Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
in peckinpah-- well at least in the wild bunch-- the characters are more like-- cipers at the service of a great idea. "here's this horrible world, here are the people in it" they're more like, devices to advance a world view. the drama is outside, not so much at a personal level. it's more like, force a collides with force b is detoured on force c, etc. impersonal in a way.
|
Exactly, Peckinpah's characters seem more like chess pieces, which I don't necessarily see as a fault, especially when you bring Kubrick into the debate.
Peckinpah, while in many ways similar to Kubrick, didn't make the mistake that I think Kubrick often did, of choosing films that actually demanded a more human, psychologically complex approach (Eyes Wide Shut, The Shining). Peckinpah chose or adapted projects that worked to his strengths. He evidently wasn't that interested in psychology, whereas Kubrick evidently was. He just wasn't very good at handling it.
Although I'll always say that
Slim Pickens' death in Pat Garrett is one of the most quietly moving, human moments in any Western.
And yet Ford could hint at an entire subplot with
just a look and a sip of coffee. Just watch Ward Bond's face when Wayne takes the coat.
That's what I mean by profound! It probably better defines Ford's genius than any gunfight. We can (rightly) praise Bond as a great actor but it takes a special director to see it, stay on it, and let a simple look tell its own story. And without the overkill of a close up.