MovieChat Forums > Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid (1973) Discussion > New 2005 Cut Not So Special

New 2005 Cut Not So Special

posted 19 years ago by modernknife
39 replies | jump to latest

Warner Bros./MGM have done the right thing by releasing 2 versions of Sam Peckinpah's "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid". Because after a single viewing of the "new" 2005 Special Edition, I'm certain that I will not be revisiting that version of the film ever again, regardless of the picture and sound upgrades.

When I first saw PG&BTK on cable television in 1990, it was the 1988 Turner Preview Version. It was shown uncut and letterboxed -- and for a Peckinpah fan it was a revelation.

Simply put, it's all about the opening credits and framing device. Two things (among others) removed and reworked in the new 2005 Special Edition, which quite frankly, isn't so special.

Peckinpah's assistant Katy Haber is interviewed as saying Sam was trying for a more poetic/lyrical feel to the pace of the film. Several scenes in the finished film reflect this, but none as well as the slow reveal of the opening credits. When I think of pure Peckinpah, I think about the freeze-frame title cards from the 1988 Turner Preview Version (which should be said, was Sam's first "Director's Cut" of the film he turned into MGM -- he never really had the chance to fine tune it to his original specifications -- and whoever whispered into his ear to change the opening credits was no friend to Peckinpah.) His first cut of the scene was brilliant and adds a deep layer to the narrative. Plus it's just so radical to see Billy shooting Pat from another time period. The editing is mesmerizing.

I'm sorry, but no "credit sequence set to montage stills" can ever have the beauty of the freeze-frame of Pat Garrett shot on the ground as the title of the film appears on screen. The following title cards are all masterfully chosen to act as pauses as various members of Billy's gang are introduced. The film needs these pauses and breaks. It's a clear signal to the audience that this film will be different and is in no hurry.

Watching the recut scene in the 2005 version I was shocked and appalled. Jamming through the lines, characters and information at a lightening pace did nothing to help the film. Plus, trying to combine the opening cross-cutting of Pat Garrett's death and Billy shooting chickens is mishandled by not setting it up and letting it play out as originally intended. We don't even get the proper "date card" informing us to the "flashback time period" until after the Billy shooting sequence has ended. Plus, it's not cut as well as seen in the Preview Version.

It doesn't even feel like Peckinpah.

To be fair, on the commentary for the 2005 version, the "experts" were quoted as saying that this version was "...an attempt to combine the Preview and Theatrical versions..." Notice and remember the word "attempt". Cause they are right. And it sure is a pretty poor one.

And come on, when Pat says to Billy "And in three days, I'm making ya" and then we hear the strums of Dylan's guitar as a freeze-frame still puts up the credit "Directed by Sam Peckinpah" -- it's one of those great Peckinpah credit moments that still gives me chills. One to rival his title card for "The Wild Bunch" when it appeared after the line "If they move, kill 'em".

The still frames and title cards are as much a part of Peckinpah's editing artistry as any of the slow motion in his work.

Plus, lines of dialogue are cut. Billy's joke to Pat is butchered when Billy's final line is removed from the picture. This "dick" joke was always one of the more clever ways to say to a friend "mine is bigger than yours". But it is lost in the 2005 version. And later in the film, when Billy shoots Bell, in the Preview Cut, he shoots Bell a SECOND time, then says his line "Keep the Change". In the new 2005 cut, he shoots Bell ONCE, then says the line. Without the pause and action of the second shot, the line now comes off as a cheesy one-liner. In the Preview Cut, the line makes sense. Billy is giving Bell the rest of the change from the gun.

Is cutting the second shot of Bell part of a new "PC Peckinpah" I am unaware of?

Now sure, the new 2005 cut has a new bonus scene with Pat and his wife that adds some nice character shadings. Plus it's now layered more with the Bob Dylan soundtrack -- which does work well, but on a first viewing, now seems a bit overused. The words to "Knocking On Heaven's Door" are now heard over Slim Pickins' death scene (only an instrumental version plays on the Preview Version) and it works pretty well, but it also risks being very "on the nose", where the original version wasn't so obvious. I'm sure fans of the song will be happy to see what it was originally written for.

