid that the law is catching up with them.

Butch suggests that they try living honestly,

and they take jobs guarding payroll shipments

for a mining company. Their attempt at respectable

work ends almost immediately when bandits attack

their convoy. Forced to fight back, they realize

that they can't seem to escape the violent outlaw

life. Etta, realizing their situation is becoming

hopeless, leaves them and returns to the United

States. Butch and Sundance return to robbing.

After sealing a payroll shipment, they arrive

in Oblivion Town, where their presence is discovered.

They take refuge inside a building, while police

and soldiers surround them. Wounded and running

out of ammunition, the two friends realize that

there's probably no way out, and in one of the

most famous endings in Western cinema, they'll

nevertheless decide to make a final attempt to

escape. They burst from the building with guns

drawn, and the film freezes on an image of them

running toward waiting soldiers as gunfire erupts.

Paul Newman was attached to this movie first,

but Steve McQueen was originally the studio's

preferred co -star. McQueen liked the script,

but negotiations over building became a major

problem. The studio even promised alternating

Newman and McQueen's name depending upon the

print, but McQueen eventually walked away. The

famous bicycle sequence wasn't originally conceived

exactly as we see it. Hill came up with a playful

sequence involving Butch and Etta in the bicycle,

and Newman performed most of the riding himself.

During the train robbing filming, there were

five cameras but only four camera operators.

Cinematographer Conrad Hall, who was dating Catherine

Ross at the time, showed Ross how to operate

the spare camera and let her shoot. George Roy

Hill was furious and Ross eventually banned her

from the set except when she was actually needed

for a scene. Ross later recalled the incident

bothered her for the rest of the production.

The montage showing Butch Sundance and Etta in

New York was originally conceived as a live -action

sequence. Goldman wanted to film it at this enormous

New York set built for Hello Dolly at Fox. The

Dolly production wouldn't allow that, but they

did allow Hill to shoot photographs there. That

limitation helped give it this distinctive look

that we now see today. When Butch Cassidy and

the Sundance Kid opened, some major critics were

not impressed. Roger Ebert gave it a negative

view, calling it slow and arguing that its screenplay

was too clever and self -conscious. Pauline Calet,

The New Yorker, was also strongly negative, criticizing

the film's shifting tone between comedy and Western

drama. But there are plenty of positive reviews

as well. The Hollywood Reporter called it a great

film and predicted it would be extremely popular

and profitable. And they were right, as it made

over $102 million domestically and at the time

was the highest grossing Western. It also received

seven Academy Award nominations and won four

at one for best screenplay, cinematography, score,

and song, and was also nominated. for Best Picture,

Director and Sound. But what do Kevin and I think?

