If you haven't noticed, the late 1960s, early 1970s are very much my favorite years for cinematic discussion, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid falls smack dab in the middle. Paul Newman and Robert Redford were mainstream and very popular actors at the time, Redford headlining a total of three films in 1969 alone. And though this film isn't quite anti-genre to the point of McCabe and Mrs. Miller, it certainly had elements that brought it close. Newman and Redford play two outlaws in the wild west that casually rob banks and nonchalantly gamble, vacation, and of course, shoot with the unimaginable accuracy. The film takes a turn roughly halfway through, where after getting chased by the most persistent lawmen, the two, along with their mutual more-than-friend female schoolteacher, flee to Bolivia. There the film seems to basically start over, the men providing no character change (despite trying) and very little plot change. The filmmaking was on par with the standards of the Hollywood Renaissance, but without anything overtly new and crazy. Butch Cassidy felt like it attempted to subvert filmic stereotypes, yet fell prey to many of them at the same time. The superb acting and genre subversion was interesting enough to earn it a spot on AFI's top 100, and it continues to be hailed as a classic, but to me, it felt like it was caught in the middle of Hollywood and anti-Hollywood, showing flaws and merit equally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/21/2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment