Today John Nolte, editor-in-chief of Big Hollywood, the Andrew Breitbart-presented conservative movie website, commemorated the site’ six-month anniversary and, as is the custom with such celebrations, lavished fulsome praise on its readers, and then averred that “nothing would be possible without the generosity of talent” of the site’s multifarious contributors. “For six month,” he gushes, “we’ve been blessed by some of the best content anywhere—thoughtful, articulate, persuasive, lively, witty, passionate, respectful, informed content.”
Directly below his little effusion is a post by former Saturday Night Live cast member Victoria Jackson, in which she relates how she went into a shop in Burbank, didn’t buy anything, and, apropos of nothing, began haranguing the shop owner and her assistants with a diatribe about how Barack Obama “supports killing nine month old babies in the womb” and is now embarking on a program to “kill sick people and old people.” Ms. Jackson depicts herself as extremely disturbed and disheartened that her impromptu is met by weird stares and the sound not merely of crickets but of “[d]ead crickets.” (Could have been worse—they could have called security. I imagine the only reason they didn’t was because they had some inkling of who Jackson was.)
Like the man said: Thoughtful, articulate, persuasive, lively, witty, passionate, respectful, informed content.
I’ve had some personal dealings with Nolte, and he’s a very decent guy who genuinely loves movies, but this bed he’s made for himself is really…something…
Well…I guess it’s probably good that things didn’t work out, then, isn’t it?
And in a not dissimilar vein, Stephen Holden in the latest COMMENTARY explains why he doesn’t like “Bonnie and Clyde.”
His move to BigHo was a net plus for me, as I was able to wean myself from my unhealthy Libertas obsession.
I could only take a few minutes of looking at that. As Nietzsche says, if you gaze long at Big Hollywood, Big Hollywood inundates you with stupid.
It’s Stephen Hunter, not Stephen Holden of the NY Times, who goes after Bonnie & Clyde in Commentary.
You would think one Terry Teachout would be enough.
Jackson was awfully cute in “Casual Sex?,” an underrated, fluffy little 80s comedy in which Andrew Dice Clay was actually kind of appealing. Her IMDB bio shows a fair amount of work, so I guess her coworkers don’t mind being harangued about Communism and infanticide between takes.
“Hey V, wanna run some lines?”
“LINES? I’ll tell you about the LINES we’ll be standing in under Barack BERIA Obama…”
@ James Wolcott: Yes, I kind of figured as much, as I desultorily scanned comments from my imbibing/reading alfresco perch in Carroll Gardens with no real internet-scanning capabilities. Hunter certainly fits the bill, but I did get a kick out of imagining Holden doing it. What would have made him turn? Does John Podhoretz find his sensibility “interesting?” How did he get around The Times’ rules against staff film critics freelancing? Etc. Hunter is, alas, a much better fit for such a dopey (not to mention ill-timed) bit of contrarianism.
@Campaspe: You crack me up, you genius you. I would love to talk with you some time soon about the Gilda/Marienbad link. And a lot else.
“Casual Sex?” is probably one of the worst movies ever made.
Having not met Nolte personally, I can only judge him from what he writes. And one thing that comes to my mind is his take on “Paths of Glory.” To quote –
“Said this before but it’s worth repeating: If present-day Hollywood were capable of making anti-war films half as powerful as this, al-Qaeda would own Iraq and 25 million innocent Iraqis would either be dead or enslaved.”
First of all, the lack of effective anti-war films in modern times has not prevented Nolte from complaining endlessly about the anti-war films that have been made.
Second, he’s essentially making an argument against “Paths of Glory” while praising it. If such a film could bring about that level of misery, then you shouldn’t make it. And yet he apparently wants it to exist. I have no idea why.
Whatever Nolte’s enjoyment of films, it will always be swallowed by his political hackery. Big Hollywood is right where he should be.
Well, Rudy, I don’t know what to say to that. It isn’t The Awful Truth, hell, it isn’t even Sixteen Candles, but it’s a sex comedy I found pleasant enough at the time. If it’s one of the worst movies ever made, I do wonder what category we have left for “Caddyshack 2” or “Monster A Go-Go.”
The worst movies ever made are “Batman and Robin” and “Speed 2: Cruise Control”. I had the misfortune of seeing them both on the same evening and I still haven’t recovered.