Are we with Roger Ebert or are we with the other

critics? Back to us to discuss. As always, thank

you for that. So those are all of the what you

need to know about this film. But now we're going

to get into some opinions. Dan, you have more

experience with this film. So I'm curious if

you had any questions for me to start this off

or how would you like to go from here? yeah so

if you listen to the last podcast or if you remember

way back when when we talked about our favorite

films this was high up on there for me so kevin

knew going at not to like you know put a lot

of pressure on there but this and i do love this

movie uh but i am interested we were talking

about specifically this being a revisionist western

and kind of discussing what that means with the

oxbow incident it was it was very clear you know

regarding like how you would categorize that

within that category so how it's interesting

to see because you know which cassidy the sundance

kid when i first watched it not something i ever

you know it just seemed like a western to me

but that was before i watched many of these films

so now with all the previous films that we have

watched do you feel like it fits within that

is it you know does it feel like it is going

against the grain at all compared to past westerns

and what was your general experience like with

this one did i did i uh hype it up way too much

you definitely uh set the bar pretty high for

it i will say that much um when it comes to the

kind of western it is and kind of how it fits

with everything i think it's an interesting like

case study in a lot of respects because on one

hand you have some elements that were have been

exposed to so far you have a little bit of the

uh like there's no hero so to speak in this film

right like there's no like prototypical good

guy hero in this and we've seen a little bit

of that being played with throughout the other

westerns we've talked about here and there where

there's a little bit more of an anti -hero or

there's a little bit more of a grace grace area

things of that nature but i think before There

was still always the protagonists that we were

following. The question with those films was

more about, does the protagonist fit all of the

quote -unquote hero aspects or good guy aspects

that we're used to? And some of them had some

borderline takes on some different ethical or

moral questions and things of that nature. They

weren't all just like these upstanding... individuals

and things of that nature what's interesting

about this one and i'd have to like rack my brain

going through the other few dozen films that

we've covered i don't know how many times we've

gotten it flipped so that it's more the technically

the the villain's too strong of a word but it's

they're not the heroes like yeah we're set up

right from go that you know they're committing

crimes and things of that nature so but it's

more of instead of the the quote -unquote good

character that has some shades of gray now it's

like the quote -unquote bad character that has

enough shades of gray that you find yourself

you know almost rooting for them and things of

that nature so i guess it flips it a little bit

from that aspect when we talk about the western

though and like everything we've seen through

a lot of these films where You have a lot of

Western elements, whether it be stagecoach or

cowboys and Indians or the justice system in

the Wild West and the shootouts at the OK Corral

or the mano -a -mano gunfights and things of

that nature. It's interesting because this does

have some of that. When you take a step back,

it does have some Western elements. but i don't

know if you ever feel like you're watching a

western you know what i mean like and i'm not

saying that is a bad thing like i'm just saying

it's different because it's almost way more of

a buddy slash friend slash whatever you want

to call it like it's a story of these two individuals

these two characters who are obviously linked

through their actions and and through mythology

and history and things of that nature but it's

way more of like a character study on those two

and they just happen to be in a western setting

almost in some respects so i i do think it does

flip a number of different things that we're

used to that i can totally see why it would fit

into this revisionist category did does that

make sense yeah in sense of it's not the plot

mechanics aren't necessarily what you expect

for like a western per se and you know the we

don't it's not giving us the classic building

up the hero, building up the villain, and they

fight. I do think where it is revisionist is

within the characters here because, especially

Butch Cassidy, is not the hero to seek the showdown.

He's one to run away. That's not something we've

seen with characters. They know when they're

outmatched, they kind of undercut themselves.

Yeah, Sundance clearly has the gun skills and

things like that, but it's not a show of macho

me macho. They're very self -deprecating in a

lot of ways, and compared to... This isn't a

John Wayne type of Western that hero can solve

all the problems. He's going to be able to stand

up and... find the you know be able to like go

against this guy that's chasing them down they're

they're running this is mostly a chase film it's

almost a glorified it's as much as a heist movie

as it is a western so i do think it it's like

western light right it's like western zero like

the coke zero of it so um that's i think why

when i first watched it i was really taken back

by it because it i was expecting kind of a slow

moving methodical type of film and this is kind

of high energy up a lot there's it you know if

it does stop it's because it's like shooting

actual photographs and things like that but uh

but yeah i do think it's within the characters

that it it's able to establish itself as a revisionist

western compared to a lot of the other kind of

stereotypical type of western because this you

know this comes out a year after true grit or

something like that and they almost feel like

decades apart not like oh totally I think some

of that, too, is how they play the modern versus

classic, like, what they're going for in a way,

too, right? Like, intentionally, like, using

more... I don't know if they're using more modern

language, but they're... Oh, definitely. I would

say so, yeah. Modern language, a little bit more

of a modern feel to it. Like, it's weird because

I wasn't alive in 1969, you know, for those trying

to figure out age or whatever like that. Like,

I didn't exist back then. And it's, it's crazy

to like, sometimes you see something from there

and you're like, yes, I, I totally understand.

I see them like that. It's not that far removed

from when I did exist. You know what I mean?

Like we're not talking about decades and decades

here. We're all, you know, we're talking about

less than 15, 20 years. You know, for me it would

be whatever, 12 years. Yeah. 12 years later,

I think if I'm doing the math right. And that's

not a long time, right? Like my, I have a, an

older brother that was born in 1970. And, you

know, you think about his upbringing, which was,

you know, he had one of the first computers and

Atari and Intellivision and all this other stuff.