I guess you could argue for a "4th" cut of the film that better integrates the material from the Preview Cut and the 2005 "remix" version. But until then, stick with the 1988 Preview Cut. It's the film I fell for.

[–] rghunt57 19 years ago

I was skeptical when I heard that the DVD release would have yet another version of the film (the 4th in my collection - and I'm willing to bet there's a 5th rotting away in some Hollywood garage...) and if they had asked me, I would have suggested including the original theatrical release with deleted scenes and tv-versions included as special features. I'm a lot happier with the new version than "modernknife" is, though I admit that the credits of the Turner version are better..
(Which raises a question. According to some reports the Turner version was based on Peckinpah's own, privately hoarded cut of the film - but would that print have even had credits?)

[–] smith93 19 years ago

but would that print have even had credits?)

Yes, it's the roughcut he prepared for the studio as part of the editing process. It was meant to be *a* complete version of the film, but not *the* complete version.

[–] Andyh74 19 years ago

First off, as Paul Seydor on the commentary on both versions points out, the term "director's cut" is a misnomer. The "director's cut" is a cut of the film that the director must provide to the studio 10 weeks after principal photography has been completed. The "director's cut" is NOT the "fine cut," which is the cut of the film which is REALLY the "director's cut," the finished film that the director wants released as his or her vision.

Having said that, it's my opinion that BOTH versions miss the mark. Both versions have editing and scenes that the other should have. Combining both films and then doing some editing would have made, IMHO, the film that should have been the newest version.

I justify this by quoting actor L.Q. Jones from the documentary "Sam Peckinpah: Man of Iron." Jones said:

"Sam was the type of person that if he shot 20 hours of film, he wanted to keep 20 hours of film. Eventually, as a good editor--excuse me, as a good director--he knew that the film had to be cut eventually."

I include this because it shows that Peckinpah would HAVE LIKED to include as much film as possible, but knew he had to edit it. Now let's look at the film.

The prologue of Garrett's murder in 1909 should be kept, BUT should not have ended the film--it's redundant by the end. The ending of the 2005 version is better, by having Garrett almost disappear in the winds.

There are lines in the new version, like at the beginning where Silva mentions something about Garrett and Billy "being too good to drink with us" or something, that should be part of the 1988 preview version.

The preview version, however, omits the crucial scene of Ida Garrett, plus the interrogation of Ruthie Lee. The former makes the scenes of Garrett with the prostitutes that much more important, while the latter MUST be included because Garrett wants Rupert to send up Ruthie Lee. The interrogation answers WHY Garrett wanted Ruthie Lee sent up.

I can understand how the credits on the '88 version are effective, but those credits are similar to "The Wild Bunch" in style. Peckinpah's directing style was totally different here than that of "Bunch," and so I think he wanted the beginning of the 2005 version.

One thing, though, is that I have no real idea of Peckinpah's true intentions. I don't think any of us do. Part of the problem, which is noted in the commentary, is that Peckinpah never had adequate time to truly edit the film in the way that he wanted it edited.

The commentators approach each film from an editor's perspective, and if you listen to them, a lot of what they say is very persuasive. However, I agree that even the 2005 version seems a bit unfinished. The editing of the Bob Ollinger scene in the preview is better than the 2005 version, but the placement of the famous "raft scene" is in a better spot in the new version. Also, Peckinpah's own scene as Will near the end is better edited in the 2005 version, but the line "When are you gonna learn you can't trust anybody, not even yourself, Garrett?" must be kept (as it is in the '88 version) because it's where Peckinpah is speaking to his "alter ego" onscreen.

So to me, I think if they combined the two versions and did some proper editing, then a TRUE film would emerge that I think would satisfy us.

Andyh74

[–] Dr_J 19 years ago

...and when it comes out, we'll all be lining up to buy it!

Yeah, these DVD marketing people are sharp.

[–] smith93 19 years ago

So to me, I think if they combined the two versions and did some proper editing, then a TRUE film would emerge that I think would satisfy us.

