I've always been a big western fan, especially those with an epic scope, but BITE THE BULLET has been one of those of this genre that has escaped me over the years, occasionally catching bits and pieces of edited versions on TV. And I wondered why, considering the cast and the director, it was not better known, or held in a higher esteem, among cinephiles; certainly the actors involved have legions of fans. So recently, to fill in this gap in my movie knowledge, I bought the DVD and decided to find out for myself, discovering a lot to like in this film, but also gaining an understanding of why it has never quite obtained the status of a classic.
BITE THE BULLET's plot certainly grabbed me: set in 1908, it centers on a grueling 750 mile horse race across the American West, with the winner getting a prize of $2,000, no small sum in those days. The film's protagonists are a motley group of familiar types, each with their own motives for putting themselves through the hell it will take to cross the finish line and claim the prize. They are a pair of ex Rough Riders, played by Gene Hackman and James Coburn, old friends who have gone their separate ways; Candice Bergen as a prostitute who can ride with the best of men; Ben Johnson as an old cowhand on a Last Hurrah; Jan Michael Vincent as a young punk, Johnson's complete opposite; Ian Bannen as a wealthy English sportsman; and Mario Artega as an impoverished Mexican, whose toothache literally requires him to bite the bullet. There was a lot of star power and talent on display, with all these actors at the peak of their game in roles that fit them like a glove. But the behind the scenes star was writer-producer-director Richard Brooks, who had started in the business making movies for MGM, and had gone on to make CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF, ELMER GANTRY, IN COLD BLOOD, and one of the greatest adventure westerns of the 60's, THE PROFESSIONALS, about a sundry group of men paid to go on a dangerous mission. Brooks' script worked in the themes of friendship and loyalty, sportsmanship and the notion of doing what it takes to win at all cost; the passing of the Old West, and those displaced by it; and animal cruelty, specifically against the horses, some of whom are literally run to death in graphic scenes in order for the their riders to stay in the race. All of this is set to an evocative score by Alex North, and cinematography by Harry Stradling, which makes some striking use of slow motion in order to show the perspective of a character. The American West has never looked better, or more beautiful, this is one 70's western that most definitely was not shot on the Universal back lot.
Gene Hackman was at the top of his 70's stardom at the time, and I think his Spanish American war veteran with a soft spot for horses is one of his better roles, one that highlighted his ability to say a lot without dialogue, he has a couple of truly memorable scenes opposite Jan Michael Vincent, one where he and Coburn literally slap some manners into his punk cowboy, and another one scene, completely wordless, where, on a hot desert floor, there is another confrontation over Vincent's treatment of his horse. That part of the movie is not for those upset by the sight of animals in distress. Ben Johnson has a monologue delivered so movingly he should have gotten another Best Supporting Actor nomination, and Bergen, who acting skills came in for a lot of grief during those years, acquits herself well here, although she just too classy to convincingly play a lady of the evening. It is sad to see the young Jan Michael Vincent now in one of his best 70's films, he really was a big deal back then, and a lot of fans thought he would go on to great things; sadly for him, not to be.
But though there is so much to like in BITE THE BULLET, it never quite seals the deal with me, never hitting that high gear that all of my favorite movies achieve. And I think this has a lot to with Brooks' script, which to me, never adequately develops, or properly exploits, the full potential of his story's premise. This is a movie about a grueling cross country race, yet for most of its running time, we never know who is ahead, thus fumbling an opportunity to create and sustain genuine tension, allowing the pace to falter. There is a third act twist with Bergen's character that comes out of nowhere, with no foreshadowing, it seems to happen only to allow a big action sequence to be inserted into the narrative. The final sequence, where the winner crosses the finish line, something the whole movie should have been building toward, feels very abrupt. Brooks fails to give his protagonists a clear and distinct motive to win the race: Hackman wants to save his ranch; Coburn has gambling debts; Vincent wants to be a big shot; Johnson wants dignity; the Mexican needs the money for his family, but they are mentioned almost as though they are afterthoughts, not goals driving them to win against all obstacles and opponents. I felt like we never become as fully invested in these characters, and their fates, as much as we should. Which is a shame, because a decade earlier, in THE PROFESSIONALS, Brooks made a western about a similar group of characters that was tight, suspenseful, and engrossing from beginning to end; clearly he was going to the same well again in BITE THE BULLET, but not with the same results.
I think BITE THE BULLET suffered from bad timing, it got a big release in the summer of 1975, the year JAWS pretty much sucked all the oxygen out of the room as far as its competition was concerned. BITE THE BULLET got decent to mixed reviews, and under performed at the box office. By the mid 70's, American movie critics were very much taken with the young Easy Riders and Raging Bulls generation of directors - Coppola, Friedkin, Bogdanovich, and Spielberg, and they had a noticeable lack of patience with older directors like Brooks, whose careers stretched back to the big studio days. It didn't matter that Brooks had a string of hits in the 60's, often with edgy material, he was now totally passé, and the fact that he had made a movie which easily could have come out 20 years earlier only proved their point. That BITE THE BULLET was something of a throwback was undeniable, I think with a few revisions, Brooks' script would have worked well for Howard Hawks in 1954, with John Wayne in the Hackman role.
