| |
Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid

BY TOM BLOCK
Out
here there is nothing. A landscape that will soon enough be dotted
with Stuckey’s restaurants, ski resorts and neo-hippie art
klatches is still a vast and arid tract of land, fit breeding ground
for outsized mythologies to be born and passed down a hundred years
or more. The wind whips across a rough circular track winding through
the mesas and yuccas and the goddamn gypsum seas, and from high
above we can see two men moving along it on horseback. As one moves,
so moves the other, their paths carrying them through a cluster
of crumbling adobe towns with names like White Pines, Tularosa,
Three Rivers, Old Fort Sumner. They
cover their crescent-shaped routes at an even pace, and the care
they take to swing roundabout
each other suggests they have their reasons for maintaining their
polarized positions, like the opposite ends of a compass needle
or the full stops in a pendulum’s arc. Only when one of them
refuses to move any farther will the other be able to close in,
and the two will breathe life into the irony that sustains their
legends to this day: one will have to die but live forevermore;
the other will survive but only as a living ghost.
More than one
critic has noted the self-lacerating quality of Sam Peckinpah’s
work — it was Pauline Kael who said that
his films make you feel he’s tearing himself apart on the
screen — and the strongest evidence of this tendency might
be found in his cinematic dirge Pat Garrett & Billy the
Kid.
The very title suggests a brace of opposing forces, an either/or
that needs sorting out, but it’s a riddle that Peckinpah,
even had he been sober and left to his own devices, had no intention
of solving because he knew it couldn’t be done.
| As problematic Westerns go, it makes
The Searchers look like a cakewalk. |
 |
 |
 |
Despite a
highly talkative (and rustically profane) script by Rudolph Wurlitzer,
it’s a nearly plotless movie that — at its best — communicates
its points indirectly, in shadowy bits of irony that constantly
redouble on each other. It’s a film almost baroque in its
unevenness, with the warring blood between Peckinpah and Wurlitzer,
his producers and himself leading to sundry lapses of judgment
and care: a main character who’s more Rorschach test than
flesh and blood; a woozy, anxious turn by an untrained leading
actor; pages of overripe dialogue; downright toxic performances
from a cadre of supporting players; and a Bob Dylan score that
often works against the grain of what’s happening up on the
screen. To cap it all off Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid was
never authoritatively “finished,” with the optimal
available version — the so-called “director’s
cut” — still
falling miserably short of a fine cut and missing a key scene to
boot. As problematic Westerns go, it makes The Searchers look
like a cakewalk.
Yet
you can see what Peckinpah was driving at, and his superb sense
for staging and
composition is stamped all over the picture. The
bad performances are ballasted by some deft handiwork from Slim
Pickens, L.Q. Jones, Chill Wills, and Richard Bright, and in the
role of Pat Garrett, James Coburn shook off the grinning, jiving
conman’s persona that he paid the bills with for 40 years
and showed what a man can do when he feels a personal stake in
a project. The movie’s heart is threaded with oppositions
that are primal in the American consciousness — roads taken
and not taken, youth and aging, fulfillment and regret, a West
caught on the cusp between a lawless frontier and a domesticated
hellhole — each of them accented with all the tenderness
and bitter rue that Peckinpah could manage. In reputation Pat
Garrett & Billy
the Kid has been relegated to the backwaters of Sam Peckinpah’s
Westerns films, but even more than the legendary Major Dundee it
could’ve — should’ve — been his third or
fourth masterpiece (that depends on who’s doing the counting),
and the movie he’d been building towards his entire career.
