Thursday, October 27, 2016

The Wild Violence of 'The Wild Bunch' Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch tears at the screen with blood and violence. The violence in The Wild Bunch is not only historical but also revolutionary. While the film is one of the most controversial movies of its time, today, its controversy remains a frequently revisited and debated subject among scholars, critics, and movie patrons (Gronstad 167). When The Wild Bunch was first release in 1969, critics and general audiences were incredibly divided (Ferrera). Many critics embraced Peckinpah’s vision and use of violence and blood. Others admonished Peckinpah for his brutality and vivid portrays of on-screen violence. Some may feel as though the violence of The Wild Bunch is antiquated when compared to the portrayals of on-screen violence seen today. However, according to Ferrera, the way Peckinpah uses violence changed how filmmakers portray violence, in particular gun violence, on screen. Unlike previous western films, Peckinpah showed audiences that death and violence are bloody and miserable. Even today, the graphic violence in The Wild Bunch is a subject of controversy and debate. Despite the controversy of the past and present that obsesses on Peckinpah’s use of violence, blood and guns, The Wild Bunch remains of the most celebrated and influential American Westerns of all time.
            Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of The Wild Bunch’s reception is the debate among popular critics around the time of the film’s release. Film audiences had not seen explicit portrayals of violence before Peckinpah’s masterpiece (Ferrera). Bullet holes rip through clothing and human bodies, and blood gushes as the bullets rip through a character’s body. Peckinpah showed the killing of innocent bystanders. The perpetrators of violence use other humans as shields from cascades of bullets. Children giggle as hordes of ants devour a scorpion alive, and later, the children set fire to both the scorpions and ants. The aftermath of gun battle in The Wild Bunch is gruesome and scary. The brightest color in the film is blood. For its time, the violence of The Wild Bunch was unmatched, and many critics and audience members were unsettled and outraged (Canby). Vincent Canby of The New York Times suggests that other critics of the time seemed to have felt as though the film would cause viewers to want to leave the theater and automatically start murdering people. Canby affirms that an impulse to inflict violence on people was not present after watching The Wild Bunch, and the film, “Is very beautiful and the first truly interesting, American-made Western in years.”

