一群

恢弘也就这个样了。发了疯的山姆·佩金法让他的电影角色也固执地完成一个并不清晰地心愿，不问结果，只求让自己说得过去（或开脱罪责）。

但因这种固执和艺术家对权利的专制，片子的恢弘也就注定了。

至于暴力，那就是小孩经历的日常，儿童都是残忍的。比如电影开头灼烧蝎子和蚂蚁的孩子，以及崇拜着独裁将军并最终结果了主角的男孩。

那么，就让暴力属于男人，属于莱翁内、科波拉、大岛诸、北野武、吴宇森等所有佩金法的后辈们吧。

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。

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.

   我们中国人都相信“人之初，性本善”这句话，但是西方人对此却有着截然不同的观点：人是有原罪的，人生来就有着向恶的一面。影片伊始，一群天真无邪的小孩，脸上带着天使般的可爱笑容，津津有味地欣赏着蝎子和蚁群间的相互残杀，玩腻了之后又放火将这些虫子烧成了灰。这马上就奠定了整部影片的格调：极度暴力。（PS：奥利弗•斯通的《天生杀人狂》开头也是一辆高速行驶的汽车将一只蝎子碾碎，同样是一部极度暴力的影片）
    果然，5分钟以后，我们看到了一场经典的枪战。火爆的场面，淋漓的镜头，“敖德萨阶梯婴儿车”式的剪接，对当时的观众来说，绝对是一次巨大的震撼。当然，全片最为人们津津乐道的是片末4名强盗明知山有虎，还义无反顾地向200名墨西哥士兵发动了正面进攻，最后4人全部壮烈牺牲，颇有夸父逐日式的理想主义殉教意味。
    当墨西哥将军被派克等人打成筛子的时候，我仍然难以相信他们会在人数对比如此悬殊的情况下作出这种自杀式的行为。派克作为横行天下的江洋大盗，冷酷而精明。当强盗们遭伏击仓皇逃出铁路局之后，派克毫不犹豫地击毙了伤重不能骑马的同伙。当派克看到负责看马的老弗雷迪被桑顿打成重伤的时候，他同样见死不救，还对同伙们说：我们走吧，老头还能帮我们拖住桑顿一两天。从全片所展现出的情节来看，我相信派克与墨西哥小伙安奇的交情远不及他与老弗雷迪间的友情深厚。派克也曾对安奇亲口说过：为了一万块金币，我可以六亲不认。但是，派克为了救这个与自己非亲非友的安奇，却决定牺牲自我和3名同伙的性命，而且他做这个决定的过程也很简单。派克嫖完了妓，起来对同样刚嫖完妓的两名同伙酷酷地说了句：Let’s go .那两人同样酷酷地回话道：Why not ? 然后4人默契地背上来福枪出发，然后交涉，然后交涉失败，然后屠杀，然后被屠杀。这样的结局实在难以让我马上从逻辑上接受。
    后来我想，可能是派克对桑顿的负罪感促成了派克对男性友情的殉教和救赎。派克和桑顿曾经是一对好搭档，后来由于派克个人的疏忽大意让桑顿被警察逮到。当警察的注意力还集中在桑顿身上的时候，派克乘机丢下搭档，跳窗溜之大吉。后来当桑顿受警方逼迫而不得不追杀派克的时候，两人仍对此事耿耿于怀。派克的同伙鄙视桑顿为警察卖命，派克马上呵斥道：他只是在尽自己的承诺！对警察的承诺也是承诺！桑顿也这样高度评价派克：他是最棒的！他从来没被抓过！在追杀的路上两人惺惺相惜，却又不得不互相拚命。只不过因为派克率领着一群高级强盗，而桑顿率领的是一群低级强盗，使两人几次交锋下来总是派克胜出。当桑顿目睹了派克最后的“壮举”之后，其内心久久无法平静。影片结尾，桑顿没有跟随手下运送派克的尸体回去找警察领赏，而是选择留在荒漠中，和墨西哥人一起走向远方……
    如果我上面的分析还是有一点道理的话，从这点意义上来说，我认为这部片子对男性友情的宣扬完全可以和《美国往事》相提并论。我相信影片结尾所给的暗示为：桑顿最终还会纠结起一邦同伙，继续打家劫舍，反抗国家机器，过着脱离法律和道德约束的绝对“自由”生活，延续和发扬派克的精神。所以派克没有死，他用最极端的方式救赎了对桑顿的背叛，感化了原本追杀他的桑顿，使自己在桑顿的身上活了下来。
    PS : 美国影评人曾将本片导演萨姆•佩金法和《水中刀》的导演罗曼• 波兰斯基、《飞越疯人院》的导演米洛斯• 福尔曼并称为美国70年代三大前卫导演。