Rudolph
Wurlitzer built his screenplay around the happily elastic fact
that Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid knew each other in some
capacity before Garrett became a lawman,* but
it would take a major assist from Peckinpah for a story whose foregone
conclusion is
its very point to take on dramatic shape, and thus solve a problem
that’s led so many directors of Christ-figure epics around
by the nose. The Stations of the Cross here are splayed out across
a lunar New Mexican landscape, and consist of vignettes, most of
them formed as parables or mood-poems, that often end in an act
of violence that redirects the principals in some way, with each
reorientation bringing the two men that much closer to their final
meeting. If not for its bloodletting the movie might play more
like opera bouffe than existential drama: Garrett spends
his time resolutely avoiding Billy’s hideout, choosing instead
to share a few words with seemingly every man, woman and child
in
Lincoln County before he’s finally moved to finish the job.
In Pat Garrett’s world character is often revealed
through inaction, leading to a movie about, in producer Gordon
Carroll’s
unbeatable description, “a man who doesn’t want to
run … being pursued by a man who doesn’t want to catch
him.”
Wurlitzer had sold the screenplay on the strength
of his script for Two-Lane Blacktop, another existential
scarecrow, but while
his new Western was much admired, its two main characters didn’t
come together until the climax. Recognizing that a more clearly
defined conflict was needed, Peckinpah added the scene at the beginning
in which Garrett visits the Kid at Fort Sumner and gives him five
days to leave the territory. It’s a beautifully modulated
exchange, rife with the undercurrents of a nettled friendship,
as Garrett — mindful of the ear-shot proximity of Billy’s
gang — tersely delivers his message to Billy, who, tenderly,
and at times almost pathetically, tosses up reminders of their
shared past. Peckinpah also added the movie’s most inspired
stroke, the stark black-and-white prologue set some 30 years in
the future that shows Garrett being bushwhacked for reasons rooted
in his dealings with the Kid. The sequence, completed in the editing
room, is a marvel of implication, as first Billy and his gang,
and then Garrett himself, are seen in 1881 firing a fusillade of
bullets into the Garrett of 1909, bringing home how tightly woven
the deterministic web is that binds the two men. The sequence’s
visceral power comes from the interplay between the gang’s
unwittingly callous by-play — “Damn near perfect” one
of them opines as a slug tears out yet another chunk of the old
man’s body — with the off-kilter angles and oddly-timed
freeze-frames depriving Garrett of any of the majesty that graced
Joel McCrea in his descent to the bottom of the frame in Ride
the High Country. This brutal opening, one of Peckinpah’s finest
set pieces outside of The Wild Bunch, puts its audience on instant
notice that nothing pretty is coming its way.
| The equation of memory
and identity had been a dominant theme in Peckinpah’s pictures
as far back as Ride the High Country, but it became a common leitmotif
in the films
of the early 1970s. |
 |
 |
 |
The critic Jon Tuska
isn’t worth a nickel as a thinker or
a writer, but at least he was on hand to report actor Dub Taylor’s
comments during the making of Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid: “After
Sam gets through nobody will ever make a pitchur about Billy the
Kid. This is it! They’ll never touch Billy again.” It’s
not hard to see why Taylor thought so. The hardcases in motley
taking target practice with one boot heel hitched on a watering
trough, the barnyard bon mots, the veteran troupers’ weathered
faces, the authentic feeling of outdoors life — all these
things give Pat Garrett its own dusty, sun-struck flavor.
Moreover, Peckinpah pulled off the uncanny trick of getting onto
the screen
something like the exact atmosphere emanating from the Kid’s
history, so that even when the details are wrong (and they usually
are), the emotional tone of the events being rendered is pitch-perfect — definitive.
The sepia-tinted views of R.G. Armstrong’s sadistic deputy
cradling a shotgun in his arms, the wincing POV shots of Garrett’s
posse pouring rifle-fire directly into our faces, Garrett’s
chiaroscuro nighttime prowl through Fort Sumner just before the
final showdown — these imaginative flourishes give the movie
an invisible grounding in reported fact that few historical dramas
even think to achieve.