“Paths of Glory” is not a film against “war” in general – it’s a film about WWI. If it’s “against” anything, it’s “against” that particular war…which most sane people these days consider to have been particularly pointless and senselessly brutal and destructive. Compared, to, say, WWII, where you could kinda see the necessity of fighting and resisting Hitler etc.
Presumably Nolte is too big of a moron to get this “subtle” point. Or perhaps he’s just defensive of pointless and senseless wars – WWI and Iraq, namely. Vietnam too, one assumes. How dare anyone make a movie showing how sad it is when piles brave, idealistic young men (and now women) are turned into fertilizer by idiotic/lying/misguided politicians! Glorifying pointless death for stupidity and/or lies is the hallmark of the true Patriotic Conservative.
When others do the dying, of course.
On the same evening??? I am aghast and agog.
So what you’re saying here, Mark, is that whatever Ms Jackson dishes up, on the computer screen or the silver screen, will be small potatoes comparatively speaking.
Cereal, Kubrick himself called “Paths of Glory” an anti-war film.
“How dare anyone…” etc. I’ll stop you right there, because you’re clearly missing Nolte’s point. He thinks “Paths of Glory” is an excellent film, and is not complaining that it questions the necessity or execution of WWI. The rest of his point wasn’t really meant to be taken literally.
Hey you guys, isn’t it hilarious how Obama keeps calling Putin “President Putin”? And how he gave Gordon Brown a bunch of DVDs? Or are verbal flubs and tacky public relations moves on the part of US presidents no longer funny, for some mysterious reason?
Also, I must be a simple-minded contrarian, because I don’t like “Bonnie and Clyde” either. I can’t stand Stephen Hunter either, for that matter, but whatever.
@bill: Maybe if you dislike both Stephen Hunter and “Bonnie and Clyde” the two cancel each other out, like matter and anti-matter.
In fairness to Hunter, he did some really great guitar work on Lou Reed’s “Rock n Roll Animal.” I don’t know why he gave up axemanship for film reviewing, which he’s much, much less good at. Oh, wait they were two different guys. Never mind.
Well, Glenn, I don’t like Hunter because he does stupid things like write down on paper, for the whole world to see, that he doesn’t like “2001” because it didn’t come true. But I would guess that his reasons for not liking “Bonnie and Clyde” are similar to my own. Although, then again, this being Stephen Hunter, he might not like it because Penn got the guns wrong, or something.
By the way, why is it bad timing to start claiming you don’t like “Bonnie and Clyde”? Before asking, I did a quick search to see if Penn or Benton or Dunaway had died, but they haven’t. So what’s the deal?
@Bill – I would say it’s a bad time to aim a peashooter at Bonnie and Clyde because public indignation over people robbing the poor, defenseless banks is, shall we say, at rather a low ebb.
Further digression on the prior digression: As far as I know, Kubrick said Paths of Glory was directed at the authoritarian mindset rather than war itself, but it’s a distinction without a difference in my view. Not only is Paths of Glory an anti-war movie, its portrait of the military is so scathing that France effectively pulled it until the 70s. And the U.S. military got the point, too–they refused to show it in Army theatres.
It’s usual to have a number of films with antiwar themes in the decade or so after a war, and World War II isn’t an exception, even if few are as bitter as the Kubrick film. Attack!, for example–if that film were released now I would be covering my ears from the sound of BH columnists and commenters shrieking about the portrait of our Brave WWII Vets. Nor does anyone at BH seem to appreciate that the spate of antiwar movies after Vietnam was part of that pattern, or that the bitter, violent ex-veteran character has roots that go decades beyond the 1970s. The site suffers from a dearth of columnists with much in the way of film-history perspective. Except Robert Avrech, whose Hollywood history posts I commend to readers from all points on the aisle.
I do think, however, that John intended for us to take his point literally. Whatever else one can say about his site, Nolte sincerely believes in the power of movies, and he’s held forth frequently on Iraq movies as deliberate attempts to undermine morale.
Finally, as I look at Ms Jackson’s post again (can’t help it, rubbernecking I suppose) I am starting to wonder if this is actually performance art. She warned us in an earlier post that she was going to roam the streets denouncing the coming Communism at every point. If she starts bringing along video crews I will be convinced she’s doing a Borat.
@bill: I think it’s because, unless you can make a startlingly new and brilliant case for not liking it, that it’s kind of beside the point, like strolling into a party and announcing you dislike buttermilk fried chicken or something. I mean, the Blu-ray disc of the thing came out like, what, a full year and three months ago?
