Was it my imagination, or did anyone else notice this?
I saw this movie when it first came out, and I must say that it never tried to appeal to everybody's taste, perhaps not even mine.
However, one thing that has stuck with me for more than a third of a century is that someone in the group of about a dozen people that I was with suggested that this was in large part a remake of Siddhartha, just transposed into an off-beat western. Ultimately, the whole group concurred in this assessment, including myself (I had just finished reading the work by Hess -- the year being 1971). I got the feeling it was an effort to concoct a cult classic that just didn't hit the mark. Still, the cast is very representative of a group that would make such an effort, while not taking itself too seriously. Not great art, but a great page from the scrapbook of a counterculture.
However, one thing that has stuck with me for more than a third of a century is that someone in the group of about a dozen people that I was with suggested that this was in large part a remake of Siddhartha, just transposed into an off-beat western. Ultimately, the whole group concurred in this assessment, including myself (I had just finished reading the work by Hess -- the year being 1971). I got the feeling it was an effort to concoct a cult classic that just didn't hit the mark. Still, the cast is very representative of a group that would make such an effort, while not taking itself too seriously. Not great art, but a great page from the scrapbook of a counterculture.
- kabej5
- 15 jun 2005