The equation of memory and identity had been
a dominant theme in Peckinpah’s pictures as far back as Ride
the High Country, but it became a common leitmotif in the films
of the early 1970s. Picture after picture from that period ends
in an emotional trauma that fragments their protagonists, leaving
them estranged from themselves or their values in a fate that’s
like a living death. These psychic shocks, bruising to characters
and audiences alike, can be seen in — at least — Chinatown,
The Godfather Part II, Night Moves, The Man Who
Fell to Earth, Blow Out, The Conversation, Badlands,
Thieves Like Us, Days of Heaven, and McCabe &
Mrs. Miller. In some of these films the characters respond to
the guilt or violence that scars them by distancing themselves from
their experiences, taking refuge in a self-inflicted amnesia that
severs them from their personal history in a pointed miniaturization
of Americans’ broad historical indifference. Yet others, far
from fleeing the past, instead become hypnotized by it, replaying
the course of their lives on an endless loop until their communion
with the dead overwhelms their living present. As it turns out the
body of Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid is only a shutter-quick
memory of events relived in the time it takes a dying man to hit
the ground: at the moment of his assassination, Garrett’s
mind rewinds 27 years until he’s faced with his own culpability
in his own murder. It’s the climax of a long process linking
him to such other great backwards-looking brooders as Jake Gittes
and Michael Corleone, and — before them — to Charles
Foster Kane, Scottie Ferguson and Pike Bishop.
But even for Peckinpah,
even for the times, memory is an unusually insistent and forlorn
quality in Pat Garrett, with its central
relationship hinging on the remembrances of some suspiciously undelineated “good
times.” Its characters express themselves through a panoply
of yarns about loco horses, whores cheated out of their wages,
and cold-blooded killings — so many yarns, in fact, that
half the movie seems to take place in some out-of-sight universe.
The prelude to a duel is timed to Billy’s oral recollection
of an earlier gunfight, with the present-day participants taking
their cues from the older engagement as Billy recounts each step
of its development, and only when the ghosts have drawn their guns
in the past do the living open fire in the flesh. Before the movie
is over we ourselves become equipped as storytellers, as Billy’s
murder of a deputy — an event we witness early in the film — is
mentioned much later on in the same long-ago tones as all the other
stories we’ve been made privy to.
| Of the two title characters,
Garrett is the one we’re truly with in the movie. All we
can really do with Billy is watch him. |
 |
 |
 |
Pat Garrett & Billy
the Kid’s biggest liability is the
black hole at its center, with the idea of Billy the Kid so torn
between Wurlitzer’s, Peckinpah’s and Kris Kristofferson’s
conceptions of him that he resembles a hologram baseball card whose
image changes at every different angle. Billy’s good looks
and refusal to buckle under may be the trademarks of a hero, but
Kristofferson is most expressive in displaying the Kid’s
satisfaction with his own facility for violence, a fact that invalidates
Billy’s standing as a romantic rebel. The only value Billy
clearly believes in is his own mythic stature, but his trump card — that
he hasn’t sold out — isn’t so impressive once
one notices how he spends his freedom: blowing the heads off buried
chickens (as homely a metaphor for masturbation as the mind can
muster), boozing, whoring and showboating over his victims’
bodies. Never once does he press for social change or make any
demands — it’s even left to Garrett to mention the
$500 that the cattleman John Chisum owes the Kid. In any other
movie the murder of Paco, the sheepherder who falls prey to Chisum’s
gunmen on the road to Mexico, would serve to forge a social conscience
for the hero, but Billy can only go through the motions. “That
ties it,” he says over Paco’s shredded body, in the
movie’s most wretchedly staged scene. Seemingly galvanized,
he mounts his horse and returns to Fort Sumner, only to show upon
his arrival there that he has no intention of avenging his friend.
His followers beg him for direction — “Just give us
the word” — but the best he can do is sit in a beautifully
photographed dust-storm, swilling whiskey and waiting for Garrett
to come kill him. Of the two title characters, Garrett is the one
we’re truly with in the movie. All we can really do with
Billy is watch him.