Like, it's not, you know, so far back that we're

so far removed from that. But then, you know,

there's other aspects of that time period that,

you know, do feel a lot more removed. So it's

kind of interesting, you know, not having lived

through that, like how you place the 1960s or

1970s in your head, I guess. interesting exercise

i guess for myself uh yeah and i think too it

is very much like you mentioned the modern language

and it is that like the sense of humor i think

if someone watched this i could see someone watching

this to me being like why are they using like

the marvel level humor because i feel like it

does similar sense of humor to a lot of the the

action movies of today uh you know especially

the you know the fall will kill you scene probably

famous scene from this And I think that type

of sensibility is something we see a lot today

where I think some people could argue it's like

undercutting the tension because they're always

making these jokes. But I think it's if anything,

they're just you can tell that they're using

it to hide their fear. You know, like, you know,

when they're when they're talking about, do you

think he's going the other way? Do you think

we lost him? It's like, no, I don't think so.

Just the way that they play it. And I was watching

the making of and. i think george rory hill mentioned

that it's not about them playing it funny or

playing it like straight it's like them playing

it truthful to the scene and i think that is

very like much what this what they do like they're

not trying to be funny but but within that it

ends up being funny so i think they're not there's

not that self -awareness that sometimes maybe

happened but at least i i didn't think there

was well i think it adds for me it adds a little

bit more realism right like yeah i i don't know

like if you and i are in their shoes and we're

trying to outrun this thing like it's not going

to be this thing where it's just 100 serious

all the time and like yes it's a serious thing

like that we're running for our lives and that

type of thing but you're still humans and you're

still going to be like interacting with each

other in a way and i felt like i came across

pretty authentic by that i feel like if that

didn't exist it would be i feel like it would

feel less alive it would feel a little bit more

monotonous or redundant or something like dry

I don't I don't know like I don't think it would

have played as well from an audience viewer standpoint

like I don't think it would have been as easy

to go along for the ride if it didn't exist so

I'm glad that they did do that you know it's

almost like a you know the buddy cop movie or

something like that but buddy bank robbers instead

for sure For sure. I do think you see, because

it's not like they're the opposite per se. They

have different skills, like Butch Cassidy is

the planner, and I guess you could say Cassidy

is like the muscle per se, but it's not like

one's really clean, the other one's messy, but

their personalities are different, and you do

get a lot of natural comedy out of that. Speaking

of the contemporary piece, one thing they do

use a lot, it's more of a contemporary score,

but also a lot of contemporary music. Probably

one of the most, I think, not controversial,

but one of the most heavily debated scenes within

this is the raindrops falling on your head scene,

the bicycle scene. Because it does, for some

people, it can come out of nowhere a little bit.

