A recurring scheme used by Conrad L. Hall, Director of Cinematography for the film, was the omittance of certain variables in the film. Perhaps most notably was how the main antagonist, the mysterious horse-mounted gang chasing Butch and Kid throughout the film, remained faceless. Although the distanced menace was a constant recurrence in the plot, they remained just that: distanced. “Who are those guys?” This theme was arguably foreshadowed in the introductory scene in the movie where the (presumably) opponents in a game of blackjack remained faceless or in the shadows. Does the anonymity of the antagonists or opponents add to the feeling of threat in these scenes? The latter example might just be speculation, but the just-out-of-view pursuers throughout the film certainly was intentional. Whether that be a choice made by Cinematographer Hall or the film’s Director George Roy Hill, of course, is up in the air. Bottom line, the distance (far-off filming) and lighting (shadowing or lightening of certain characters or factors), was intentional scheming in the cinematography of the film.
In the same speculative vein, I found it interesting that while the theme of traveling is pervasive throughout the story, the Hill made the choice of omitting the scenes when Butch, Kid, and Etta escape to Bolivia and instead shows up still photos of their travels with cheerful music. Why were those scenes left out? On that note, I think it’s important to note that the mood suddenly became optimistic with the change in music and scenery between the original setting and the opportune land of Bolivia. This wasn’t something that I was really in tune with during the screening in class, but one student pointed out that the lighting once the trio made their landing was significantly brighter (or maybe this could be interpreted as more washed out? Clean, fresh start, perhaps?), and bright is often associated with the positive or optimistic. I feel the need to keep reiterating that this is all speculative, but then I remind myself that all of these factors are really open to interpretation, aren’t they?
To move the topic back to camerawork, one scene that particularly struck me is when Butch and Kid come under fire while escorting their employer through a canyon somewhere in the middle of the film. (I’ll try to be more specific in a later draft of this review!) After the poor guy gets K.O.’d, the remaining duo crouches out of sight in the bushes. What I think was very intentional here was that the two are very zoomed in on at this point and neither the audience at home nor the movie’s characters can see what is going on outside of this narrow field of view. This adds to the suspense and uncertainty of the situation and— ahah! – once again our attacker or antagonist’s face is omitted. (Admittedly, the gunman are eventually shown, so this isn’t a completely fluid tie-in.) The idea here is that the director could have taken the route of showing us a zoomed out or more wholesome view of the scene, but instead chose to limit our view to the perspective of the victims.
In summary, the idea of omittance really rung with me when reflecting on Buch Cassidy, and with being prompted to review the cinematography of this film, I’m really starting to pick up on these intentional schemes in camerawork and lighting.