What if...
Peckinpah had shaped up his personal life and had lived into his 80s? If he had continued to make movies of the calibre Cross of Iron well into 80's and 90's, and 00s?
We would have a whole wild bunch more of great movies to watch. Then again, Sam just wouldn't have been Sam then, would he? Like one of his outlaw heros, he lived Crazy Sam and died Crazy Sam, that's just the way it was.
Forgive me, but I am compelled to be the voice of dissent here. I do not agree -- or at least -- not completely.
I don't know enough about Sam Peckinpah to say where the origin of his genius came from, but its just as likely that he would have been the same caliber of director, with or without, drugs.
I think that the notion that certain artists/writers achieved their genius from abusing alchohol/drugs/etc... is a bit over-rated (over-stated?). While he is no Sam Peckinpah, it is hard to argue that he is one of the most successful authors ever, and I am sure that Stephen King disagrees with you. In his semi-autobiography "On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft" - he confronts his own drug and alcohol abuse and clearly says that none of his ideas came from them.
I am inclined to agree with King, not because I know this for sure, but I feel I must believe it. After all, what does it say about us when some people seem comfortable with the idea that drug use leads to creative genius?
Naivete? Perhaps. Admittedly, there seems to be a common thread among many talented individuals throughout history -- but one should not casually assume that their genius came from the end of a bottle.
Is it not just as likely that their talent propelled them into highly stressful situations, from which they could escape, albeit temporarily, through the use of drugs and alcohol?
Just some food for thought :)
Mike
You might be right. But I think there's a noticeable difference in King's writing after he sobered up in '87. Whether the shift was good or bad is arguable, but his stuff definitely changed when he stopped doing the nose candy. King was also a very successful and prolific author at the height of his drug addiction, whereas Peckinpah's drug problem seemed to get worse as his career spiraled into the toilet. I think he might have tried harder to pull it together and lived a little longer if his later films were more successful. Pretty easy to find a reason to drink yourself to death when you're a hollywood pariah.
shareI think Peckinpah's muse was still with him, but his work got sloppier. Witness this movie. It's a terrific concept with some brilliant moments and some real visceral artistic decisions, but the battle scenes feel like Sam shot a lot of explosions and people dying, a la "Wild Bunch", then tried to fix it all with foleyed dialogue and excessive slo-mo in the editing room. Except for the well-done (and brief) bridge sequence, all the war scenes lack the sense of spatial reality Sam's film's always had in the past. [Witness "Alfredo Garcia" from just two years before, and the final showdown involvng Robert Webber and Gig Young]. And that ending. It's like Sam flipping the bird to anyone who cares to have watched the film to the end. Well, maybe the word "like" is misplaced.
I don't want to be too rough on this film, having only just finished seeing it for the first time. I could wind up liking it on a second viewing a la "Major Dundee", because it's not terrible and I like Peckinpah and Garner very much. But there are a lot of weak moments, and a lot of scenes do drag.
Cocaine and alcohol can give you a bit of energy at the start of the day, but by the end they have taken away much more. Compare this film with the "Wild Bunch", equally as long but much crisper, and tell me that the Peruvian monkey beast wasn't having Sam for breakfast.
I can not remember where I read it, might have been another IMDB link. But supposedly Peckinpah had married some girl (someone Gould possibly?), who then left and divorced him due to understandable reasons. Old Sam hit the bottle and dust harder and never really pulled himself back together. I seem to remember he was starting to be respected again, but he was supposedly impossible to work with, when he died. I personally love Sam Peckinpah as a director but part of his whole persona and legend was definately the hard living. He used to claim he could not direct when sober.
shareInteresting thread.
Although Peckinpah wasn´t actually using coke while making ´Cross of Iron´. He didn´t want to risk smuggling any into Yugoslavia (a wise move, given that his (prescribed) sleeping pills were confiscated on entry).
He was drinking a lot but was otherwise drug free for the shoot.
"dark, depressive, volatile: the film buff who lost the plot"
[deleted]
Wolfie, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you have a cocaine habit. It would certainly explain your grandiose delusions.
shareFor all we know, Wolfie could be living the high life in a London penthouse - sniffing lines of coke every night and cavorting with half naked Russian models.
shareI don't think Wolfie could afford any one of the three: be it, (1) the penthouse, (2) the cocaine, or (3) the naked Russian models. Certainly not on his meager writer's and teacher's salary!
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
if peckinpah could have stayed off the death medicines, stayed on top of his game and continued as an artist, then we would have a living director equal to the task of making the movie of "Blood Meridian".
share<<i think it was an editing issue as much as if not more than a directing-and/or-shooting issue. and the blame is, yes, probably alcohol.>>
Editing was Sam's strongest virtue. Reading David Weddle's "If They Move...Kill Em" makes clear that while Sam was very good at coverage, he was a genius at editing. Witness the quick-cut death ballet at the Battle of the Bloody Porch in "The Wild Bunch" as an example of how Sam's work as a director was enhanced by his sensibilities of the editing process. (He didn't edit his films, but stood over the guys who did, probably with something threatening in hand. He was an active presence in the editing room, anyway, and shot his films with that in mind).
Looking at "Cross Of Iron", it's hard to see where that went. Again from reading Weddle, I learned that Peckinpah's cocaine habit began with his previous film, "The Killer Elite". By the time of this film, his poison of choice was a plum-flavored brandy called slivovitz or some such thing, but I maintain that cocaine really had a crippling effect on his art, whether he was taking the stuff on set or not. Alcohol deadens the senses, and depresses the spirit, but Sam was the kind of guy who could work through that. Coke amps you up, and plays with your timing. Sam already had all the excitement he needed in life sober, and I maintain that his cocaine use, even when he wasn't actually taking the stuff daily, ran a needle through his brain that affected his art in a way alcohol never did.
Slokes, who named 'Garner' was involved in this film?
Slivovitz is a brandy common to Slavic countries--similar to the Italian grappa.
Carpe Noctem
<<Slokes, who named 'Garner' was involved in this film?>>
Sorry, was conflating Jameses there. Obviously meant "Coburn".
Well, yeah, but you coulda meant 'Mason', too. I loved both of them.
Have you seen a sequel called Sgt Steiner--starring, I think, Burton? Obviously, no Peckinpah involvement.
Carpe Noctem
No, I haven't. I heard about "Sgt. Steiner" though, and was surprised a sequel to such an underliked film would have acquired Burton's services. All I know is that it was directed by Andrew V. McLaglen and was set on the Western Front. I like McLaglen but he's no Peckinpah.
shareI'm tired of the line "what might have been..."
Have you seen his films? Do you love them? Well, then "might have been" is completely irrelevant. How many masterpieces are in one person. He made what he made and made what me made brilliantly.
[deleted]
I believe Sam would've made those great movies without the drugs and the alcohol. His talent didn't depend on intoxication. It was a blend of natural talent and his background and upbringing.
I may be wrong, but I don't like to give drugs any credit. We all now what the drugs did to him.
Drink, Drugs. Sam could direct a film better than many of the so called directors of today and those to come, whatever state he was in.
The directors of today can only wish they could make a film like Sam could.
he made films his way, just look at the classic films he made, even his failures are interesting.