Garcia is meanwhile generally considered as one of Peckinpah’s best and most individual films. I personally think it’s aesthetically not always that fascinating as the previous films.
Cross of Iron on the other hand has the complete Peckinpah desire-for-death feeling, which makes them all so unique. It has some pretentious dialogues, and some war film cliches (especially of the German kind of cliches), but is also often playing with these cliches and working against typical cliches (the typically yellow officer is untypically not a Nazi, instead he hates the Nazis as Steiner does. The Nazi in the platoon is typically morally degenerated, but is a efficient part of the group just like the others).
The ending with Steiner and the officer Stranzky is wonderful, but I meant this scene with Steiner and his men returning and being shot at by their own troops (Stop! We’re German Soldiers!), this scene, with blood splashing at the camera, is so over the top, so awfully done that I cannot understand why he didn’t remove the entire sequence. When I saw the film while I was in the army (probably for the second time), the guys watching it started laughing and screaming “ketchup please!”. It would have been much better if he had handled this ‘return’ of-screen. Stranzky sitting in his tent, listening to the machine gun fire, and then, all of a sudden, Steiner appearing in the door opening.
Cross of Iron is of course still a great film, much better than a lot of the WWII crap we got over the last half of the 20th century, but there was a masterpiece in it. The film we have certainly isn’t one.
I agree with you about the aesthetic qualities of Garcia
I also agree with his fans : Good acting, probably Oates best role ever, great churchyard scene, wonderful description of an alcoholic losing the grip on his life … like Crioss it could’ve been a real masterpiece, now it’s only a flawed one; A pity …
But this is for me exactly one of the scenes where Peckinpah’s death desire, the fact that his films are more about dying not so much about killing, is once again brilliantly executed. In another war film it maybe would be wrong to show it, instead of doing it indirect, but for me this is in this film absolutely justified. I think this scene is also one of the strong reasons, why so many people meanwhile count Steiner amongst Peckinpah’s best.
Always interesting how different we can “feel” films .
Cross of Iron is a refreshing change from the lower rating certificate World War 2 films, and there was not really that many X (or 18 certificate) World War 2 films made up to this point. David Warner as a cynical officer is a stand out for me and like his conversations with Mason. Steiner just does his own thing which I always admire in a person. The action scenes are some of his most intense. Looking at things via a German perspectictive I find interesting aswell.
[quote=“Stanton, post:25, topic:1805”]Peckinpah’s debut film The Deadly Companions will get a proper DVD release by … yes, by our friends from Koch Media.
As there are only several cheapo releases out as DVDs, and many of them in fullscreen, this will be (most likely) the reference release.[/quote] Again good news from Koch. I have a very dissapointing UK Release.
I bought a very nice-looking, widescreen, Japanese DVD of this one several years ago (2003, I think it was). But, I am sure the Koch Media disc will be even better!
I hadn’t noticed this thread before; so, I thought I should come over and voice what most folks here already know…
I am a big fan of Sam Peckinpah’s work. From his TV days (THE WESTERNER, THE RIFLEMAN, and so on) to his work in feature films.
My favorites, in slight order of preference, are as follows:
RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY
THE WILD BUNCH
PAT GARRET & BILLY THE KID
BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA
THE GETAWAY
THE BALLAD OF CABLE HOGUE
'thought, one forum more or less won’t make that big a difference
So here I am. Checking out this great website for the first time…
And my first post is in this thread. A must I’d say
As for CONVOY, a lot of people saw it at my age when it came out in 1978.
For a boy 10-13 years old, it was movie heaven. Next to SORCERER the best
Action-movie of that year maybe (although SORCERER of course is the much
better film, written by WILD BUNCH screenwriter Walon Green by the way).
But the bigger part of the CONVOY cult is the TRUCKS. I’d say CONVOY is same
what EASY RIDER is for bikers.
[quote=“mike siegel, post:31, topic:1805”]'thought, one forum more or less won’t make that big a difference
So here I am. Checking out this great website for the first time…[/quote]
[quote=“mike siegel, post:31, topic:1805”]But the bigger part of the CONVOY cult is the TRUCKS. I’d say CONVOY is same
what EASY RIDER is for bikers.[/quote]
Excellent point!
And I will agree that for the time it was made, and a certain type of audience, CONVOY was hard to beat.
Still not a favorite of mine, though I enjoy it.
If one names it as a Peckinpah - ‘favorite’, SOMETHING would be wrong
But it’s not that bad. It has it’s bad reputation thanks to the Peckinpah-family (meaning
all who loved and worked with him) being irritated and clueless why he made it in the first place
the awful shooting experience. But it is his most successful film (box office)
As for me, I was one of those 11 year old kids… It was my first ‘rated 16’ film and I loved it
of course. I have a 35mm prin t and it still looks so good on the big screen. Also I love
the desert and I’m a motorhead. DONOVANS REEF didn’t hurt Ford and RIO LOBO surely
isn’t worse than CONVOY
Haven’t seen CONVOY since i was a teen myself, but i remember liking it quite a bit for what it is. But what the hell do i know, i love OSTERMAN WEEKEND too. ;D
Compared not to the other Peckinpah films, but compared to other 80s thrillers TOW is a good film. One which has it’s share of faults, but also one which still has some great scenes.
The stuff itself is great (or could had become great), and is in the screenplay used in a much more intelligent way than in the simple book. There was the possibility to make a real great film, but unfortunately the circumstances of the film’s production and Peckinpah’s still bad shape averted a better movie.
