What a botch the killing of Robert E. Lee Clayton is, as dramatized. There is no tension of the hunt and final confrontation, when Logan finds him. Just a cut from a sleeping Brando to a dying Brando. It's just -- CRAP! A terrible violatin of the rules of the genre that doomed this film. (You can just hear everyone saying: Let's get this bomb over with!)
You're probably right that the film's violations of the rules of the western genre resulted in its commercial failure. But I suspect that those of us who love the movie love it because of these violations. And in fact, the viewer is rewarded with more than a couple of great, suspenseful confrontation scenes between Brando and Nicholson. IMHO, the quirkiness of these scenes add to the tension. As you point out, the final confrontation is not at all suspenseful. Instead, it is abrupt, stark, and chilling.
share"Instead, it is abrupt, stark, and chilling."
EXACTLY!!
I er, third that. He sort of kills him in the way that he's killed his friends: silently, stealthily. And he deserved it, really. I love the way Brando's performance never lets you get a handle on the man: you never quite know which is his real accent, and at first he seems like he's just an eccentric, but as the film goes on, you realise that Clayton is in fact a total psychopath.
"You get tired of your own obsessions, the betrayals, the voyeurism, the twisted sexuality"
'"Instead, it is abrupt, stark, and chilling." '
I second this. And didn't you understand what Tom Logan told his men? Something down the line of 'If you do try and kill him don't start a conversation.' Why? Because Clayton's got the tongue of gold, the tongue of the devil. When he speaks you're in a trance, he's so incredibly fascinating. And Tom knows this. It get tougher to shoot such a man. So he just kills him mercifully.
Agreed, also earlier in the film when Nicholson and Brando meet Nich talks about a friend of his who was killed by a "regulator", who never had a chance to pray to his "maker", never knew what hit him, his head just "flew apart" while carrying a bucket of water (or something to that effect)...obviously Nich knows Brando is the triggerman and wants him to know what a coward Brando is for killing in such a way. I think he even mentions not looking into someones eyes or face at that moment (of killing)by shooting from such a distance...in the end, he takes Brando by the same type of surprise, no last words, no praying, an unceremonious death, BUT with Nicholson's character doing one better, he looks directly into Brando's eyes until his final breath...I though this scene was great...for those who don't like this movie I can understand maybe something else was expected, but I love this movie, has a great cast, and really appreciate its "offbeatness" in many ways.
share I'm not sure I'd agree that it's merciful--at least, that's not the word I would use. I do agree with most of the rest of your post, though. Clayton made a production out of his killings, they were all committed with flair and dramatic artistry over and above what they were--assassinations. he made a sport of them and enjoyed the staging of the scene as much as the actual killing.
When Logan finally cut his throat, he just did it as dispassionately as killing a snake. He made sure Clayton had time to know what was done and who had done it before he died, but that was to show him his contempt and to let him know that for all his fancy stalking and set-ups and tableaux, he was just as dead as if he'd been brained with a rock while he slept.
"Rules of the genre"? This film breaks them all the way through - thank goodness. That's exactly what makes it totally credible and completely compelling. Earlier in the film Nicholson plays by his own rules and does not shoot Brando in the back when Brando is in the bathtub. From this Brando goes on to kill Nicholson's men one by one. My money was on him getting Nicholson too. What should Nicholson's character have done - woken him up and challenged him to a duel? This is a great film, both in the way it allows the characters to be real individuals with pasts and in the way it suggests the dynamics of a changing society at work. It seems to suggest the system could survive a certain amount of rustling which provided some loser types on the margins of society with a living of sorts, but that once it increased and triggered the bringing in of a 'regulator' the whole equilibrium broke down. That's if you take the relationships in the film as a microcosm - but then maybe I'm reading too much into it.
sharei thought it was brilliant...its funny all those movies which cocked a snook on all the great western traditions, bombed at the box office in the initial release (once upon a time in the west and this one)...maybe the public by and large likes the western to stick to the routine...no harm in that but it pays to go off the beaten track once in a while
brilliant movie and brando was mesmerizing
"Im just a bum sitting in a motor home on a film set, BRANDO said, and they come looking for ZEUS".
Brilliant IS the right word. Considering things pigeonholed in neat little cubicle-like boxes is not what the word "creativity" is all about, is it? And isn't the movie industry in general supposed to be creative? A member of my family worked on this movie, so I have ties to it, but I feel this movie is one place you will see actors who usually played some other type cast, actually BEING creative and allowed to be. "Quirky"? Maybe. So what! I believe that is why we still talk about it, 30+ years after it was made. If it was crap, would anyone bother? duh
share