日落黄沙

In "The Wild Bunch," violence becomes more than a vehicle through which morals are judged. Rather, it confuses the line between right and wrong, displaying conflict in a sense that is even appealing, or aesthetic. That attitude would have been unimaginable in its predecessors, where violence is more referred to than explicitly exhibited. Take "Winchester ’73" as an example: when Young Bull, the leader the Indians, spotted the legendary rifle on the back of Joe Lamont’s horse, only through the reaction of Dutch Henry do we realize the man has been killed and scalped. Would Sam Peckinpah shoot it otherwise, giving Lamont a slow motion as he is shot and falls to the ground? No longer a by-product, violence in "The Wild Bunch" is one of the cores in the film that almost stands on its own. Under earlier code of Westerns, such prominence might be considered deviant, for in the old Westerns heroism, civilization and romance reign over wildness and brutality that protagonists face. Violence, even sometimes embodied by “the good guy,” is controlled. In that sense, it is used to provide contrast to the potency of traditional virtues. Yet in "The Wild Bunch," not only is violence unleashed, but it is ameliorated, galvanized, even appreciated. The massacre at the beginning gloriously magnifies the marvel of bloodshed through shameless frontal shots, close-ups and slow motions, which few directors of Westerns before Peckinpah had used as heavily as he did. Peckinpah adds slow motion shots of victims to the typical “shoot-and-fall” dialogic gunshot scenes in old Westerns, the effect of which is enhanced by Technicolor, which allows more realistic and shocking images of blood squirting from every body part possible.
Coupled with moral ambiguity, violence furthers the sense of mayhem. The short parallel between the bunch in soldier attire and South Texas Temperance Union stand at opposite ends of the moral scale: one stringent, abiding and adamant, the other rampant, defiant and savage. Contrary to the obvious moral choices that old Westerns give us, neither instantly appeals more. The moral ambiguity that Peckinpah deliberately sets up is made more salient when we see the Deke Thornton’s bounty hunters. Though representing “the law,” the reckless and egocentric bounty hunters could not be further from any protagonists in the old Westerns. Merely five minutes into the film, such opening sequence challenges our traditional views and attitudes. Does such situation justify the ensuing violence? Not quite, but by eliminating apparent sides to root for, violent itself grabs our attention. The opening sequence well indicates the complexity of the film, which evolved from the Western prototype to include a more realistic portrayal, one that is imperfect yet closer to life, one that invites diverse reactions and opinions rather than simple cheers for the charming lead such as John Wayne in "Stagecoach" or Montgomery Clift in "Red River." The space "The Wild Bunch" creates for audience reactions is essentially what sets it apart, for the film does not provide answers but questions.
Violence culminates in the grand ending, and precisely the fact that it incurs thrill knocks the audience off their feet. Yet the violence here has gained a different standing. Comradeship and loyalty justify their intent to kill to a degree that we are eager to witness the great massacre that is about to take place. We anxiously wait as the four members of the bunch gradually fill up the frame and stop, their eyes on the target. Anticipation hits its peak when the silence of shock takes place after they kill the general. Then when the massacre begins, our attitude is no different from that of watching a classic gun-shooting climax, only this time with more fury, excitement and emotional turmoil. On the presentation of this massacre sequence, Alexandros Dionosopoulos commented, “The massive use of artillery blows people away. It is stunning.” Unwittingly, his off-the-cuff pun captures the two main aspects of heavy violence: it is a concoction of beauty and disturbance. In a similar manner of the opening sequence, Peckinpah uses quick montage and slow motion to build a landscape of brutality that rivals an epic battle, intertwining visual effects with explosive sonic experience. Desensitized by gore and corpses by this point, we are swept by a swirl of hunger for deconstruction and vengeance. Such liberty probably disturbs us more than the actual slaughter, for the final scene is our getaway from decorum and civility in favor of primitive eye-for-an-eye responses. This is wilderness in its truest sense, not in aiguilles and dunes, but in unchained desires. It is ironic, therefore, to observe how noble loyalty translates into barbarian actions.
"The Wild Bunch" inherits the legacy of Westerns by discussing the clash between wilderness and civilization and the effects it has, one that ultimately has less to do with challenges at the frontier but universal struggle with darker instincts. Peckinpah probably sees this step as necessary, as by the year 1968 the film was made, Westerns were facing a different audience. Typified by Clint Eastwood movies, Spaghetti Westerns reached their peak of popularity. Characterized by low-budget production, foreign locale, and highly fluid and minimalist cinematography[1], Spaghetti Westerns watered down the conventions and cultural paradigms that old Westerns have. Foreign directors and producers, mostly Spaniards or Italians who gave name to the term, reformed the genre through their own lens. Part of the change had to do with pragmatic concerns, such as using a more straightforward cinematographic style due to limited resources. Yet the difference in cultural backgrounds gave rise to the demystification, loss of previously well-defined morality, and increased violence in Spaghetti Westerns, central elements that "The Wild Bunch" undoubtedly assimilates and intensifies.
So why did Peckinpah bullet "The Wild Bunch" with such graphic violence? One argument can be found at the very beginning of the film. We see scorpions besieged by a huge group of ants. The scorpions, though much stronger than any single ant, are defenseless against the vehement attack of the ants. As the ants start devouring the now powerless scorpions, the camera pulls back to reveal the manipulators: a group of children. They smile, laugh and watch attentively, oblivious to such cruelty. The low-angle close-up shots of individual kids against the clear blue sky enhanced the sense of innocence and joy, which drastically contrasts with the violence that is taking place in front of their eyes. The effect almost frightens us more than the actual bloodshed that follows because of the apathy shown in children. Peckinpah seems to points to the possible violent nature of us, or how vulnerable we can be once violence is prevalent in a society. Therefore, it becomes necessary for him to give the film a rough edge, showing what is raw, realistic, rather than the larger-than-life old Westerns of which the values and visions eclipse the ugly side of frontier status quo. Violence in "The Wild Bunch" then becomes a statement itself, suggesting the incorrigibly violent tendency of humans.
Another possibility is the cathartic effect. Commenting on the seductiveness and horror of violence, Peckinpah said:

"The point of the film is to take this façade of movie violence and open it up, get people involved in it so that they are starting to go in it so that they are starting to go in the Hollywood television predicable reaction syndrome, and then twist it so that it’s not fun anymore, just a wave of sickness in the gut…It’s ugly, brutalizing, and bloody fucking awful. It’s not fun and games and cowboys and Indians. It’s a terrible, ugly thing. And yet there’s a certain response that you get from it, an excitement because we’re all violent people." [2]

By injecting a huge dose of violence, Peckinpah provides the audience with a dark picture of their instincts so that they would be able to curb or even purge the violence in them by getting sick of it. Produced and released during the Vietnam War, "The Wild Bunch" conveys Peckinpah’s intention to guide audience through rediscovery, recognition and disgust of violence. Yet the controversial work causes some to entirely refuse the merit of the movie and others to delve into the orgasm of bloodbath, both seen in the reactions of the general public when the movie was released. In that regard, Peckinpah is less successful.
At the onset of the robbery in the opening sequence, Pike Bishop ordered his comrades to keep workers at the post office under control: “If they move, kill ’em!” The close-up of his ruthless, convictive and uber-masculine face froze to a ragged, tough-texture image like the ones on “Wanted” posters, to the left of which is the name “Sam Peckinpah” in big betters. This seems to suggest Peckinpah’s definitive role in the violence presented in the film, as well as the mix of appeal and atrocity that it incurs. Though its use remains controversial to this day, violence in "The Wild Bunch" plays such a prominent role that no one can walk away neglecting the effect it has on the watching experience.
---
[1] Tim Dirks, Westerns Films - Sergio Leone’s “Spaghetti” Westerns, 2010, http://www.filmsite.org/westernfilms5.html. Retrieved 03/27/2010.
[2] David Weddle, If They Move... Kill Em!: The Life and Times of Sam Peckinpah (Grove Press, 2001), 334.