Suddenly we're getting this almost comedic scene

paul newman on a bike it's almost like he's kind

of acting like a like a modern day clown or something

like that i was curious like how that scene works

for you did it feel like it it just was it like

kind of a whiplash a little bit i just i was

interested what your experience with that moment

was i think you know i read out that you know

there was some criticism for that whether it

was like critics of the time or i don't know

if it was more modern critics or whatever but

like i did read some commentary that you know

it's basically an unnecessary scene it doesn't

do anything for the plot this that and the other

i didn't but i don't agree with that a hundred

percent because i think it's a moment where the

film is willing to slow down and give you a little

bit more character development and like a real

real feel for who these individuals are especially

like we know the majority of this film is going

to be or you know we see it, we might not know

ahead of time, but we see that as it unfolds,

a majority of this film is them being on the

run and being chased and things of that nature,

which is going to kind of by proxy stop some

of the being able to see them without that element,

right? Like it's, we're not going to be able

to just like see like the real characters when

that is not hanging over their heads. And this

is like, in a way for me, like a moment where

they could somewhat escape from that and give

you a glimpse of them as people. i i the music

in this was fine uh i don't think it was detracting

for me at all i enjoyed the music obviously it's

very different you know we've gone through these

westerns and there's been lots of different motifs

when it comes to music right like we had a set

of three or four films that were basically scored

or soundtracks from the same individual and he

used a lot of classic western folk ditties and

songs and things like that that he kind of molded

and twisted in different ways we had obviously

a much different song selection when it came

to I believe it was McCabe and Mrs. Miller has

a very specific soundtrack this has a very more

on one hand modern but on another hand almost

like black and white style soundtrack so it's

like an interesting way to like feel more modern

than a lot of westerns but then really it's almost

older than in a way yeah but like I enjoyed the

music I enjoyed the the sense that like we're

touching on bicycles who I don't when I didn't

know when bicycles were invented but it seems

like this is a fairly new thing for them in this

situation I guess it reminded myself that I'm

ignorant to the history of the bicycle but I

did think that it worked well in that the only

issue I had with the scene is not anything that

any everybody else seems to they all want to

point to the song or they want to point to the

kind of the disconnect from the rest of the movie

i think all that's good my only slight issue

was trying to come to terms with the triangular

relationship between these three main characters

etta butch cassidy and the sundance kid and i

think it makes a little bit more sense as you

progress further along through the movie but

this happens in the first half yeah fairly i

don't know if it's fairly early but it's definitely

in the first half and at that point i was a little

taken aback to the fact that like paul newman's

character is basically taking her for a ride

straight out of the you know the bed of his friend

and like they're on this bicycle ride and there's

clearly some history slash sexual tension between

them and you know there's even a comment of like

you know if i had met you first or if you had

met me first like would i be with you instead

of him and like all of this stuff and i i guess

i wasn't prepared for how seemingly okay the

sundance kid is with all of that yeah like i

don't know if i would have been that person i

don't know if when they showed back up on the

on the bike after their their little tryst that

i would have been like hey where where where

y 'all at? What was that all about? Maybe it's

just a more of a modern lens, I think on that.

So that was the only thing that for a little

bit, like through me is to like, they seem like

they're very loyal to each other, but it seemed

like a very borderline, unloyal, disloyal thing

to do with your friend's main squeeze. But as

the movie unfolds further, I think it becomes

less problematic in retrospect because of the

way that it plays. the dynamic between the three

of them as we continue on. What do you think

of the, that kind of triangle? That's not really

love triangle, but I guess it is. I think it,

it purposely subverts your expectations because

you think that's what it's going to be. Cause

they clearly have, you know, this, you know,

within that scene, like this kind of flirty relationship

and, you know, he confronts him. He's like, Hey,

what are you doing? And it's like, you know,

trying to steal your girl. She's like, you can

have her. Cause I think it's, I think it's just

showing the trust they have with one another

as a group. They understand each other. And I

think it's just who they are. He's not worried.

I think he understands that they have a friendship.

And he's not worried that anything is going to

happen. So he's just being who he is. So I think

it just shows that they're all secure in their

own skin and within their relationship with one

another. instead of like it's like instead of

delving into what you think and another movie

would be the main story and it'd be like what

drives them apart that's not the case here for

whatever reason these two people are bonded uh

through thick and thin uh and even even if it's

going to get them killed eventually yeah i guess

i was i'm just like predisposed to expecting

the um the mega powers here like the hulk it's

funny you mentioned that because i was watching

the macho man uh dark side of the ring today

so okay gotcha i kept waiting for you know one

of them to take on the macho man role and be

like yeah there's lust in those eyes or whatever

i was just i was waiting for it but maybe they

would get there eventually but yeah i had a question

for you um that i was hoping you could help me

because you've seen it You've seen this film

multiple times. You were able to watch a little

bit of the behind the scenes. I feel like you're

probably a little bit more well -versed on the

ins and outs of the film and things of that nature.

I was somewhat thrown off at one point and I

was trying to understand, and it's not necessarily

a super important aspect, but we have the initial

kind of scenes where they're wherever they are.

I don't, do they mention what part of the West

they're in, in the beginning? I can't remember.

I honestly, they're not really important. I mean,

yeah, but they're, they're, they're somewhere

on the wall, wherever that, yeah, like wherever

it is, you know, Montana, Wyoming, wherever there's

somebody somewhere out there. And we have all

of those sequences where they're robbing banks

out there and trains and things of that nature.

And, you know, we get the setup of the dilemma

where they, they're going to need to find somewhere

else to be because these folks are not going

to relent on their search for them. There's nowhere

safe in the West. And then we kind of go through

this like montage of them, making the trek from

the West to Bolivia, which apparently requires

them to go East to New York or somewhere similar.

Like they have to get there to get to Bolivia.

