Dirty Little Billy

Back in the ancient 1970's, only the high budget pictures had production designers. The others had to rely on the cinematographer to make sure the art director, the set designer, and the make-up/costume people were all on the same page; so that the picture had a consistent look. Ralph Woolsey was one of the better cinematographers at keeping all these elements under control. He was a busy guy in 1972 and two of his pictures were westerns: "Dirty Little Billy" was made right after "The Culpepper Cattle Company"- arguably one of the top ten westerns of all time. And while "CCC" is significantly better than "DLB", they share beautiful cinematography and production design (may have literally shared it because they probably used the same stuff in both productions).

It became popular after Robert Altman's "McCabe and Mrs. Miller" (1971) to replace the well-scrubbed Roy Rogers look and portray the west as dirty, dusty, gritty, unshaven, and tattered. Woolsey eagerly embraced this realism and gave us two of the grimiest features we are likely to see. Perhaps the most entertaining thing about "DLB" was the casting of Lee Purcell as the seediest looking western heroine of all time. Compared to "Berle", Susan Tyrell's saloon gal "Alma" ("Shoot Out") was a tidy sorority girl. You might expect this look from Barbara Hershey, but Purcell was deservingly typecast as prissy/demure so the movie is worth a look just to imagine her inwardly cringing each time she had to make an appearance on the set.

The story itself is extreme historical distortion, but so moronic as to render itself harmless. Still, it is puzzling that they bothered to give it the appearance of being history, as it would have worked fine as fiction. It has a nice surprise ending and several soon-to-be-famous-in-television actors; Mills Watson would go on to great things as bumbling Deputy Perkins in the many "Sheriff Lobo" programs and Dick Van Patten would play father "Tom Bradford" on "Eight Is Enough".

I haven't seen this film for some years, but it made quite an impression. My memory of the plot is sketchy, but I remember a pungent sense of place and the black humour of re-presenting an outlaw hero as a dysfunctional teenager. Michael J Pollard was "hot" in my mind due to his showing in Hannibal Brooks. He certainly went for broke with his portrayal of Billy as a bumbling and baffled (retarded, even?) teen in a Wild West that is knee-deep in mud and horse-muck. The pistols Billy wielded seemed almost too big for him, huge, clumsy and old-fashioned. Certainly as a impressionable British youngster, I'd never seen anything like it before.

I'm more than pleased to encourage others to seek it out. It could well be a bit of a hidden gem - the flavour and satirical energy of the piece are surely in tune with today's tastes.

Totally loved this film. the acting was fantastic, especially lee purcell, but michael j pollard did a great job, too. it's an interesting film. billy's just a kid in this before he's the kid. it's grimy. we have these romanticized notions about outlaws, but this film doesn't romanticize them or life in the old west at all. it's quite raw, rough around the edges, but genuine. i have no clue why this doesn't have a higher rating?

the cinematography is stunning; the way light was captured balances out the grimness of the characters. the soundtrack matches the tone of the film. my main critique is that the plot of the movie could've been reworked. it doesn't really flow and at times, it seems like the actors were left to carry the story. all in all, surprisingly refreshing for a dark look at the wild west - it's not your typical western, but it's probably a lot closer to reality than most of us like to watch.

A whole lot of people have played Billy The Kid on screen and their personas have formed one mixed image. Off the top of my head I can think of B picture cowboy stars Johnny Mack Brown and Buster Crabbe, movie star idol Robert Taylor, method actor Paul Newman, Rhodes scholar Kris Kristofferson, and brat packer Emilio Estevez. But scruffy Michael J. Pollard is probably closest to what Billy actually was. It also gave Pollard his only lead in a film.

Of course this too has nothing to do with the facts. Dirty Little Billy concentrates on his formative years compressed as they would be for anyone who died short of his 22 birthday. It starts with his arrival in New Mexico Territory with his mother and stepfather and ends with some of his first recorded killings.

Our Billy is a kid from the mean streets of New York and he's got an aversion to the hard work it takes to be a pioneer. No farming, no business trade, but Pollard does like hanging around the saloon with some new friends Richard Evans and Lee Purcell.

The Lincoln County War, Pat Garrett all this comes a bit later in the life of our prairie juvenile delinquent. Pollard is always interesting and quirky be it a Disney film like Summer Magic or with outlaw legends of a more modern era like Bonnie And Clyde.

Dirty Little Billy is one unique Mr. Bonney.

Watch Dirty Little Billy back-to-back with Young Guns for a testimonial to how little faith you can place in Hollywood to give you an accurate portrayal of history.

In the latter we have William Bonney, aka Billy the Kid, portrayed as the fastest, cleverest, most ruthless and domineering youngster ever born...a boy capable of shooting it out with a dozen experienced gunfighters and living to tell about it. Then, in the former, we have the very same William Bonney, aka Billy the Kid, now portrayed as this skinny little punk with his hands wrapped in bandages because farm work is too rough on his delicate skin. He follows his hero, Goldie, around obsequiously, and trembles like he's giving birth to porcupines whenever he's got a gun in his hands.

So which one is accurate? Neither, of course; they're both Hollywood characters. They're both historical B.S., just like almost every other movie ever made about any other famous person who ever lived. I'm sure the real Billy the Kid fell somewhere far in between those two portrayals. No human being that ever lived could have survived all those gunfights that super-bad Emilio Esteves won so easily. (must be kin to Sylvester Stallone), just as a sissy like Michael J. Pollard could never have survived for two days as an outlaw in the Wild West.

But, is the movie good? Yeah, for entertainment value it's O.K. I guess, but my being an old fart that saw it at the drive-in, back in '73, may have something to do with that opinion. (It came on Encore Channel last night, which is why I'm writing this) I also kind of enjoyed Young Guns, even though I had to roll my eyes alot at the ridiculosity of it all. (It IS a word...I just invented it)

If you're a teenage badass wannabe, you probably won't like this flick. It will make you feel uncomfortable as you spot your own sad little weaknesses in Pollard's character. Someone like you is better off fantasizing that you're Vin Diesel, while you watch Fast and Furious or something equally low-brow and gangsta-oriented.