Asides

Bonnie and Clyde, contra and pro

By July 11, 2009No Comments

For Bill:

 
 
For Campaspe: 

 Bonnieandclyde

Alas, embed­ding is not per­mit­ted for this clip, so check it out here.

What, did ya think I was gonna cite the Jay—Z number?

Incidentally, through the good graces of a cor­res­pond­ent who has some art­icle cred­its for Commentary, I have been able to read Stephen Hunter’s, um, con­sid­er­a­tion of the Arthur Penn film. It is a really remark­able piece of work, I must say. It announces its intel­lec­tu­al integ­rity right off the bat: “Route 154 seems like a road out of a Beckett land­scape…” Yeah, this is the sort of thing that people who haven’t actu­ally read any Beckett like to pull out of their hack kit bags, because after all, spe­cif­ics be damned, every­body knows that “Beckett” is a syn­onym for “bleak.” And it just gets bet­ter from there, treat­ing the film as a doc­u­ment­ary, more or less, drib­bling on about “the nar­ciss­ist­ic cul­ture,” and end­ing with the implication,apropos of noth­ing actu­ally based in, you know, real­ity, that Barack Obama hates John Wayne, would like to elev­ate vicious crim­in­als, and is object­ively pro-lynching. Kind of breath­tak­ing, actually. 

I may or may not get into this at length in the near future. But right now a friend is smoking some ribs, and I need to pick up potato salad, lard bread, stuffed olives and some hot sop­pres­sata.  I’ve got my priorities.

No Comments

  • Bilge says:

    So I take it the diet is over?

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    Temporarily sus­pen­ded. Such are the per­quis­ites of sum­mer bar­be­cue season.

  • bill says:

    Everything summed up…through song! Nice.
    Georgie Fame blinks a lot.

  • Dan Coyle says:

    The first book I read was Stephen Hunter’s Violent Screen, which, for a most part, felt like a thought­ful exam­in­a­tion of the impact of viol­ence in the films he reviewed. His whin­ing that Casualties of War was “slander” was kind of stu­pid, since it was based on an incid­ent that actu­ally happened.
    So I read Dirty White Boys not long after, and am treated in the open­ing pages to a near por­no­graph­ic scene of the vil­lains beat­ing down a black pris­on­er in the shower, shov­ing a bar of soap in his mouth so hard it nearly shat­ters his jaw. The book got even MORE viol­ent after that.
    So yeah, I got all I needed to get out of Hunter with those two books.

  • JF says:

    To be fair, Godot is set on “a coun­try road.” So we at least know he has read three words of Beckett.
    Being of the Maryland/DC area*, when I star­ted becom­ing pas­sion­ate about movies I read a whole lot of Hunter’s reviews in the Washington Post. Whenever he had an ultra­vi­olent movie to talk about, he was pretty enter­tain­ing, and for a time that was good enough for me, the nihil­ist­ic teen­ager almost exclus­ively inter­ested in zom­bies and splat­ter. Then I noticed that he sure liked a whole lot of shitty movies for half-assed reas­ons, and dis­liked more than a few good ones for reas­ons so half-assed they wer­en’t even coher­ent, at which point I real­ized he was actu­ally kinda ter­rible and stopped read­ing him.
    *Though I’m cur­rently in a very rainy New York on a Tarkovsky pil­grim­age and as a bar­be­cue con­nois­seur totally would­n’t wak­ing up in the morn­ing to find that the Leftover Barbecue Fairy–who I envi­sion as a middle-aged man in an ill-fitting leo­tard and frilly angel wings that drip with Tabasco–had left some­thing for me under my pil­low. Hint-hint.

  • JF says:

    Correction: part of my aside should read “totally would­n’t mind.”

  • Allen Belz says:

    Dirty White Boys” was all it took for me, too. Made it (barely) through most of the book, to the point where the hero, a small-town law­man, is headed out to face down the three escaped cons. The woman he’s been cheat­ing on his wife with chooses this moment to cling to him and moan “But, what about us?!” To which he replies “Get offen me, woman…I’ve got man’s work to do!” I swear, that’s a barely exag­ger­ated para­phrase of the dia­logue. Like some ‘Mad’ par­ody, from back when it was a com­ic book. And I just stopped read­ing right there. I seem to recall relat­ing this in some oth­er blog in the dis­tant past, per­haps even your old one on Première, Glenn. If so, apo­lo­gies for the repetition.

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    Wow. Anybody who adapts the name of an old Foreigner song into the title of a nov­el has prob­lems that I can­’t even begin to fathom.
    But Hunter deserves some cred­it for indus­tri­ous­ness if noth­ing else. Having appeared to have taken all the wrong les­sons from James Ellroy and Tom Clancy, he’s made what appears to be a reas­on­ably luc­rat­ive second career for him­self. And for all that, he still has a mes­sage that he must impart to us from the pages of Commentary.
    My favor­ite bit from the “Bonnie and Clyde” take­down, I’ve decided (aside from the fab­ulously double-sub-literate “It is of course ridicu­lous at this late date to run a com­par­is­on of the movie and the just-published books and get hung up at the man­i­fold elisions and men­dacit­ies of the later”—guess Commentary’s had to lay off their copy edit­ors like almost every­one else), is near the end: “If they were shot to pieces, it’s because the old-time law enforce­ment guys knew you shot them, and then you shot them some more.” Um, sure, Stephen, whatever you say. And, as a much bet­ter band than Foreigner once put it, gimme three steps toward the door…

  • tc says:

    Tell me, how much of Hunter’s piece is devoted to fas­cin­at­ing top­ics like telling us the caliber of every gun used and explain­ing at length how the law­men’s bul­lets would actu­ally have per­for­ated Bonnie in a some­what dif­fer­ent pat­tern if the film­makers really knew their weaponry? That used to be his drool­er trade­mark at the WashPost, and was one more reas­on nobody mourned his depar­ture for red­der – er, green­er pastures.

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    @ tc: Nah, he leaves that stuff out, likely in defer­ence to what he infers to be the more del­ic­ate sens­ib­il­it­ies of the Commentary read­er­ship. Although I don’t know, I bet Midge, in par­tic­u­lar, would really eat up that sort of thing.

  • Christian says:

    It is of course ridicu­lous at this late date to run a com­par­is­on of the movie and the just-published books and get hung up at the man­i­fold elisions and men­dacit­ies of the later” – Dean Moriarty, 1951

  • JF says:

    Bang bang/You shot me down/Bang bang/Then you shot me some more/Bang bang/Why did they give you a Pulitzer/Bang bang, etc.

  • bgn says:

    Sounds like a worthy suc­cessor to Richard Grenier. And this is what John Podhoretz means by an “inter­est­ing sensibility”…!

  • Dave says:

    I know it’s really off-topic in rela­tion to this post, but your second link reminded me of Irma Vep’s fine use of this song (covered by Luna)–a nice memory to coun­ter­bal­ance the odd com­ments you quoted on Penn’s film.

  • Campaspe says:

    Bardot et Gainsbourg, pour moi? Merci beaucoup!