And then, then the rest of the film is basically

taking place in Bolivia where they're kind of

picking up where they left off. And then they're

also being tracked and things of that nature,

et cetera. The whole sequence that takes them

from the West to Bolivia. And all of these freeze

frames and photos and things like that that are

showing them making that trek. It seemed to me

that they get to, like, is it New York? Is that

where they're at? Yeah, a lot of those photos

are taken in New York. They actually, like, went

and, like, shot them at the location. What they

did was they got actual, like, photos, like,

classic photos of those areas. kind of before

Photoshop was a thing, and then brought them

to a lot of those locations and then took photos

of them at those same locations and then imposed

their photo within the classic photo. So it made

it seem like they were there, but they're just

combining a modern photo with a classic one.

Gotcha. That's interesting to know. And while

they're in these areas and all the photos are

depicting... this trio that seems like they're

completely happy seems like they're not in any

danger seems like they could just carry on with

their lives in new york like i i was confused

that's why they just didn't stay there like yeah

did you have to go to bolivia i think the fear

is that they they would eventually be because

they weren't wanted and uh you know so they were

still because eventually they were still worried

that people would come for them in bolivia so

i think that like they're they were always on

the move and i think part of it too like part

of going back to like why this was a revisionist

western is because it's also it's taken place

much later than a lot of the other westerns you

know it's like it's on the precipice of the old

west kind of uh you know ending in a lot of ways

so i think that's also partly partially why they

they left new york was because it's not you know

they it it's not the the west it doesn't have

that type of uh setting and also it's what happened

in real life that the that's what they they did

and reportedly like there's a lot of like you

know but they're pretty sure they went to bolivia

so that's also partially why but i think mostly

it's because i think they would eventually be

caught and found out if they stayed in new york

for too long okay um so that would be my my assumption

so um i'm also curious on your take on i i really

appreciated the fact that there is no obviously

they're they're somewhat bad guys i guess but

when you're rooting for them and when you're

kind of bought into their relationship and all

of the things and you're kind of hopefully rooting

for them to find a way out of it and be able

to you know live happily ever after that's kind

of where we're set up as an audience it kind

of flips the script so that those that are chasing

them the law enforcement etc becomes our version

of the bad guys i guess in this film yeah and

they don't really i i appreciated the fact that

they don't really ever define that bad guy too

much like we have the the one individual that

wears the white hat and he has a name i can't

remember it but like you know yeah they're aware

of who he is they're aware of the tracker that

is also helping him you know track them down

they're There's people that have names and there's

people that are identified, but we don't really

spend hardly any time seeing them except from,

from a distance. Like there's not a whole lot

of like closeups or, or moments where we're hearing

them converse. And I kind of liked that. They

kind of keep that at a distance for the most

part, as we kind of traverse this chase, because

it would be super easy for a director to just.

feel the need to go back and forth and like give

you like okay here's the moment in the one camp

and here's these guys talking about it and then

now we're gonna go back to the i like the fact

that from a perspective standpoint we basically

stay for the most part with butch cassidy and

the sundance kid what how did you feel about

how they handle like the dichotomy between whatever

we're calling a hero and a villain in this film

i like that because i think it gives you everything

you need like it's it makes it almost uh it's

like this kind of to use a comparison to a movie

that comes out much i guess not much later but

it's like the shark and jaws it's like you don't

know you get their perspective so you're not

really sure who or what or why that the mystery

adds more attention and it i just love the use

of the camera there too like all the great shots

of them like you know they see you see them going

and then uh it'll pan over to this group that's

just chasing them and like zoom in just to get

a sense of distance and just how like they can

never they can never shake them it's it's gotta

be it's you know you think of chase sequences

it's like the cops falling close behind it's

one of those things where it's it's it's this

ever longing adventure like like like they can't

they can't stop moving so i think if you were

to like stop and add in these characters i think

it would be unnecessary because it doesn't necessarily

give you anything it's The tension here is just

the risk of being caught. And that's all you

need. If anything, the character that gets the

most development or anything is the guy on the

train that's sticking with the company despite

the fact that he's getting bombed all the time.

