MovieChat Forums > Death Hunt (1981) Discussion > Scene Out Of Order + Some Trimming??

Scene Out Of Order + Some Trimming??


I've always wondered about whether or not the scene where Lee Marvin opens up his trunk and digs out his Mountie gear may be out of sequence from where originally intended to make it look like Angie Dickenson has more screen time. It always seemed to me that the scene should have been shown BEFORE the trip to Bronson's cabin, where we do in fact see Marvin dressed like a Mountie and presumably carrying his old rifle & sidearm. Marvin even has a line about having two of the bounty hunters take the bodies BACK to town, which suggests to me that Marvin and the others were going in pursuit from the cabin directly -- with the scene edited in as is, it implies that Marvin returned to town after the scenes at the cabin, which makes no sense.

I also have always wondered if the scene where the posse opens fire on the cabin was meant to go on somewhat longer: If you watch carefully there is a very definite "jump cut" at one point just before the shooting dies down, and you can see much more smoke/haze hanging in the air, presumably from bullets having struck the cabin.

reply

Well it's six years later since you posted this, but I'll respond anyway.

Yeah it was a strange editing choice. Marvin, Weathers, Stevens and Lauter do pursue him from the cabin while the other two take the bodies back to the town. Look carefully at Marvin when he walks out of his cabin as the posse is preparing to leave the cabin. Notice the two bandoliers he has slung over his shoulder. One has rifle cartridges and the other one has shotgun shells. Then watch the last scene with him and Angie Dickenson. As he is preparing to walk out he has those two same bandoliers slung over his shoulder. It takes place just before he leads the posse out of town. Also another clue is that he's pulling the same guns that he had just used out of the trunk. It's obvious that they've been in storage.

Yeah strange editing choice, but somebody (possibly the director) thought it worked better in that spot I guess. You'll see stuff like that in older movies occasionally.Especially movies made before VHS and cable (i.e. HBO & Showtime) made repeated viewings of movies common and viewers got more sophisticated in catching bloopers and editing stumbles. In the past 30 years television and movie makers have become more aware of this phenomenon and I think they've gotten more careful as well.

reply

Excellent! glad someone else noticed. Most likely reason for the restructuring would be to space out Angie Dickenson's scenes & imply that her role in the film occupied more screen time than it actually did. If left in what logic suggests be the intended sequence of events she'd be out of the way in about twenty minutes. By editing the film as such her character is involved in the plot for about forty five minutes, justifying that "also starring" larger font billing from the original release materials.

reply

Good point. I hadn't thought of that one.

reply