There's no precident for that though. They didn't want to do something that didn't have a precident for it set by Sam and his team. That's why, for example, they kept the scene where Pacco (sp?) dies, even though everybody thinks it's awful. It was in both the theatrical cut and the preview cut, and Sam never expressed plans to remove it, so they didn't want to take it out of the movie when they were trying to fulfill what they understood to be *Peckinpah's* intentions as far as possible..

[–] mike71622000 19 years ago

I watched the 2005 edition this weekend, and I have to say I was dissapointed as well. Some of the cut dialogue was unforgivable as already noted, with Peckinpah's own scene being trimmed particularly egregious. I found the Turner version remained the more lyrical version of the two, and the problems inherent in that cut were not fixed by the seemingly arbitrary trims. It was shorter, but it still didn't move any faster. The Turner opening sequence compelled me upon my first viewing like Sam's other freeze frame titles, and some of that magic was lost in this new version, simply for the sake of brevity. I think if Sam had a chance to "fine tune" his first cut, as the commentators noted, he wouldn't have removed as much as the present day editors did. Oh well, it's nice to have the Turner cut on disc, even at lesser quality.

[–] teejay6682 19 years ago

i have the dvd now and i just watched the 05 version and there were things about it i like and are interesting i like the newly added scenes but i think i wanna agree that the 80s version is better though i havne't seen that version in a while. is another different version(the original theatrical one perhaps) the one they've been showing the western channel over the last few years cause i don't remember seeing the funny scene with coburn and the prostitutes in that version. i orginally saw the film on an old tape that is the turner version. i guess i'm glad the studio hackjob isn't available at all anymore. i'm of the opinion that i prefer the slim pickins death scene without the dylan lyrics cause that's a little too obvious and too much to me. i like kris interview on the 2nd dvd very much.

i skimmed threw the turner version after watching the new 05 cut and i've read on this thread the people on here who prefer the turner cut are complaing that it wasn't remastered like the new cut is. it really doesn't look that bad if that's the version you want to stick with. it's always looks pretty good to me even on the old tapes i've seen of it threw the years.

i think i wish they'd just add the things i likeed about the new cut to the old one and remaster it and i'd be happy.

[–] teejay6682 19 years ago

i'd like to add a few things i've looked at the old cut and parts of the new cut again. i think they're are some things new cut that work better for instance i think cutting from the opening bar scene when billy says "he's my friend" works better cause the rest of that scene goes nowhere really plus i think both opening credits are beautiful in their own way.

the prostitute scene is the new cut is flat out better with the interrigation of the one whore that billy knew scene added cause in the old cut it just cuts from him on the stairs to him fooling around with the girls. it just seems out of nowwhere and added on in the old cut.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lister-3 19 years ago

I agree about liking the opening credits in the 1988 Turner Preview version better than the new 2005 version.

However, to me the 2005 is the better version overall; it feels more "finished," with tighter editing, less lingering and hammering in on certain details, etc.

[–] editorez 19 years ago

I have seen and at one time owned four different versions of "Pat Garrett". I've seen two on a big screen: the theatrical version when it first opened and the Turner version, which had a limited run in New York in 1988, I think. I've seen the television version and now the newly edited 2005 version. Of all of them, the best is the latest, if one is new to the film. If one has seen the film many times, as I have, and most posters in this thread apparently have, all versions have something to offer. I remember someone - probably Paul Seydor - saying that the best way to get an idea of what Peckinpah originally had in mind was to watch the theatrical release - which was long in gore and short in character motivation and development - and the television version, which left out the gore and consequently had to restore a lot of the motivation, and run them together in one mind's afterwards. The theatrical version was a lot faster, but consisted of virtually nothing but shootouts one after another. The TV version was far slower and repetitive - if one character had to go from one end of the room to the other he or she walked every single step of the way very deliberately. Peckinpah and his editors would certainly have trimmed a lot of unnecessary fat. But both the scene with Ida Garrett (Aurora Clavel who was in all of Peckinpah's great westerns) and a scene with Chisum were restored. No one has mentioned the Chisum scene in this thread, but it was important since it established that Garrett had borrowed money from Chisum to buy the land over which he gets killed so many years later. The relationship between Billy and the Rita Coolidge character was also far better developed. The evolution of their courtship could be seen, unlike the theatrical version, where there was no indication that she wasn't just another prostitute like most of the women Billy and his gang associated with.