But yeah, I like that decision. I think it enhances

and it doesn't waste time. And again, it goes

back to showing that... not you don't have to

follow all the rules you don't have to have that

villain that uh you know that specific uh like

meter showdown at the end of the movie it could

just be the the general threat of of what might

happen that can propel your characters to keep

on moving forward yeah no i agree i appreciated

what they kind of did with that i had a couple

more questions for you dan number one i also

heard some critiques and criticism that A lot

of people felt like the film was more episodic

or almost like a bunch of mini Butch and Sundance

episodes stitched together versus a cohesive

feel from beginning to end. I don't think I agree

with it, but I was curious, how do you feel they

handle the different points? Because we have

train robberies, we have the posse, we have the

New York segment, the Bolivia segment, the bank

robberies in Bolivia. How do you feel they all

kind of flowed from beginning to end? I do think

it has two distinct halves. I do think you have

the half in America. And then, as you mentioned,

when we make that transition from that, that

we get to the photographs to them going to Bolivia,

it does feel like two separate movies in a lot

of ways. And I do think the first half is a bit

stronger, at least more entertaining. That's

where so many of the standout scenes occur and

happen. But with Bolivia, it's more... purposeful

where it's it's them struggling a bit more it's

not as uh high octane it's not as as entertaining

per se well there's some there's some humor there

with the the language barrier and things like

that but i definitely think it does feel like

two separate and very distinct halves i don't

episodic i wouldn't necessarily agree with but

i do do think it is very distinct and like how

the first half is and then um how Bolivia almost

feels like its own movie in a way but I also

think that's kind of important it makes that

that move in that setting mean a bit more because

it's it's not just a location change it changes

really their their mindset their their secular

way the way they go about things until that you

know of course that epic conclusion but yeah

no I didn't I didn't see it quite as much either

like and I think it's You get the montage that

kind of separates the two halves, and I felt

like that was fine. How else are you going to

go from the one setting to the other? We're not

going to watch them on the whole trek or whatever

somehow. I was curious, too, about the ending.

Spoiler alert for a film that's 57 years old.

And real life. And based on real life. I was

curious your thoughts on how the ending went,

how it was filmed, how it all transpired. I could

see... I did have one moment where I was questioning

because they're in Bolivia in what seems like

quite a few sparsely populated areas. They're

not in these major metropolitan spots or anything

like that. But apparently one of those small

sparsely populated areas does have a police force

of like 100 people all at once that apparently

are all on duty. um which caught me off guard

and then they like add in the actual i think

military which adds like a ton more people which

at some point obviously you know like the odds

are not good at this point like there's no there's

no way out but i was curious kind of how the

ending played for you and and do you think it

the way that it ends adds kind of some something

to like why you enjoyed the film as much as you

do or kind of what's your take on the ending

that's a good question and i don't i don't know

if it adds i think it does in a way because it

like you're you're expecting them to make it

out in the end like when i watched this i didn't

know anything about the real life which is cassidy

and sundance because i like i knew the names

like the names are pretty famous but like their

actual story uh so i was you know i was waiting

for them to get out of this you know get out

of this one because that's what's happened before

but to see that build up and i do think in that

climax it does become a bit more fantastical

like before that when it comes to them like shooting

their guns and things they we don't see as much

like they they do try to stick to the more realism

when it comes like reloading and like they're

not just letting like 20 shots go without reloading

their gun but that final sequence happens and

they they kind of break away from that and it

becomes more larger than life which i think is

partially why we kind of get this gigantic army

and in a way to i think build up as as we saw

with uh uh you know man who shot liberty valence

it's like you know print a legend and they're

printing the legend here uh per se so i i do

think it is a bit of a shift without it with

especially in the first viewing i never realized

that it didn't like i didn't catch on to it but

going back with the knowledge of what happened

at the end and i do think it's like you know

it's a bit of a ballsy move to end on a freeze

frame like i don't know many movies that do that

and it doesn't come off cheesy I think this is

on a very short list that can do it, and it worked.

At least it did for me, but yeah, I thought...

I don't know how much it impacted making it my

favorite in the beginning, but I think the more

I have watched this movie, the more I enjoy the

ending. I think the freeze -frame ending is perfect.

I can't imagine ending it in a different way,

really. Nobody needs to see the outcome of what

we know is happening there. Yeah, that's when

Bonnie and Clyde comes in a year later and we

see what that can look like. That's when you've

got to wonder if you're watching this with someone

and then it freeze frames and then they're like,

but I want to see what happened. They've gone

out of it. I'll let you paint whatever picture

you want to paint. It's that episode of The Simpsons

where they're showing at the old folks' home.

