I take it Woodcock was killed?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
jh66 — 13 years ago(May 30, 2012 09:14 AM)
The whole of the carriage was blown apart by Butch's explosives, and we see no more of the EH Herriman employee Woodcock before the gang are chased off?
-
-
ecarle — 13 years ago(January 31, 2013 06:35 AM)
It is a bit sloppy not to have a shot of Woodcock OUTSIDE the trainand this plot point was debated (in person, not on the non-existent internet) back when the movie was released.
My guess is that actor George Furth did all his "in the train" scenes at the Fox studios in LA and wasn't hired to travel to the outdoor location(Colorado?) for the exteriors of the train.
UnlessWAS Woodcock ever shown outside the train? Can't remember. -
capo_bastone1 — 13 years ago(March 07, 2013 08:06 PM)
It's kind of a given that Butch would remove Woodcock from the car after tricking him into opening the door by impersonating the church lady. After all, Butch told his guy to get some more dynamite, "A lot more" so stands to reason they wouldn't want anybody in the car when it all went off.
-
Stirchley — 12 years ago(May 01, 2013 02:10 PM)
It is a bit sloppy not to have a shot of Woodcock OUTSIDE the train
Definitely agree. It was also very sloppy of the director not to show the actors using the toilet. I mean, FGS, was he trying to pretend that these guys had no bodily functions? -
grambax — 9 years ago(May 03, 2016 05:02 PM)
I absolutely adore this film, and have since I saw it on release, age 7. Its one of the few films I've ever rated as a 10. I think its damn near perfection.
But Woodcock's fate has always bothered me; its one of the few faults I have ever had with it. No, I don't think the film's Butch would have killed Woodcock, but the film spent enough time on the character that it SHOULD have indicated his safety in some way.
I suspect your reason is exactly correct, but a stand in representing Woodcock could have been easily shown. If that wasn't thought of on shooting, once the film was cut together I'm sure a line of dialogue could easily have been looped to clarify. Perhaps that would have been deemed to obvious, but as we're still discussing it 50 years later, I still think it would have been right, or at least not hurtful.
Perhaps my other issue was Etta's departure; it seemed too played over. That might be the 7 year old me talking. I get it, and think I even got it then, but it doesn't feel right. The inclusion of the deleted silent movie scene on the 2 disc DVD was a revelation to me. It both expanded Etta's significance and tonally tied the piece together. I still don't get why many had a problem with it or why it was cut.
Perhaps both these points could be answered by saying that they were too pandering, but this WAS a very commercial, if somewhat ground-breaking film. I don't see that those added clarification would have distracted.
EDITED to add -
Since I posted the above a few hours ago I dug out the DVD with the deleted scene to see again why it was cut. As exist I kind of understand. Hill sais it felt contrived, which I guess I was saying, badly wordedly.
How dare I critique the work of master film-makers, especially of a film I love so much, but I think the problem may have been the placement of the scene. I'd easily buy it had it came BEFORE the dinner scene. To me, that feels fine, even needed. I don't have any problem with B&C watching themselves on film. I buy it, especially in context. However them watching themselves die on film literally as Etta walks away is WAY too much. But I still feel the principle works, had it been re-thought.
its second guessing of course, but I'd love to hear what others may think/feel