Clearly this is my old-school print mentality lead-time obsessed self talking. Still, I ask, why now? I might have to actually look up the article to find out. And I’d kind of hate to have to do that.
@Campaspe – What about public indignation over murdering the poor, defenseless bank tellers?
@Glenn – Maybe its the release of “Public Enemies”? I’ve seen reevaluations hung on thinner motives than that.
@Bill – The teller’s death is clearly and tellingly portrayed. It is possible for a movie to suggest, as Bonnie and Clyde does, that the greater crimes are being done by the system, and simultaneously show that going up against that system is also going to result in innocent victims. The two are not mutually exclusive.
@Campapse:
Re: Victoria Jackson and performance art. A) One Borat is enough. B) People have been saying this about Ann Coulter for years, and it isn’t any more true now than it was when she wanted the NY Times building blown up.
@bill & Campaspe: My own two cents about “Bonnie and Clyde;” while I admire some of its particulars, particularly the work of the supporting cast, it’s not a movie I ever particularly warmed up to, and I don’t believe, objectively, it has retained all of the power that it seemed to have when it was having its way with the zeitgeist, a time I remember pretty well. That said, I think Penn was going after something kind of complex with the violence, painting Parker and Barrow as careless children who didn’t know quite what they were doing, and depicting their massacre at the end as killing a fly with a bazooka. But the trope of the charismatic killer is always with us, in films both great and lousy…
And Bill, about our esteemed President: Yeah, the DVD gaffe was not his finest hour, particularly for those among us who understand region coding. In his defense, he’s supposed to have staffers who figure out this kind of thing for him, isn’t he? (Remember that Goldie Hawn picture “Protocol?” Hey, that wasn’t half bad, as such things go…) And as for the ever-entertaining “President” Putin, well, there’s a debate raging about it over at Politico:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0709/President_Putin.html
where one wise commenter brings up a not-insubstantial “who gives a shit” argument by pointing out that the U.S. got Russia to open up their land and air space for use in the war in Afghanistan, which, as Rocky The Flying Squirrel says, is something we all can enjoy. Well, not “all.” Probably not the Taliban.
@Campaspe -
In other words, you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, right? Does this philosophy extend to taking out Hussein? I imagine it doesn’t.
The main point that most of the detractors of “Bonnie and Clyde” make is that the actuall Bonnie and Clyde weren’t going against the system. They were low-down greedy killers. And they killed far more than a single bank teller, by the way. They left a trail of corpses behind them. If a film were made about a conservative authoritarian figure with a scandalous past, even if it didn’t include multiple murder, but that past was white-washed in order to make him someone who stood up for conservative values, that film would be fucking shredded by the same people who hold “Bonnie and Clyde” so dear. Artistry be damned.
Glenn, I wholeheartedly love Bonnie and Clyde despite my very real resistance to the whole “charismatic killer” trope. I think the control of tone is simply stunning, the bursts of violence alternating with the moments of quiet, like the family picnic that serves as the funeral the couple will never have. The film isn’t just portraying B&C as anti-heroes, it also looks at the origins and consequences of glamorizing criminals.
And rooted in the 60s it may be, but the attitude toward bank robbers portrayed in the movie is not so far from the contemporary truth. When I asked my grandparents and multiple great-aunts and uncles about criminals in the Depression, what I got was a bellyful of the banks. (And they were Alabama farmers, hardly radical-chic material.) It wasn’t that they admired Dillinger or Bonnie and Clyde, but that sort of criminality didn’t rate on the scale.
In any event, “Bonnie and Clyde” has worn a great deal better than poor old Bosley Crowther.
I could have set my watch by the “omelette-eggs” reference. No, that is not what Bonnie & Clyde is saying nor is it what I was driving at. Violence has consequences, a viewpoint you’re a lot more likely to encounter in something like B&C than in the action genre – which does indeed, on many many occasions, show fundamentally conservative figures leaving behind trails of corpses in the name of upholding law & order, the right to bear arms, etc.
But, Campaspe, there’s a fundamental difference that you seem to be deliberately ignoring. In a conservative action film, the trail of corpses are those who are killing and oppressing the innocent. Bonnie and Clyde killed innocent people. I don’t expect this argument to change your party affiliation, but how can you not understand the difference?
Wait, I’m confused – bill, your last comment can’t possibly be serious, can it?
Well, I don’t know. Am I serious about the moral difference in killing someone in order to stop them from killing innocent people, and killing someone because you want their money? Yes. I am serious about that.