With its famous rock stars
and all its talk of “selling out,” Pat
Garrett reads like a political comment on the times it was
made in, and it’s an appealing idea if only because we want
to understand why Bob Dylan, of all people, is standing there reading
the labels off a shelf of canned beans. Yet if a hundred-year old
battle between a Rebel and The Man touches a contemporary nerve
in us,
that’s because the war between the individual and society
is the great theme of our republic — it’s always been
there. (And for as long as they’ve existed, both Westerns
and rock songs have proven tailor-made forums for exploring the
conflict.) Yet only in their roughest outlines do the movie’s
events hold up as a parallel for the contest between the Establishment
and the counterculture of the ’60s and ’70s. (For one
thing, with their proud nonconformity, infatuation with recasting
the past in words and almost religiously purposeless lifestyles,
Billy’s gang acts more like Beats than hippies.) As a man
who publicly damned the Vietnam War and blessed its protestors,
and who one film later (in Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia)
would explicitly identify Richard Nixon with a band of killers-for-profit,
Peckinpah was as counterculture as they come. The thinker if not
the loyalist in him should have recognized that the Old West’s
gunmen and the longhairs of the ’60s had about as much in
common as rye whiskey and windowpane acid, and resisted the temptation
to analogize peaceniks with a band of shiftless, murderous drunks.
The equation lends the movie undeniable emotional coloring, but
only at the expense of emotional truth. If mere opposition to social
norms can sustain such metaphorical bridges, then the extermination
of the Dillinger gang should help us to understand the Sex Pistols,
and the late ’20s diaspora of great Modernist writers should
illuminate the mind of Tim McVeigh.
The clash between the film’s
poetic and political slants reaches its highest pitch in Dylan’s “Alias.” Everything
about the character — his mysterious origins, his calibrated
remove from the action, and above all our knowledge of who it is
that’s playing him — distinguishes him from Billy’s
shabbier acquaintances. An integral part of the outlaw myth is
the journalist or dime-novelist whose reports to the outer world
serve to elevate the gunman to legendary status, and Dylan’s
real-life reputation as a troubadour would make him an apt choice
to play the molder of Billy the Kid’s image. Alias first
appears in a newspaper typesetter’s apron that he pointedly
casts off to get closer to the action, but instead of morphing
into a chronicler of Billy’s adventures, Alias is next seen
participating in them as he dispatches a bounty-hunter with an
expertly-thrown knife. It’s the last significant thing he
does in the movie, with half of its running-time still to come.
Did Peckinpah mean to subvert the journalistic role in the process
of mythmaking? If so, why then does Alias revert not just to killer,
but then to groupie and finally to irrelevant bystander?
What does
come through is the era’s extreme paranoia of
being co-opted. After more than 30 years it’s hard to remember
the absolute contempt people felt for the powers that gave us Vietnam,
Chicago and Attica, or how unforgiving the resulting codes of
conduct were. Some sense of the time’s polarities can be
gained by listening to “Lather,” “Almost Cut
My Hair,” or “The Last Time I Saw Richard,” by
watching Zabriskie Point, Easy Rider or any of another
hundred movies, or by glancing at the underground comics of the
day. It
was unthinkable then that someday the ad-men would plunder the
musicians’ catalogues for soundtracks to their commercials
(with Dylan himself shilling for Victoria’s Secret), or that
members of the SLA would reappear as dowdy and graying ex-rebels
pleading for their middle-class lives. Too much money and too many
years have eroded our memory of the bitterness of the times, and
its concomitant fear that any compromise with the straight world
would make one complicit in its worst actions. It makes perfect
sense that Sam Peckinpah would get caught in this web. Integrity
had been his central theme for more than a decade, and now he was
surrounded by an ethos in which trimming one’s hair might
create tribal agonies, with all the producers who’d ever
fucked him over providing living examples of what it means to lose
your soul. (While Billy maintains his shaggy do, Garrett gets a
haircut as soon as he pins his badge on.) If the counterculture
offers only a half-assed backdrop to Billy’s situation, it
provides a perfect one to Garrett’s — that is to say,
to Peckinpah’s. His previous movie had been The Getaway,
the shallow, stylish shoot-’em-up he’d made to prove
that he could bring in a box-office hit. He’d accomplished
his mission, but it was around this time that he began calling
himself a “whore who goes where he’s kicked” — an
eye-opening admission coming from the man who’d once breathed
life into Steven Judd.