            Although many critics felt as though the film was too violent and not suitable for humanity, Charles Champlin and Roger Ebert celebrated the film. Champlin often squinted during the film in a futile attempt to escape the violence. He refers to The Wild Bunch as, “Not so much a movie as a blood bath,” but affirms that the film is, “Brilliantly made and thought provoking.” Champlin notes the original test audiences of The Wild Bunch recoiled in horror and stormed out of the theaters in droves. Apparently, members of test screenings picketed the theaters the next day, and Warner Brothers made Peckinpah cut 35 minutes of violence before officially releasing the film (Champlin). However, Champlin defended the film’s portrayal of violence, and notes that death in The Wild Bunch is depraved and gut wrenching, just as it is in real life. Roger Ebert also celebrated and defended the film’s use of violence with veracity and eloquence. Ebert affirms that the larger cultural issue at hand is that we depict cowboys, Indians, and the Old West as a fun game for children to play.
While Peckinpah did not make a cowboys and Indians film, The Wild Bunch attacks and destroys the notion of the traditional Western. Ebert notes that Peckinpah utilized excessive violence, but this violence merely comes as a reaction and a response to violence enacted throughout the world on a daily basis. This response to violence continues to reverberate through modern-day culture and violence. After seeing The Wild Bunch a second time, Ebert described some of Peckinpah’s use of violence as, “Blood flowing in an unending stream” and “Geysers of blood everywhere.” While Peckinpah’s use of violence is graphic and unlike any other film of its time, interestingly, Ebert’s statements were hyperbole. Nonetheless, Ebert argues that regardless of how graphic and realistic Peckinpah’s on-screen violence may have been, the film exists in a one-dimensional realm, realism is not synonymous with reality, and it is “Impossible to forget this is a movie.”
            In addition to the variety of responses and debate among film critics and audience members at the time of The Wild Bunch’s release, controversy and commentary continues in modern times. Books, scholarly articles, and blogs continue to chronical and add to the discussion of Peckinpah’s portrayal of on-screen violence in The Wild Bunch.  In Cowboy Metaphysics, Peter A. French does not share the same spirit of support for Peckinpah’s portrayals of violence as Roger Ebert. French categorizes Peckinpah’s use of violence as simply an, “Extreme consciousness of death” (84). According to French, the main characters are courageous and heroic, but they are slightly demonic and lack true altruism in their supposedly heroic actions (126). The concept of a person committing to their word as the single attribute necessary to achieve the highest level of moral integrity in The Wild Bunch is particularly unsettling to French. French argues that this brand of integrity utilized in The Wild Bunch causes one to overlook the appalling traits and violence behavior of the film’s characters (128). In other words, if a character is seen as possessing integrity, their awful behavior is justified, and to a certain degree integrity becomes a device that glorifies violent acts regardless of whether the violence is justifiable or not.
            Meanwhile, critical researcher Asbjorn Gronstad highlights and supports many critically justifiable functions of Peckinpah’s use of violence. Gronstad compares Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch to Thoreau’s Walden, not in plot but in meaning and allegory (169). According to Gronstad, morality is not the overarching theme of the film and its violence. Instead, the film is an allegory for the battle between nature and technological progress (Gronstad 170). Observing and drawing conclusions solely from the lens of morality not only negates Peckinpah’s sense of morality, but also ignores a deeper and important thematic dynamic at play in The Wild Bunch. Gronstad frames Peckinpah’s portrayals of violence as both an admonishment of violence and violence toward, “Socio-cultural homogenization” (169). Additionally, Gronstad claims that by re-representing the past, specifically the Old West, in a more appropriate and accurate light, viewers are able to draw a correlation to the present and possible futures of humanity (171). In order to understand the present, and violence situated in the present, we must work to stop glorifying the past. Violence is not a virtue to Peckinpah. Instead, Peckinpah depicts violence as a product of a bleak world in which humanity is always at odds with machine, and in this world, there is no hope for the past, present, or future (Gronstad 184).            While controversy and debate about Peckinpah’s use of violence continues over 40 years after the film’s release, The Wild Bunch remains a, “Seminal work of violence and artistry that forever changed the landscape of motion pictures” (Ferrara). According to Ferrara, Peckinpah was the first to use violence as a slowed-down, graphically choreographed visual motif. The sound of flies buzzing over dead bodies, squibs aggressively flinging blood across the screen, different angles of the same action, and the double and triple printing of film were all innovative techniques Peckinpah utilized to depict on-screen violence (Ferrara). While these techniques are a victory of filmmaking that many filmmakers utilize today, they are also the source of much of The Wild Bunch’s controversy. Prior to The Wild Bunch’s release, the Production Code had not yet been eradicated (Ferrara). According to Ferrara, the Production Code was eventually eradicated and replaced by the MPAA, yet the MPAA strongly objected to the violence and required Peckinpah to remove a scene that graphically displays the cutting of a character’s throat.  Upon test screening the film, after making the necessary cuts, audience members’ reactions were often extremely negative, and Ferrara quotes one early audience member saying, “Don’t release this film. The whole thing is sick.” Despite the controversy and the MPAA’s objections to the depictions of violence in The Wild Bunch, the film received several prestigious awards. In 1999, The Wild Bunch was added to the National Film Registry (Ferrara).            Peckinpah’s own reaction to The Wild Bunch’s release is perhaps one of the most compelling commentaries on the film’s use of violence. Even though there were several audience members that recoiled in horror and condemned the violence in the film, Peckinpah was more appalled by stories of audience members that cheered and attained enjoyment from the film’s violence (Ferrara). Nonetheless, Peckinpah ultimately defended his depictions of violence when condemned by critics, and Peckinpah condemned the idea that he was using on-screen violence as something that is fun and enjoyable (Ferrara). While Peckinpah romanticized the beautiful Mexican landscape in which the film is set, the depictions of violence are brutal, dirty, and devastating. Peckinpah was nicknamed “Bloody Sam” and the final shoot out of The Wild Bunch the “Blood ballet,” yet Peckinpah used violence in the film to speak out against the Vietnam War and violence in general (Ferrara). As Peckinpah himself said, “I wasn't trying to make an epic. I was trying to tell a simple story about bad men in changing times. I was trying to make a few comments on violence, and the people who live by violence.”            Although Peckinpah expressed disappointed that audience members were thrilled and enjoyed the violence, even Roger Ebert admits enjoying Peckinpah’s use of violence. While audiences were divided on whether certain elements of The Wild Bunch are enjoyable or detestable, the film depicts violence, death, and the gun as gruesome and unenjoyable elements of the world. This depiction was Peckinpah’s goal, and the film does not glorify violence but rather condemns violence in the world. If nothing else, Peckinpah managed to produce a violent film that is still a subject of controversy today. Many critiques of The Wild Bunch, such as French’s Cowboy Metaphysics, paint a grim picture of how Peckinpah depicted violence in The Wild Bunch. However, many popular critics and scholars defend Peckinpah’s use and aesthetic of violence. Ultimately, it seems as though the individuals commenting on the violence in The Wild Bunch are more obsessed with violence than the film itself or Peckinpah, because despite the insurmountable amount of commentary on the violence in The Wild Bunch, I could not find a source that mentions the film ending in laughter and song.