I love this thread!
No, I’m not ignoring the difference. Action movies do. Clyde, in particular, is shown experiencing remorse. In something like Death Wish, the only violence that counts is that which is perpetrated on Charles Bronson and family. The rest of the movie might as well be footage of him stepping on cockroaches for all the emotional impact it contains.
Contrast that with the real world, where killing even the (purportedly) deserving leaves its marks on the killer – like Prentiss Oakley, who is said to have expressed some reservations about the way Bonnie and Clyde were gunned down without a chance to give themselves up. Hell, contrast it with Myrna Loy, who expressed compassion for Dillinger, shot after breaking cover to see her latest movie.
And in the real world, as in Bonnie and Clyde, sometimes criminals are gunned down as much for the glory of the shooter as for any desire to protect civilians. Action movies frequently want to have it both ways–glory, and pure motivations.
“The rest of [Nolte’s] point wasn’t really meant to be taken literally.”
I know Nolte likes to defend some of his statements as deliberate exaggerations, but they fit with the ones he delivers straight-faced. Time and time again he’s depicted Hollywood as being morally complicit with al-Qaeda.(“They are enablers of evil, enablers of genocide, and appeasers of terrorism.”) By his standards, a new “Paths of Glory” set in Iraq would be a moral blight. Which makes me wonder why he liked the original at all.
“Whatever else one can say about his site, Nolte sincerely believes in the power of movies, and he’s held forth frequently on Iraq movies as deliberate attempts to undermine morale.”
The thing is – his political interpretation of cinema doesn’t even follow a coherent pattern. One minute he’s fretting that “the most effective propaganda tool ever devised will remain firmly in leftist hands.” The next minute he’s crowing that liberal actors are “completely out of touch with the audience.” On one hand he’s putting a big social burden onto films. (“And now we’re in a war for civilization itself and a suitcase bomb away from hell being delivered to our door. Films matter.”) On another hand he insists, “[A]ll I want for my ten bucks is to get lost for a couple hours.”
Such incoherency is the mark of hacks – both political hacks and hack movie critics.
@bill – Incidentally, I am enjoying the back-and-forth here, in case you can’t tell. It is the sort of debate I wish could be found at Big Hollywood, but can’t. One hint of dissent, however politely expressed, and you’re crushed, dare I say it, like an egg.
@Campaspe – In “Death Wish”, after Bronson kills the first guy, who goes home and vomits in the toilet. It’s been a while since I’ve seen the film, but I remember that clearly.
And in, for example, “Rambo”, poor John Rambo doesn’t even want to get involved. He’s tired of the killing, you see. I’m being flippant, because it’s a silly movie (that I happen to love, of course), but that’s a not uncommon aspect of conservative action films, as well.
I’m also aware that Oakley showed remorse about the circumstances surrounding Bonnie & Clyde’s death, but you’re again missing my larger point about that film, which is that it ignores the specific historical truth about Bonnie and Clyde in order to make them easier to sympathize with, and in order to make it easier for the anti-authoritarian audience to feel a satirical thrill about banks getting it in the neck.
Early in his “career”, Clyde and his gang ambushed a number of police officers (don’t remember the number off-hand), essentially shooting them in the back. The number of deaths Clyde is responsible for is in the double digits. Where is that in the film? And why isn’t it there? And why should I give a damn that Warren Beatty acts remorse on Clyde’s behalf, when the real Clyde kept killing?
“HE goes home and vomits…”
Also, Campaspe, I’m enjoying the conversation as well.
@HisNewreasons, for his efforts to put more conservative fannies in front of the DVD player for stuff like Paths of Glory, John Nolte gets a big, genuine “Spasibo, Tovarich” from this lefty. But I admit to you that I can’t unravel the logic of having a “celebrity libtard of the week” when you’re giving a platform to a near-forgotten actress who apparently responds to “Hi, how are you?” with “Today I’m brooding about dead babies, thankyouverymuch.” And so I don’t try. It’s like Woody Allen’s father in Hannah and Her Sisters: “He wants to know why are there Nazis. I can’t even figure out how the can opener works.” I skip the political posts now, unless someone points them out (and thanks one whole hell of a lot for that, Glenn) or I’m in one of those devil-may-care moods.
Great thread.
Two of the Some Came Running comment masters (reasonably!) having at it.
Who would have thought this level of entertaining discourse would spring forth from a post of “Misc. inanity”?