Gone with the Wind, and they do the voiceover.

It's like, I love you. Let's get married. It's

like, I thought she said something different.

That's kind of what happens there. No, 100%.

So I have two final questions. One is more just

specifically about not just this film, but just

kind of our journey so far with these few dozen

films that we've watched already. And I wanted

to ask you specifically a question surrounding...

the visual styles that we've seen in all of these

different films. I think we've seen a lot of

different angles when it comes to how they depict

the West. We've had some more of the kind of

technicolor classic Westerns, you know, with

trying to give us some really vibrant landscape

and different things that they're taking advantage

of there. their settings and things of that nature

for those that were in color obviously i you

know i've seen a few of them in black and white

um and then we've had sort of the dirty uh westerns

visuals that we get especially i think of like

the spaghetti westerns where it's a lot more

gritty and you know not polished look and then

i think of like mccabe and mrs miller and then

this one where we get like a much more muted

color palette or earthy or i don't know if it's

washed out but it's more just like a you know

you feel that they're probably going for a little

bit more naturalism but it also feels like you

know there's definitely a specific color palette

in mind i was wondering what your opinion and

what your take has been as we've progressed all

of these different types of westerns with like

all the different choices that either the directors

or cinematographers have made with the visuals

do you have a preference do you think it just

depends on the story they're telling Do you have

some you've liked more than others? Kind of how

has that worked for you? Yeah, I think for the

most part, I've tended to enjoy those that are

shot on location. Like I think there's something

to that. It feels more like you are there. But

there are exceptions to that. Like the man who

shot Liberty Valance is probably John Ford's

most, you know, the one time he didn't shoot

on location and maybe the favorite out of those

thus far. And then like we had the Oxbow incident

last. time and that was all stages and i thought

but it fit it fit the story in general but i

i think if that would be generally my preference

but it's it's all it's you know can you use what

type of story are you telling for the oxbow incident

it makes sense because it's very it's a very

personal it's not just epic story um what i love

like this felt very modern at least in the way

it was shot to me like it felt like it was shot

like i get um a modern action film compared to

to most like again talking about westerns we

don't get a lot of like long prolonged shots

of them traversing there are like chase scenes

but like it's more it doesn't have that type

of uh direction where we're like soaking in the

scenery compared to a lot so i think ultimately

it's just like does it fit the story that's being

told in most cases i think it has generally uh

And I think it's been nice seeing how different

Westerners can feel based upon that. But I guess,

yeah, I guess I don't, I guess it's a bit of

a combat answer. I don't necessarily have a preference,

but if I were, it's like I said, I think on location

does add so much most of the time because it

just feels like it adds a bit of realism or adds,

it doesn't, that artificial. artificiality that's

not a word i don't know the artificial look of

a of a movie set sometimes can can take you out

of it uh so that would be my my thought but i

don't know what you were thinking i just i just

have found it interesting that we've seen sort

of so many different looks for the west you know

whether we're taking advantage of some very scenic

locations you know we've had some that have definitely

been filmed in some very you know famous areas

uh when it comes to like movie making and things

of that nature and we've had different things

that the people have done like obviously like

you know especially with mccabe and mrs miller

they're using specific techniques to try to make

it look a certain way um with different things

they're doing with the cameras and the lenses

and stuff like that and i i haven't seen a ton

of like 60s and 70s is probably my some of my

biggest blind spots in cinema and so i'm intrigued

as as i watch more films set in that time period

if the color palette that we see in like this

and in mccabe and mrs miller is just more prevalent

during that time period or if it's being like

if it crosses genres and it's just more more

prevalent or if it's something that they were

specifically choosing for some of these films

i don't think it's good or bad necessarily either

way i just find it interesting to like see how

it has changed as we've gone through the different

westerns and and kind of what they've each used

to frame their stories which for the most part

i think has fit what they're trying to do makes

sense with each director i'm also curious dan

last question for you this was obviously a movie

that you felt really strongly about an initial

watch and kind of as you've made different lists

throughout the years of like some of your favorite

films of all time having watched this after you

know two dozen other westerns does it still hold

that same place for you do you like it more with

the with the knowledge of what you've watched

on these other ones have some of the other ones

that we've watched catapulted even higher kind

of like what's your take on this film having

watched all of these other ones so far now yeah

it's still up there for me i don't know if it's

gonna like in the sense of like the ranking will

be number one or so i don't know it's still watching

it every time i've watched it i've enjoyed it

a bit more and then i think getting this time

around like learning in watching the making of

getting some background knowledge of like how

they did certain things Kind of only generally

increased my feelings that much more. So, yeah,

re -watching it, I think, was a good time. And

it's also something, like you mentioned, how

you don't re -watch movies. I've been trying

to do that more. And then doing it, re -watching

it, I'm like, oh, this is why we do this. Because

it's like, you know, the comfort of it and being

able to appreciate it on a different level. I

think that certainly was the case this time around.

Very happy to be watching it. If anything, I've

only increased my enjoyment of it within understanding

better the context in which it was made and how

much it stands out compared to a lot of contemporary

westerns of the day, although perhaps it doesn't

stand out as much considering the other movie

we'll be talking about that came out the same

year. Okay. Did you think Redford or Newman delivered

a better performance? paul newman's my all -time

favorite like actor so i'm gonna go i'm gonna

i'm gonna say paul newman but like being second

to paul newman is like being second to wayne

gretzky it's like it's it's you know it's it's

okay but i thought i mean redford was great like

this was what i didn't know until going into

this was this was before he was really a known

cannot commodity like you know i thought oh it's

you know it's newman and redford that they go

together there you know there's another movie

they do with george rory hill um the sting which

is Also, Winsbeck's picture is really well regarded

as well. So I just assumed he was known, but

no, it helped make him into a star. But I think

I'm going to say Newman, but at the same time,

Redford holds its own, which is even more impressive

considering how much of an established star that

Newman was at this time compared to Redford,

who was very much the new kid on the clock, but

did not play that part, which I think is why.

It worked as well as it did. And it also makes

sense why the Sundance Film Festival is called

Sundance since this was kind of his breakout

role. I actually preferred Redford in this film.

Is it the mustache? No, I just felt that there

was a couple times where I felt like I could

see Newman acting more than being the character

in this film. Just a couple minor things where

I felt like it almost came across as a stage

play versus a movie acting. Not like anything

dramatic or anything like that. Just minor subtleties

where I thought Redford kind of just blended

into the role a little bit better. But I think

them playing off of each other is fantastic.

Makes sense. Do you know how many films they

end up doing together overall? I think it's just

this. They do this and they do The Staying with

George Rory Hill. I don't think they did any

other movies together outside of that that I

can think of. Any final thoughts here on Butch

Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Dan? No, I am happy

to watch it again, and I'm glad you liked it.

We'll see how much you like it, I guess, when

we finally get to the end of this retrospective,

if ever, compared to everything else. There is

no end, Dan. That's the catch. There's plenty

of Westerns to go around. We are continuing next

week, and what are we talking about next week?

I believe it's The Wild Bunch, right? it is it

is the wild bunch and that like i mentioned that

did come out the same year this has come out

and that is one i have not watched and if memory

serves me you said like none of the ones you

in this block or once you have seen so it'll

be a first time watch for you as well the only

the last one is the only one i've seen in this

block so okay um unforgiven was probably one

of the first uh westerns i ever saw but yeah

definitely no experience with any of the other

ones i do um Know that. Oh, goodness. I do know

that Ernest Borgnine's in this one. That's it.

Just because he's on one version of something

that came up when I was doing like compiling

and stuff like that. Outside of that, don't know

anything about it. So I'm ready. I'm definitely

intrigued. Dan, how can people keep up with what

we're doing and interact with us online? If you

search Cinema Geek Cast Podcast, you would be

able to. Just Cinema Geek's podcast on Facebook.

We're on there. And then my stuff, if you search

Comic Concierge on all the different social media

platforms, you can find stuff as well. And you

can search me out at Optimus Solo as well. And

we will definitely interact with all of your

comments. We're on YouTube as well. So you can

drop a comment there and we'll try to interact

with that and respond as well. But that does

it for this episode. Tune in next time for another

chance to listen to more of The Cinema Geeks.