I could do without the scene with the four prostitutes and Poe averting his eyes, particularly after the scene where Garrett gets the information he needs from Ruthie Lee. And much as I like everything Elisha Cook has done, I could do without his scene as well.

I had both the theatrical version and the TV version on tape - I don't anymore. I wish I still had them in addition to the new DVD and could run them all and mix them together in my mind. Less is normally better, but when you grow to like certain characters you can't have enough of them. Who would turn down the opportunity to watch the three, four hour rough cut version of the Wild Bunch? Not I - though perhaps one vision would be enough.

[–] wadetaylor 19 years ago

I saw this movie for the first time today, I watched both versions. I agree that the 1988 Turner version is the better. It does seem more like Peckinpah. If there was a cut that was the 1988 version, with the Knocking on Heaven's Door with the Lyrics, and the ending from the new version. I really think if I could see it that way, it would be on my list of best westerns I've ever seen.

[–] MermaidJuice 18 years ago

I just watched both The Preview Version and 2005 Special edition and must say I thought the Special edition was superior.

The film just felt more poetic. What I mean is, less is more. The most glaring example of this is when Pat shoots Billy. In the new version we get the "NNOOO" and Pat quietly sits down to think about what he's just done. However, in the Preview Version we get "I did it... I shot Billy the kid" voice over. Then an atrocious line "WHAT YOU WANT AND WHAT YOU GET ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!"

Another example is after Pat shoots the guy after he comes down off the roof. First of all the acoustic version of Knocking on Heaven Door makes it easily 10x more powerful. Also like I said less is more and when pat approaches him in the Preview version. The guy whose dying spits out some very unnecessary lines. In the 2005 edition he walks toward him as he squirms on the ground dying as the music starts to play making the scene as I said before much more poetic There are about five or six scenes I can think of like that.

...and what about Pat getting the whore to tell him where Billy was? It was completely missing in the Preview version. I thought it was a great little scene.

IMO the Preview Version felt like... just that, a work in progress. A very bloated, clunky film. Whereas the 2005 version was a tightly cut emotionally filled film.

Sure, there were a few little lines I wish they'd of left in or took out. Like the second shot your talking about. The one liner did bug me, but for the most part they got it right.

An anti-socialist doing anti-socialist things.

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 18 years ago

I tried to watch the new cut and I seriously had to turn it off about forty minutes in. I mean seriously, there were so many bad edits (i.e. cutting out half of R.G. Armstrong's dialogue in the jailhouse scene), and did anyone else notice that the scene with Aurora Clavell was edited into the film out of sequence? (I'll elaborate if necessary.) I'm not wild about the 1988 version but at least I was able to sit through it (and enjoy parts of it).

PEDECARIS ALIVE OR RAISULI DEAD!

[–] Samoan Bob 18 years ago

I've only watched the new cut once. What leads you to believe that scene is out of sequence?

I like pie.

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 18 years ago

Okay, this is my reasoning. . .

We have the scene in the saloon with Alamosa Bill. Garrett talks with Alamosa Bill, and hires him as deputy. He also tells the little boy to go tell Ida Garrett that he's going to be home for dinner that night. At the end of the scene Bill is setting out on the trail.

In the next scene, Garrett arrives home. Ida asks him if he is going to be home for dinner that night, but Garrett says he needs to go down to the saloon and talk to "a drunk by the name of Alamosa Bill".

Of course it's possible that the boy he sent never went to see Mrs. Garrett for whatever reason (got distracted by a big shiny object or something), but overall things don't add up. Why would Garrett go down and talk to Bill, and then say he was going to do so in a later scene? If he was home for dinner after the scene, why did he leave two minutes later without doing anything? Why did Ida ask him if he was going to come home for dinner that night if he weren't there for dinner?

That seems pretty blatant to me. I hope I wasn't the only one to catch that. Then again the editing on the new cut seems rather amateurish (someone else pointed out R.G. Armstrong's shotgun being cocked a few seconds too late in the jail scene), so it's not terribly surprising.