| Peckinpah isn’t usually thought
of as a Catholic director, but taken together this babel of voices
sounds
like the litany of recriminations a self-loathing drunk might serve
to himself for breakfast. |
 |
 |
 |
In November 1870, the marshal of Abilene,
Kansas, got involved in a fracas while attempting to arrest a murderer
outside of town.
The marshal’s deputy, one James H. McDonald, fled the field
when things went awry, abandoning his boss to be shot and then
nearly decapitated with an axe. Safely back in Abilene, McDonald
made his way to a saloon where, according to onlooker Charles F.
Gross, “leaning against the bar, with a drink of whiskey
in his hand, he blubbered out his yarn. There being nobody to dispute
him, his story had to go. But I can still recall the looks that
passed between men who had been raised from birth to eat six-shooters.
It was so rank that no one could say a word.” A little of
Mr. Gross’ tongue-biting would’ve served Pat Garrett well.
The movie’s rank blubbering reaches one kind of nadir
when Charles Martin Smith — looking less like a man raised
to eat six-shooters than American Graffiti’s “Terry
the Toad” stuffed inside a cowboy hat — desecrates
The Wild Bunch by echoing one of its most hallowed lines.
More seriously, the film deadens our response to it through sheer
repetition
of a sentiment that’s already over-explicit the first time
we hear it. With only a couple of noble exceptions, the film’s
distinguished co-stars exist to berate Garrett, again and again,
for selling out, for “getting fat,” for betraying the
man who’s alternately described as his friend, brother and
son. One can’t help but be thankful for those times when
the theme is sounded covertly, as in the rhyming shots of Garrett
opening the gates of two white picket fences — the first
leading to his own home, the second to the house in which he’ll
kill the Kid — and hesitating with a nearly metaphysical
disdain before each portal like a condemned man about to step onto
the gallows.
Peckinpah isn’t usually thought
of as a Catholic director, but taken together this babel of voices
sounds like the litany
of recriminations a self-loathing drunk might serve to himself
for breakfast. Despite his abhorrence of moneymen and selling out,
despite the nominal fealty he paid to outlaws and rebels in his
interviews, by 1973 Peckinpah’s emotional pulse was clearly
keeping time with the older, compromised Garrett’s. The whole
film has a suicide’s reek, and the sight of Garrett shooting
a bullet across time into his own body, or blasting his mirror
image with a handgun, only adds to the feeling that the director
is punishing his own flesh for sacrificing some younger, better
side of himself. In Alfredo Garcia Warren Oates would play
a surrogate for Peckinpah (and stealing a trick from Ward Bond
in John Ford’s
The Wings of Eagles he’d borrow his director’s
sunglasses to accomplish the task), but in Pat Garrett Peckinpah
inserts himself directly into the action. Just as Garrett is moving
in for the
kill, he appears as an undertaker who takes a break from building
a child’s coffin to yell at the lawman, “When are you
going to learn you can’t trust anybody, not even yourself?” — a
line less convincing as dialogue than as something spoken between
two corners of the director’s mind. Beginning with Ride
the High Country, Peckinpah’s filmography grew into
a widening study of disillusionment, with each betrayal and letdown
given
an increasingly personal spin, until “selling out” was
the only theme he had left.