Works Cited
Canby, Vincent. “Violence and Beauty Mesh in Wild Bunch” 26 June 1969. New York Times... Web. Mar. 2015. 

Champlin, Charles. “Violence Runs Rampant in The Wild Bunch.Los Angeles Times 15 June,
1969... Web. 1 Mar. 2015.

Ebert, Roger. “The Wild Bunch.” Chicago Sun-Times 3 Aug. 1969., n.d.
Web. 1 Mar 2015.

Ferrara, Greg. The Wild Bunch: Articles. Turner Classic Movies, Turner Sports and
Entertainment Digital Network, n.d. Web. 1 Mar 2015.

French, Peter A. Cowboy Metaphysics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997. Print.

Gronstad, Asbjorn. “Peckinpah’s Walden: The Violent Indictment of ‘Civilization’ in The Wild
Bunch.” Critical Studies 15.1 (2001): 167-186. ASU Library One Search. Web. 1 Mar. 2015.

Peckinpah, Sam, dir. The Wild Bunch. Perf. William Holden, Ernest Borgnine, and Robert Ryan.
Warner Brothers/Seven Arts, 1969. Film.

Sunday, October 23, 2016

Boo! A Madea Halloween (2016)! You do your thing Tyler Perry. Don't let these racist douche bags get to you whatsoever. I get that people are quite sensitive to throwing that word "racist" around these days, but I do not care.

I imagine most people that do not like Tyler Perry movies are racists. I might be wrong, but as stated, I do not care. People are more often racist than they think they are, and because they often refuse to admit their racism, they remain racists doing and saying racist shit.

I love Tyler Perry movies.

I often feel as though his films are more for the ladies or Christians than black folk, but therein lies another charm of Tyler Perry: His movies are overtly super Christian, but I do not mind. Under any other circumstances, I would not continue a movie, let alone watch almost all of the guy's movies.

In fact, I think I have seen all of Tyler Perry's movies. I have not seen the animated one nor all of his stage productions on DVD. However, yes, I have seen all of his feature films, except For Colored Girls. I bought the BluRay several years ago for my wife. She was going to wait to watch it with a friend. But they never got around to watching it, so I never got around to watching it. Funny, the only feature film of Tyler Perry's that I have not seen my household owns.! A Madea Halloween is funny as hell. The comedy is a bit slow to start, but during the second act the film becomes laugh-out-loud funny. Meanwhile, it would not be a Tyler Perry movie if somewhere in the film there was not some level of intense drama. This of course happens at the end of the second act, and as usual, I appreciate the intense somewhat soap-opera drama.Tyler Perry is an outright contradiction to my general tastes.! A Madea Halloween is simply a fun Halloween ride with one of America's best characters. Madea is not simply a character for black people; she is an American treasure. I read her book years ago, and it's pretty damn funny. To this day, I always clean my bedroom last and make sure any guest areas are immaculate. That's right, Madea is not only an American treasure but also a life coach.

For the record, the animated Madea movie Madea's Tough Love is not "a Tyler Perry film." Tyler voices Madea in the movie, but others wrote and directed it. Also, Boo! A Madea Halloween has a 21% critics aggregate on Rotten Tomatoes. Fuck the critics! They are no fun.

Friday, October 14, 2016

The Girl on the Train (2016) piece contains spoilers. They are not necessarily blatant spoilers. However, because this “review” is not really a review but rather a piece of pro-feminist propaganda, the brief analysis “spoils” the plot and mystery of the film. If you have not seen Girl on the Train, we cannot recommend reading this analysis.

Despite mostly poor reviews, I thoroughly enjoyed Girl on the Train. The acting is phenomenal, and the story is refreshingly unexpected. Maybe “refreshingly” is not a very useful adverb. Instead, let’s say the film is intense and unexpected. have heard that the film adaptation is not nearly as good as the book, but people always say that don’t they?

I always say that I am a sucker for plot twists of a well-made film. My friends walk out of a film claiming that they knew that was going to happen, seemingly as soon as the FADE IN. However, I often remain ignorant and naïve until the big reveal. Girl on the Train is no exception to my naïve ignorance of plot twists. This is not to say that I cannot write a plot twist, but rather when engaged as an audience member, I am a pushover. the end of the second act, I thought that I had the movie figured out and knew exactly how the film would conclude. Boy was this ignorant pushover classically wrong. Once again, I fell for all of the misdirection that appeared as though it was clues and breadcrumbs. It really is a bit of subtle cinematic magic for a gullible audience member like me.

Even the title of the film is deceptive. The film is not about a girl. The film is about women and the varying degrees of illusion and torment they face within a sociopathic patriarchal society. At the end of the film, the main character Rachel states that she is not the girl she used to be.

However, the reality of the matter is that she was never the “girl she used to be,” simply embodying a role constructed by a domineering womanizing psycho.