Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid review... review?

Roger Ebert’s 2.5/4 star review of “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” is a bit disappointing to me, and I am curious as to how the era in which this review was written had an impact on his view of the film. He starts out with an overall summary of his thoughts on the movie, stating: “the completed film is slow and disappointing.” He attributes this notion to two main factors. One being the casting of Newmann, a well established and expensive actor, as the lead role. The second being that the movie is “too cute, and never gets up the nerve, by god, to admit it’s a western.”

To the first point, Ebert claims that the money spent on Newmann compelled the studio to protect their investment by increasing the overall production value of the film, something he saw as a detriment to the pacing. What could he possibly be talking about? Surely not the extremely long chase scene between Harriman’s “super posse” (which I think is a very funny title, good job Ebert) and our two heroes!? I actually really like this scene by the way. Supposedly, the chase scene is so long because George Roy Hill wanted to make the money spent on all the shooting locations worth it by keeping much of the footage. I disagree with this point, and I find it interesting that at the time, the length of a scene would be just as indicative of a “high production value,” as things like special effects. This lengthy scene contributes wonderfully to the overall aesthetic of the movie, temporarily transitioning the movie away from its roots as a comedic “western.” (I’ll dive into the “” here later.)

From a narrative perspective, while George Roy Hill could have portrayed the terror of being chased by the “super posse” and therefore justified the rest of the film, using a much shorter scene (the first five minutes of the chase prove this), I think it is quite effective at doing something else entirely. The length of the chase, and the protagonists’ attempts to thwart the super posse is exhausting, in the best, most darkly comedic way possible. While I enjoyed every minute of that terror and exhaustion, Roger Ebert clearly did not. Ebert, in his claims about production value and whatnot, implies this exhaustion to be a byproduct of lazy filmmaking and greedy executives. He makes it very clear that he thinks the scene is a drag, bogging down the rest of the movie to a point beyond recovery. Personally, due to my enjoyment of what the scene does for the movie, I’ll subscribe to the idea of the scene being deliberate, and the product of a director with an unconventional vision.

Ebert doesn’t quite make his meaning on the second point as clear as the first, but I’d like to take a crack at what he means when he thinks the movie won’t “admit it’s a western.” In the later half of the review, he refers to the movie’s dialogue being too contemporary, affecting the believability of the movie. I think this is a misconception of the movie, and the genre as a whole. The movie, while based on real events, never seems to sell itself as a serious period piece, or as representative of the classic western genre. I think that looking at this movie as a subversion of the genre would be more accurate. This movie shifts the traditional western setting, placing western themes in a non-traditional western setting like Bolivia. Additionally, the dialogue, which Ebert attributes to the film trying to “act cutesy,” is a refreshing take on what could have truly made this movie a drag (imagine that long chase scene sans the witty dialogue). The traditional themes of good versus evil, or even anti-hero outlaws, are not present in this movie. Butch and Sundance are not strikingly good or evil, and typically, to be an anti-hero, one must be acting with intentions that are ultimately good. Butch and Sundance are in my eyes a good old pair of anti-villains, which is undoubtedly an unconventional take on the protagonist, even outside of the western genre. All of these slightly unconventional elements make the movie feel extremely aware of the western genre and its tropes, which makes Ebert’s claim that it is trying and failing to be a western misguided.

Overall, I think that Ebert didn’t give this movie a chance. It is fair enough that he didn’t enjoy the chase scene, I can get that. I personally believe it to be great, and a deliberate artistic choice, but… fair enough? You got bored which is completely subjective, and I can’t take that away from you. I don’t think I could agree to disagree with his points about the nature of the film as a failed western though, as I think that falls short of the movie’s vision as an anti-western. Of course, I could talk all day about how badly he missed the mark on this specific point, but it’s probably easier for contemporary viewers to spot the genre commentary, as traditionally themed western movies are more “a thing of the past” now than in 1969. Regardless, I review his 2.5/4 star review, with a 2/4 star review (his points were half fair, half not).