颇有些迷之意味的开场中，一直蝎子被一群蚂蚁噬咬而不能自救，这样的充满暗示的开场，令我不寒而栗，而随后的一场枪战，更加表明了这伙“匪徒”的亡命天涯之态，
再往后，派克作为一个智勇双全的头领，足够的冷血和无情，几次丢下拖累自己的同伴，然而中间的闪回回忆与桑顿的过去，却表明这是一个重情重义之人，而一路上的战友不断死去，减少，却仿佛都是在为最后的与马帕奇将军的混战做铺垫，
这个快意恩仇的年代，总是令人心驰神往，枪林弹雨中，我终于看到暴力美学之宗师在哪里。在宽银幕的构图下，美丽而又奇观的沙漠，成为这样一群人，纵横天下的背景。
最后，好像发现了一个bug，塞克斯在最后好像是被击中右腿，但是在最后的镜头中出现去接桑顿是，包扎带好像包在了左腿上。。。

曾经看过很多西部片，但还是被这部电影彻底征服。

匪徒们永远是在笑着，快乐无边，而追捕他们的人则愁眉苦脸。

匪徒们道德高尚，而追捕他们的，除了那个领头的以外，全是龌龊小人。

一些细节的刻画，于无声处听惊雷。派克是头领，看不惯手下逛妓院不给钱，这时候怎么办呢？我那时候真是想不到该怎么解决。斥责下属一顿？或者当面显示自己的大度，掏钱给那个妓女？都没有。而这里也顿显了他的领袖风范，匪就要匪的霸道，不能损了匪的尊严。派克的作法简直得体到了极致，他蛮横地说：Let's go! 二匪顿了一下：Why not? 后面的情节大家自己去看吧。

尤其是在看到接近尾声的时候，派克的四侠（我宁愿称他们为四侠，而不是四盗）向你迎面走来，一步一动，真是太拽了，拽到了极点！

开头和结尾，两场枪战，震撼于前，而浪漫于后。

将军大概也是喝多了，面对四侠竟然割断了小伙子的喉管，于是开启了这场大血拼的序幕。

当四侠杀死将军的一瞬间，所有人竟然都吓呆了，那时候是如此安静，安静的可怕。

而最后的四侠，与200多人血拼，辗转反侧，妇女和儿童也参战，她们已经分不清谁好谁坏，而只知道谁是自己的族人。人类的厮杀岂不都是如此？

赏金猎人其实早就可以与他们入伙，已经是远在国境之外，带着几个无能的手下，一共59发子弹，但他因为一个承诺而不得不把自己的朋友逼进了死亡圈。二匪说：承诺？那也要看是对谁下的！对坏人下的承诺就可以不算数。但派克显然不同意这种看法。确实，我想，这也是一个哲学意义上的无解之题。对坏人做的承诺应不应该实践？我想，每个人有每个人的答案，但片中人有他自己的选择。

全片贯穿的南美音乐，以及美国西部口琴独奏，与影片风格协调一致，令人荡气回肠，一起促成了这部影片成为我心目中最好的西部片的典范。

有兴趣看西部片的同好，此片应该是必看的经典之作。

http://pureage.info/2012/04/07/60.html

1.关于杀戮
影片开头，匪徒们化装成军人，雄赳赳气昂昂的走进银行大门。一群小孩趴在地上，他们中有年龄大点的，有很小的，有男孩，有女孩。他们把一只蝎子放进了一堆蚂蚁中，看着这只蝎子被无数只黄里透红的蚂蚁慢慢吞噬，所有人的眼睛里闪烁着兴奋。最后，当蝎子差不多已经死去的时候，他们拿起一把干草，盖在蚂蚁窝上，点燃，然后期待的注视着。伴随着青烟，一阵阵噼噼啪啪的声音传出，刚才还如波涛般汹涌着淹没蝎子的蚂蚁们，转眼间都化为乌有。与马上开始的匪徒与早已埋伏在银行周围的众赏金猎人之间的火爆枪战相比，暴力程度有过之而无不及。

杀戮，似乎是人的天性，也许这才是暴力美学如此被欣赏的终极原因。

作为一个在农村长大的孩子，农村广阔的田野和众多的生物，都给我们提供了很多可以杀戮的机会。南方很多水塘里都有一种吸血虫子，名叫蚂蟥。当牛在池塘里喝水或者解暑后，腿上都会爬上很多蚂蟥，它们用它们身体两端的吸盘牢牢地吸在牛身上。此时不能硬扯，因为越扯它们吸的越紧，当强行扯下后，牛腿就会流血不止。当然，它们并非只吸牛血，人血也是它们的至爱。

