I hadn't seen this movie in at least 20 years, but in the last few, it had started to itch away at my mind. I thought it terrific when I first saw it, but had I missed something even so? Was it more than just a disturbing adventure movie, in which city people run afoul of backwoodsmen?
So as soon as I saw the DVD, I bought it, even though it was obviously another Warner Bros. rush-it-out, never-mind-the-extras job.
The movie isn't as good as I remembered -- it's better. Those who are looking for a RIVER WILD thriller, or a SOUTHERN COMFORT (a DELIVERANCE imitation) suspense movie, are already looking in the wrong place. This movie is about what goes on inside people much more than it is about what goes on >around< them.
I've seen comments here suggesting that Ned Beatty doesn't show enough reaction after being brutally raped. Huh? He's stunned for ten minutes, then tries to attack Bill McKinney's >corpse<. He's still rattled the last time we see him in the movie, when he tells Jon Voight that they won't be seeing each other for a while. (Which clearly means forever.) Beatty's life has been changed; he'll never get over it.
So has Voight's, but in a different way. For the first time, I noticed that >three< people get into the tow truck when Reynolds hires those brothers to drive their cars to the canoeist's destination. Sure, that's logical -- there are three vehicles to drive initially, after all. But why does Boorman take pains to avoid showing us the face of the third person in the tow truck, but does show him fingering the gun in the rear window of the truck?
Could it be because this guy turns up later? Is he Bill McKinney's character? Or the Toothless guy? Or the guy Voight kills? Which of course raises the most important questions in the movie: WAS Ronny Cox shot? And if he was, was the guy Voight kills the one who shot him? (And was Voight's victim the Toothless guy?) On an initial viewing of the movie, all this seems pretty obvious: yes, Cox is shot; yes, Voight kills the right person, the Toothless guy.
But then what about the man we later learn has gone hunting but who hasn't returned? Why is Voight so shocked when he looks into the mouth of his victim? Boorman and Dickey give great weight to the scene in which Voight fails to kill a deer. (Even if he had, it would have been a foolish, wasteful act.) The interplay between Voight and Reynolds is also very interesting; Voight clearly admires Reynolds on some levels, while finding him disgusting on others.
Dickey is primarily a poet, secondarily a novelist; it's not hard to believe that he intended all four men to represent different aspects of the human condition. DELIVERANCE is one of the most intricately ambiguous movies of its type ever made; it cannot be pulled apart into easily-understood sections, and where our sympathies should lie is never obvious. Even the sheriff, played by Dickey himself, has darker shadings that are partly inexplicable. And there is that shot of the removal of the graves; it's not in there by chance or for local color.
On the surface, DELIVERANCE seems to be an exciting, disturbing adventure -- and it is that. But just like the secrets the lake conceals, there's a great deal more beneath the surface of DELIVERANCE.