Still, this movie has many fans, and despite my criticism, I think it earns them fairly, and it certainly deserves to be seen by more people, as there is much to like here, as many of its themes are timeless and universal. I would also add, that I think BITE THE BULLET would be an excellent candidate for a remake, especially for a younger film maker desiring to make a western; the genre hasn't died, it just doesn't work as hard as it used to.
BITE THE BULLET's plot certainly grabbed me: set in 1908, it centers on a grueling 750 mile horse race across the American West, with the winner getting a prize of $2,000, no small sum in those days. The film's protagonists are a motley group of familiar types, each with their own motives for putting themselves through the hell it will take to cross the finish line and claim the prize. They are a pair of ex Rough Riders, played by Gene Hackman and James Coburn, old friends who have gone their separate ways; Candice Bergen as a prostitute who can ride with the best of men; Ben Johnson as an old cowhand on a Last Hurrah; Jan Michael Vincent as a young punk, Johnson's complete opposite; Ian Bannen as a wealthy English sportsman; and Mario Artega as an impoverished Mexican, whose toothache literally requires him to bite the bullet. There was a lot of star power and talent on display, with all these actors at the peak of their game in roles that fit them like a glove. But the behind the scenes star was writer-producer-director Richard Brooks, who had started in the business making movies for MGM, and had gone on to make CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF, ELMER GANTRY, IN COLD BLOOD, and one of the greatest adventure westerns of the 60's, THE PROFESSIONALS, about a sundry group of men paid to go on a dangerous mission. Brooks' script worked in the themes of friendship and loyalty, sportsmanship and the notion of doing what it takes to win at all cost; the passing of the Old West, and those displaced by it; and animal cruelty, specifically against the horses, some of whom are literally run to death in graphic scenes in order for the their riders to stay in the race. All of this is set to an evocative score by Alex North, and cinematography by Harry Stradling, which makes some striking use of slow motion in order to show the perspective of a character. The American West has never looked better, or more beautiful, this is one 70's western that most definitely was not shot on the Universal back lot.
Gene Hackman was at the top of his 70's stardom at the time, and I think his Spanish American war veteran with a soft spot for horses is one of his better roles, one that highlighted his ability to say a lot without dialogue, he has a couple of truly memorable scenes opposite Jan Michael Vincent, one where he and Coburn literally slap some manners into his punk cowboy, and another one scene, completely wordless, where, on a hot desert floor, there is another confrontation over Vincent's treatment of his horse. That part of the movie is not for those upset by the sight of animals in distress. Ben Johnson has a monologue delivered so movingly he should have gotten another Best Supporting Actor nomination, and Bergen, who acting skills came in for a lot of grief during those years, acquits herself well here, although she just too classy to convincingly play a lady of the evening. It is sad to see the young Jan Michael Vincent now in one of his best 70's films, he really was a big deal back then, and a lot of fans thought he would go on to great things; sadly for him, not to be.
But though there is so much to like in BITE THE BULLET, it never quite seals the deal with me, never hitting that high gear that all of my favorite movies achieve. And I think this has a lot to with Brooks' script, which to me, never adequately develops, or properly exploits, the full potential of his story's premise. This is a movie about a grueling cross country race, yet for most of its running time, we never know who is ahead, thus fumbling an opportunity to create and sustain genuine tension, allowing the pace to falter. There is a third act twist with Bergen's character that comes out of nowhere, with no foreshadowing, it seems to happen only to allow a big action sequence to be inserted into the narrative. The final sequence, where the winner crosses the finish line, something the whole movie should have been building toward, feels very abrupt. Brooks fails to give his protagonists a clear and distinct motive to win the race: Hackman wants to save his ranch; Coburn has gambling debts; Vincent wants to be a big shot; Johnson wants dignity; the Mexican needs the money for his family, but they are mentioned almost as though they are afterthoughts, not goals driving them to win against all obstacles and opponents. I felt like we never become as fully invested in these characters, and their fates, as much as we should. Which is a shame, because a decade earlier, in THE PROFESSIONALS, Brooks made a western about a similar group of characters that was tight, suspenseful, and engrossing from beginning to end; clearly he was going to the same well again in BITE THE BULLET, but not with the same results.
I think BITE THE BULLET suffered from bad timing, it got a big release in the summer of 1975, the year JAWS pretty much sucked all the oxygen out of the room as far as its competition was concerned. BITE THE BULLET got decent to mixed reviews, and under performed at the box office. By the mid 70's, American movie critics were very much taken with the young Easy Riders and Raging Bulls generation of directors - Coppola, Friedkin, Bogdanovich, and Spielberg, and they had a noticeable lack of patience with older directors like Brooks, whose careers stretched back to the big studio days. It didn't matter that Brooks had a string of hits in the 60's, often with edgy material, he was now totally passé, and the fact that he had made a movie which easily could have come out 20 years earlier only proved their point. That BITE THE BULLET was something of a throwback was undeniable, I think with a few revisions, Brooks' script would have worked well for Howard Hawks in 1954, with John Wayne in the Hackman role.
Still, this movie has many fans, and despite my criticism, I think it earns them fairly, and it certainly deserves to be seen by more people, as there is much to like here, as many of its themes are timeless and universal. I would also add, that I think BITE THE BULLET would be an excellent candidate for a remake, especially for a younger film maker desiring to make a western; the genre hasn't died, it just doesn't work as hard as it used to.