I’ll be seeing him this weekend at the Cambridge Folk Festival - I’ll pass on your thoughts Doc. ;D
Haha, you do that, Rev. I’ll take on that old coot anytime and anywhere! ;D But seriously he’s a tremendous actor and musician (love his latest album “Closer to the Bone”) and i can understand why Peckinpah chose him for the role. He makes a awesome Billy the Kid but he certainly doesn’t look like someone in his early 20’s. That’s my only beef with his portrayal of the Kid.
I think that it’s great how he manages to combine his acting and musical ambitions for almost the last 40 years. I even loved him in those silly “Blade” movies where he played the role of Whistler. You’re one lucky bastard that you get to meet the man, i would give my right arm to meet him and get an autograph. 
He’s one of the great people of the world.
I’m a fan of him since 1979 I guess and really had a ball
when I got him for my Peckinpah - film 6 years ago.
He invited us to his concert here in Stuttgart a year ago
and it was just great.
He wasn’t Peckinpah’s choice nevertheless, Sam fought
very hard for Bo Hopkins (who’s name wasn’t big enough for MGM).
Peckinpah then met him for the very first time after a little
concert Kris gave in LA. Sam was expected but was given a rather
bad seat in the back of the place. When Kris came over to him
after the show, Sam said ‘You must have quite an impact here…’
But they got along great immediately (similar backgrounds etc.).
Some rare stills from my archive:
Nice stills…thanks for posting.
Beautiful stills, Mike! Thanks very, very much for sharing them.
I met Kristofferson once during an event at the Cowboy Hall of Fame (now known as The National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Though we just spoke briefly, I found him to be a truly friendly and warm human being. I had always enjoyed him as an actor and as a songwriter; but, just our short meeting made me like the guy much more.
Marvellous pictures Mike, many thanks.
Resuscitating this thread because I wanted to vote a 10 for one of my favorite films and one of the most important films in my life.
Someone posted above that they prefer the version that was “prepared in 1988.” Actually, it was prepared by Peckinpah in 1973 so that MGM could preview the film. It’s the First Preview. There is a Second Preview as well, which only a handful of professionals have access to.
Some information in this post was erroneous so I used the Modify function to cut it.
I agree with Mike Siegel in a post below that Sam Peckinpah was a first-rate dramatist. He was damn good at it. So good at it that the most esteemed actors in the business couldn’t wait to work with him. It is precisely his skills as a dramatist that make his films so strong and powerful. Without these skills, the action and violence would amount to nothing and we wouldn’t admire his work today.
Richard
The workprint remained in the condition it was before the DVD was prepared. So the scene between Garrett and his wife wasn’t put in, even if it was part of Peckinpah’s own copy. According to Spottiswoode he told the Turner TV guys back in 88 where they could find the Garrett/wife scene to restore it, but they didn’t cared.
I personally prefer the Seydor cut, but it has indeed some heavy flaws. To take the titles of the theatrical version and not to fulfill the film’s circle structure by returning to thje beginning with the still of Garrett’s death, these are two decisions nobody else then Seydor would have made. And I think he could have kept some further bits from the workprint, especially some of the added violence compared to the theatrical version.
The film is one of the few missed cinematic opportunities when it comes to restauration.
This all represents the crazy life of Sam to a degree nobody really wants.
All three versions are messed up. Maybe that’why it never makes make Top 5 Sam list.
The 2005 version would have been great. But using wrong music, deleting some
of the best dialogue etc. etc. is hard to swallow.
The Turner version would have needed work and would play well. (the release
a workprint is not a wise decision. Like OUATIA, that long Italian version. Just
doesn’t play well).
The 1973 version partly is the best - just put in the missing scenes + some extra work!
But exactly this is what Paul Seydor has done for the 2005 cut. The biggest flaws are the retaining of the 1973 credits and not to close the film with the 1906 time level.
Of course he should have added some more snippets and lines from the work print. but not so much that the pacing is suffering, which it does in the Work print.
And maybe the film is better without the scene between Garrett and his wife (which is too talky), and should have just like the work print version stopped with Garrett pausing at his garden fence.
I thought the Turner print was a vast improvement over the 1973 version.
The Seydor version seems a missed opportunity imo.
Like the Turner print the most.
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:51, topic:356”]I thought the Turner print was a vast improvement over the 1973 version.
The Seydor version seems a missed opportunity imo.[/quote]
Not really imo. The theatrical version has its merits.
Apart from the adding of the brilliant opening montage scene and 2 others of the then lost scenes, it is often inferior to the theatrical cut. And Seydor has done a lot of things right with his cut. But alas not everything.
Unfortunately not.
I compared the versions scene-by-scene.
What did he change compared to the 73 cut? It can’t be much if we don’t count the new scenes.
I’m into a new book right now, can’t really remember, it was 6 years ago…
But I do remember some stuff was messed up in comparison to 1973.
For instance the music after Jason Robards scene.
Little trims here and there (the fall of the second rapist? Emilio Fernandez scene…).
‘‘What you want and what you get are two different things’’ Seydor considered
bad dialogue (or something, I can’t recall his exact words). Quite arrogant, I think.
'always loved that line 
It makes my Top 5 Sam list at number 3, or 4, depending on my mood at the time of making the list.
Nothing wrong about that, it’s still a great film
With Peckinpah it is for me like with Leone, Kubrick and some other of the great ones:
Even the ones that are flawed are still better than most of the so-called masterpieces
of other Directors.
PAT doesn’t make my Top 5 list just because I have a Top 4 list
WILD BUNCH, RIDE HE HIGH COUNTRY, STRAW DOGS, JUNIOR BONNER
are flawless masterpieces.
Then I would name 4 more: PAT (if the curse only would end - one great version
instead of 3 flawed ones) / GETAWAY (Great but not as meaningful as the others) /
CABLE HOGUE (superb, but for serious Sam-fans only I suppose) /
CROSS OF IRON (only minor flaws. I just co-produced the English Blue-Ray for those who care…
110 min. of supplements).
I love GARCIA as well. A shame Warren didn’t get that many leading roles.
DUNDEE has probably the best wardrobe of the 1960s. Impeccable.
KILLER ELITE I like a lot because Caan, Young & Hopkins work as a team. (nice photography too,
great Jazz soundtrack by Fielding, makes the movie in a way).
CONVOY is CONVOY but still better than other 70’s ‘action road movies’.
DEADLY was his ticket into features, OSTERMAN is a good entry in a bad decade. But
he deserved a better swan song. Then again, so did John Ford…
I’m not a Peckinpah fan, but I like Cable Hogue
The Wild Bunch has these brilliant action sequences, otherwise I think Cable Hogue is the richer movie; both movies are elegies about the end of the West, and to me Cable Hogue has the better story.
Cable Hogue and Junior Bonner are more gentle films, and works well in Cable Hogue. But Bonner on the otherhand is not a favourite of mine, not really fond of the subject matter.