The
fundamental fact about Garrett’s
existence — that
he holds himself in withering contempt for the choices he’s
made — seems to be staring us in the face the entire time
although it’s never once articulated. That’s all Jim
Coburn’s doing. His giraffe’s-length legs and angular
horse’s face made him a happy physical match for the real
sheriff, but he made the part his by shedding grades of regret
through flickering adjustments of his carriage and eyes, as if
he were trying to not disturb some dreaded inner space. As Garrett,
Coburn showed a depth found nowhere else in his career, and his
sarcastic rattlesnake’s drawl of a voice was never put to
better use. Listen to its sardonic musicality when Garrett warns
Alias that a bullet is “likely to tickle your private
parts,” or
how tidily he packs all the implications of a bad situation into
the line “He escaped from my jail.” The Best Supporting
Actor Oscar that he won not long before he died carried the strong
odor of a good-guy appreciation award, mainly because the monstrous
patriarch he played in Paul Schrader’s Affliction didn’t
call for much of a range. Coburn’s chastened, lethal Pat
Garrett is the best proof there is that there was more to
the man than a smart-ass mixture of flint and vermouth.
If the kinesthetic
violence in The Wild Bunch sparks an ambivalent exhilaration
in its viewers, the blunt and muted killings in Pat
Garrett & Billy the Kid only hit varying notes of sorrow.
More than all the talk about shared pasts and camaraderie, Peckinpah
conveys the poignancy of his old-timers’ deaths through a
string of forlorn details: the shaving cream smeared across Black
Harris’ face as he utters his alien dying words “Paris,
France”; Holly’s antagonized tugging at a couple of
stray hairs on his head just before Garrett guns him down; Silva’s
longing glances towards the creekbed where the friends who might
save him are resting. The movie’s wounded, wound-down quality
doesn’t allow for the thrills we felt after The Wild Bunch’s
train robbery when Pike Bishop cried out to his gang “Let’s
go!” Jerry Fielding’s music kicked in, and we knew,
by God, that this was some kind of movie we were watching. Fatigue
lies heavy over Pat Garrett, with even an unsettled Nature
looking depleted: the frame is held low on the rocky horizon, and
what
little sky we can see has a lowering depressant buzz. In these
conditions the movie’s characters reflexively turn to violence,
as when Garrett and a passing raftsman turn their rifles on each
other simply because that’s the lingua franca of their
lives. The movie’s emotional center of gravity resides in
the eyes of Slim Pickens’ mortally wounded sheriff, widening
in fear at their first glimpse of the abyss.
If Pat Garrett & Billy
the Kid stands out among Peckinpah’s
Westerns for its bleak melancholy, its closest cousin remains John
Ford’s The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, a film with
which it shares so many concerns, attitudes and plot particulars
that
the two might’ve sprung from the same mind. Yet at the end
of Liberty Valance Vera Miles watches the countryside rolling
past her train window and murmurs, “It was once a wilderness.
Now it’s a garden,” acknowledging that for all of its
tradeoffs Ford’s West would at least wind up with its high
schools and church bells, its irrigation bills and blossoming cactus
roses. At the end of Pat Garrett our vision of what society
will become — what all that blood was spilled over — is
limited to another squalid dispute over another parcel of barren
land.
Peckinpah’s earlier Westerns had always left us with something,
but by 1973 something had happened to his vision of the West, and
perhaps of human nature itself. Well … why shouldn’t he
have been filled with despair? What is a rational response
to raped landscapes, institutionalized corruption and ceaseless
power-grabs?
One doesn’t have to be a cynic to think his reaction a reasonable
one, not for any thinking, caring man, yet that’s not a response
we look for in our movies. Even had Pat Garrett been an
artistic success, it still wouldn’t have captured the popular
imagination simply because its pessimism is so thorough and unalloyed — like
Sheriff Pat Garrett in his black frock coat, it remains separated
from ordinary life by its own funereal mien. Out here there is
nothing.


back to top
|