Now to recede back into lurkerdom.
@Bill – do you feel the same way about the many movies glorifying Wyatt Earp? We both know “My Darling Clementine” and later films, too, jettison a good deal of Earp’s unsavory side because it doesn’t fit with the filmmaker’s goals. Not to mention the romantic view of Jesse James or George Armstrong Custer. Movies succeed or fail on their own terms; you look to them for artistic truth, because historical truth is seldom to be found. I can take the distortions of Bonnie and Clyde AND My Darling Clementine because the films’ themes stand on their own. Years of watching old movies and their mythology have probably given me a pretty thick skin, although I suspect any movie-lover does have a limit. I would say Mel Gibson’s “The Patriot” crossed the line for me, but I can’t say how much of that is because I didn’t like the movie on an artistic level either.
As for Bronson vomiting–indeed I’d forgotten that, but like most New Yorkers I’ve come close to vomiting on several roach-killing expeditions, too.
Campaspe, I’m actually not terribly fond of the portrayal Earp routinely receives, but I’ll admit that it sticks in my craw less than the way Bonnie and Clyde’s does. My reasoning may not wash with you, but here it is: in the various Earp films, Earp is generally portrayed as an honest lawman battling greed and cold-blooded violence (I’m simplifying things, but you get the point). In “Bonnie and Clyde”, I’m supposed to be rooting for people who are thieves and killers, not only in reality, but IN THE FILM. If I knew nothing about the real Bonnie and Clyde, I would still find that offensive.
But no, I still don’t like the white-washing Earp gets. Which brings me back to an earlier point I made that went unanswered in the flurry of comments. Wouldn’t a film that portrayed, say, Nixon in a glamorized light in order to present themes that, at their core, you valued, bother the shit out of you?
And I acknowledge that such a film is one you probably can’t even imagine, but we’re being hypothetical here.
I’ve never really seen “Bonnie & Clyde” as a political film until this discussion, nor have I ever considered it to be a “liberal” film. Maybe this shows my niavete, or at least my remove from that particular zietgeist.
I’ve never been a huge fan, truth be told, but I do appreciate/respect the film, its historical significance, its artistry– even if it’s never really moved me all that much. While the film is certainly sympathetic to its leads and romanticizes them, and while it at the very least fetishizes the violence perpetrated both by and against its stars, I don’t see it as condoning the deaths of innocent people any more than “Badlands” did– that is, not at all. I don’t see the film as saying “It’s okay for Bonnie and Clyde to kill these people” or that “it’s okay for anybody to kill anybody”; in fact, in strictly moralistic terms, they more-or-less reaped what they sowed. Hardly “hurray, kill those bank tellers!”
I do, however, see Bill’s larger point about the romanticization of murderers in general, even if I think Penn’s film is a bit more nuanced than that. And I see Campaspe’s point about how conservative action films– which are, to my mind, more explicitly political than films like “Bonnie and Clyde” or “Badlands” or likely Mann’s “Public Enemies”, though the latter I have not yet seen, hence the “likely”– endorse the killing of the bad guys. Granted, in those films the bad guys really are sick bastards that deserve to be put down. Not that I think either type of film– the conservative action film or, for the sake of argument, the liberal action film*, which we’ll assume includes fare like “Bonnie and Clyde”– is saying that any form of killing should be acceptable in real life anymore than pornography is saying that we should all be incredibly promiscuous. In all cases, these are fantasies– explicitly escapist entertainments.
Which is why the moral complexity/messiness of “Bonnie and Clyde”, which prevents us from “escaping”, belies I think any attempts to tease a political viewpoint or endorsement of murder out of it. And, as a passionate lefty in good standing, I have to say that I’d hate to see an actual escapist liberal action film– what’s the hero going to do, calmly hit the villain with a U.N. resolution?
Or to put it this way– while I believe in the necessity and power of diplomacy (an idea which stretches across the aisle, actually; just ask Dr. Kissinger) and that, as Scolfield essayed in “A Man for All Seasons”, the devil should be given the benefit of the law if only to protect ourselves, these are all terrible themes for an action film.
At any rate, enough about “Bonnie and Clyde”! Let’s talk about Penn’s REAL masterpiece of violence and the mythologization of murder, “Little Big Man”.
Oh, also, nobody likes “The Patriot”, because it’s terrible, but they did change it from a straight biopic to a general work of (awful) fiction because people were clearing their throats and pointing out the truth about the Swamp Fox.