PEDECARIS ALIVE OR RAISULI DEAD!

[–] Samoan Bob 18 years ago

...Pat is lying to Mrs. Garrett about Alamosa Bill. He's making up an excuse in order to get out of dinner and the line about Alamosa Bill (who we know is not at the saloon causing trouble) is supposed to clue the audience in on this.

I like pie.

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 18 years ago

Then what's the point of Garrett telling the boy to tell Mrs. Garrett that he'd be home for dinner that night? Can you explain that?

That's a good explanation, but I still don't buy it.

"I've never wanted to punch you more than at this very moment." - Dilbert

[–] alfredo_garcia 18 years ago

The scene between Garrett and his wife is obviously post-shave. When Garret enters his house he is clean shaven, has put on a tie and otherwise cleaned and straightened himself up. Earlier, when he entered the barbership, he is unshaven and dishevelled, as if he's just come in from a long ride.

As for why Garret told the boy to give his wife the message that he'd be home for dinner. He probably had every intention of staying for dinner then changed his mind when she started in on him. Hence he made up the lie about Alamosa Bill.

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 18 years ago

Okay, good point. I concede the argument - but I still hate the 2005 cut.

You've Got No Disguise From Allenby's Eyes!

[–] csu16387 17 years ago

I liked the Turner '88 version better as well. The new version has a few scenes and a lot of great dialogue gone. The opening credit scene isn't as powerful in the new version compared to the Turner version.

A lot of Peckinpah's dialogue to James Coburn is not in the '05 edition, and even the finale of the killing is shortened. I'll likely stick with the Turner edition.

Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid has its flaws, but overall it's a memorable western from Sam Peckinpah.

"Dry your eyes baby, it's out of character."

[–] JJ-N 17 years ago

I always thought that the dialogue in the beginning of the Turner version until the 'I reckon' line was cool, yet they cut much of that dialogue from the 2005 version and even commented that such redundant stuff would never have made the final cut. Then again, the 2005 version includes important material such as the scene with Garrett's wife (I suspect the studio had already entered cutting frenzy before Peckinpah got a chance to steal what we now consider as the 'Turner version'). So unfortunately, neither version is perfect.

[–] www.wedd 11 years ago

The Turner version is perfect, for me at least. I'm speaking completely selfishly, and I'm nobody, this is a completely personal account, but it is the film I fell in love with. I don't feel this strongly about many films, but first seeing those opening credits, I knew - knew - that this was destined to be one of the greatest films I would ever see. It wasn't just a feeling of 'if nothing else this thing has an amazing opening credits', no - I had the sudden innate knowledge that the whole film is going to be like this. It's the most poetic, profound and imaginative opening credits I've ever seen (Peckinpah was an expert at them - see also The Wild Bunch, The Getaway). And that's the first thing they killed.
Anyway, I don't see what right those critics have to sit and say what is 'redundant' and what would have made the final cut. It's like a biographer trying to tell the reader what their subject was thinking at a certain moment in their life. It's bull. They had some nerve. If there's a Welles-like memo dictating those changes, then they should have included it.
To me, it is a film that is designed to be slightly loose and rambling. Hazy. It is not a film designed to clip along at a fast pace, dragging us all behind it like a stunt rider hanging from his galloping horse. It's about a man who has to - but of course does not want to - kill his best friend, and so goes about his task in the most circuitous route possible. It's about taking the long way towards the inevitable. Procrastinating in the face of a very unpleasant task (Of course, this leads to a lot of other people's deaths)
Every incident is worthwhile, quotable, profound. Maybe there should be more of it, though I think the weary way Garrett opens the gate to his house says more about his relationship with his wife than any scene between them could.
As you can tell, that cut still riles me up, X number of years later. I really hope it isn't replicated for any blu-ray.

[–] seeyouat_themovies 12 years ago

Always liked this movie. I first caught it on TBS as a kid and it was edited a lot like the '05 cut. I asked for it for Christmas years ago and got the VHS 1988 Turner Preview Version, which made me love it even more! I'm so glad they included it on the DVD release.