蚂蟥的生命力顽强到惊人的程度。当你在水田里被蚂蟥叮到鲜血直淌后，你气急败坏决定报复它，一巴掌把它拍下来，放到水泥地上用脚踩住，用力跺几下，并来回在地上磨擦，可惜它还是死不了；你拿起一块石头，在它身上猛砸，如果是人，都死好几回了，可惜它还是死不了；你拿出了一把刀，将它剁成了几段，可惜它还是死不了；传说中即使把它们烧死，在放到水里仍能复活。有一次，和表哥抓到一只，两个孩子轮番用脚把它给踩烂了，累了之后，我仰着头问表哥：接下来该怎么办？那个时候表哥表姐的形象一般都是巨伟岸的。表哥沉吟一会，说我们lan(方言，意思大致是腐蚀）死它！我说：怎么lan?表哥果断说：用尿！于是我们挖了一个小坑，把已经烂成一团的蚂蟥放了进去，哥俩一起掏出小弟弟，往坑里撒了一泡童子尿。然后我们把坑埋了，就欢快的回家了。第二天，再次路过这蚂蟥的葬身之地时，我问表哥：它死了没？表哥说：肯定，挖出来看看它被lan成什么样了！于是找来一根木棍，撬开那个小土坑，结果里面空空如也，蚂蟥不见了。我们两面面相觑，心想，妈的这都不死。

我一直是个虚心好学的孩子，就去请教大人，大人告诉我们说，用竹签把它翻过来晒太阳它就死啦！于是我们以后抓到蚂蟥后就用这种惨绝人寰的手段对付之。具体施刑过程就是，拿一根竹签或粗一点的硬草，抵住蚂蟥的屁股，然后一边把竹签往里捅，一边把蚂蟥的身体往下撸，直到最后蚂蟥被彻底翻了肚皮朝天，肚皮指的是肚子里面的那皮。这还不够，还要把这根竹签插到墙上或石缝里，让太阳暴晒。在我还没来得及验证翻皮晒太阳后再把它放到水里它能否复活的时候，我就长大了，对蚂蟥不感兴趣了。

农村蚂蚁很多，所以都见怪不怪。可是有段时间我对这蚂蚁感兴趣了，这一感兴趣，就意味着它们要遭殃了。具体过程就不表了。

不知道从什么时候起，开始不再虐杀这种小动物了。但回忆起来，却记得那时候没有任何罪恶感，一起长大的玩伴相同的经历又说明我不是个例。于是我想，大概虐杀是人的天性，只是随着后天的成长，同情心慈悲心会渐渐抑制住这种天性。但抑制的天性又总得想方设法出来宣泄一下，于是那么多的充斥着暴力的电影才会被很多人喜爱。

那么，在狂野西部，当敌对双方只为生存，正义与邪恶的对立被弱化时，杀戮就让旁观者欣赏到纯粹的暴力的美。

2.男人的情谊
几个匪徒在一片荒漠里作片刻歇息，其中一个打开了一瓶酒，喝了一口，扔给一个同伴，同伴喝了一口继而再扔给下一个同伴，如此进行下去。大概你会觉得几个人分完一瓶酒会体现出男人的友情，如同小学语文课本里讲述一个班的战士分一个苹果那样。但显然这样安排有失真实，于是发生了电影里的一幕，一个匪徒想从上一个人手里接过酒瓶，可酒瓶被扔向了另一个人，他只好眼巴巴的望着酒瓶飞来飞去，就是飞不到自己手里。直到酒瓶飞到最后一个人手里，他想这下要给我了吧，可那人仰起脖子咕噜咕噜一饮而尽。到头来他仍然一滴酒都没尝到。所有的人都哈哈大笑，只有他铁青着脸。

最后的大战前夕，几个匪徒去了趟貌似是妓院的地方。派克只是稍作休息，一句话都没说。隔壁的两个兄弟却和妓女争吵不休。这时候你大概会想行事一向透着正派范儿的派克会替兄弟把钱付了，或训斥兄弟们一顿。但他只说了一句：Let's go。于是出门和一直等在门外的另一位兄弟，一行四人，慷慨赴死。

风萧萧兮易水寒,壮士一去兮不复还。