While I was writing my previous response, quite a few more arrived, some of which rendered my participation somewhat moot. At any rate, forgive the double-posting, as I respond to Bill:
“Wouldn’t a film that portrayed, say, Nixon in a glamorized light in order to present themes that, at their core, you valued, bother the shit out of you?”
Yes.
Now, a film that presented Nixon in full– which Oliver Stone, per usual, most assuredly did not give us– that showed us how brilliant, how intelligent, how good he could be, how hard he & Kissinger worked for détente, as well as how self-destructive and how corrupt and how bigoted he could be and was—- that’s a Nixon film I would love to see.
You know what’s a surprisingly good film, given its potentially exploitive subject matter? “Dahmer”. It doesn’t romanticize its subject, doesn’t make the killings “okay” but also doesn’t make him “evil”. It makes him sick, almost tragic, without making him anything remotely close to something we can celebrate. It’s actually very much worth seeking out.
@Tom – Regarding your response to my Nixon movie question: Well, that’s my point. My made up Nixon film is to you what “Bonnie and Clyde” is to me.
And “Dahmer” IS a good film. I have no beef with that portrayal.
Bill, I know that was your point– I was agreeing with you.
Let me put something somewhat provocative out there: what if Bonnie and Clyde is one of those rare beasts, the artful but evil film? Like “Birth of a Nation” or “JFK”, it is a work of beauty that willfully distorts history (and our perception of it: most people consider B&C romantic gangsters and Kennedy the victim of a conspiracy despite all evidence to the contrart) and does a disservice to truth. Which leaves us with the question: has B&C done as much harm as “Birth” or “JFK”? Has Dillinger? How much do we as a people romanticize today’s real-life criminals?
And while Presidential portraits is being tangentially discussed, I have to say as a passionate left-winger who was resolutely not a fan of the second President Bush that he deserved so much better than “W”. How anyone found it “even-handed” (the Robin Hood theme? seriously?) or accurate (“Empire!”? seriously?) is absolutely astonishing.
With a movie about Nixon vs. Bonnie and Clyde, I must say we have rather a large question of criminal scale.
At the moment I can’t go further than that, because I am laughing too hard over Tom: “As a passionate lefty in good standing, I have to say that I’d hate to see an actual escapist liberal action film– what’s the hero going to do, calmly hit the villain with a U.N. resolution?”
Not that anybody asked, but a movie that for me goes way too far in romanticizing a killer would be “Silence of the Lambs.” Hannibal Lecter is a revolting creation in every sense, although the movie is very artfully done.
“Has Dillinger?”
That is, “Public Enemies”.
@Tom again (this time regarding your earlier comment) – You make a lot of excellent points, I must say, but I have to be clear that I don’t believe that “Bonnie and Clyde” celebrates the murders it depicts, but rather it asks us to overlook them. As I see it, the film asks the audience to overlook the blood spilled by Bonnie and Clyde, because they’re human beings – heck, they’re just kids! – plus also the police are bad. In short, it asks for us to sympathize with the wrong characters.
“Public Enemies”, by the way, doesn’t do this. It depicts Dillinger as a human being, but only because it’s an honest film (which I nevertheless have some problems with), not because it’s unclear who the real bad guy is. Mann doesn’t ask the audience to be horrified that the FBI shot Dillinger, but rather, maybe, to be sad that it was necessary.
For the record – and I don’t think you necessarily mentioned this film in order to bring it into the discussion – but I don’t remember getting a “Bonnie and Clyde” vibe from “Badlands”. Again, it’s been a long time, but that film strikes me as being closer to the “Dahmer” camp (morally speaking) than the “Bonnie and Clyde” camp.
@ Bill– you’re quite right on all counts, and those are good points. I should probably preclude myself from discussing “Bonnie and Clyde” in particular any further since I haven’t seen since, oh, 1996, when I was fourteen years old. I’m running on memory and the posts in this thread– always a tenuous place to argue from.
@Campaspe: I never had that much of a problem with “Silence of the Lambs” in that I think the film is equally repulsed and fascinated by Lector. It is “Hannibal” that crosses the line– which is, IIRC, why Foster and Demme had nothing to do with it.
@Campaspe – “With a movie about Nixon vs. Bonnie and Clyde, I must say we have rather a large question of criminal scale”
Then pick a conservative who you perceive as a criminal whose misdeeds are more on par with murdering a dozen or so innocent people. I think you’re missing the forest for the trees in this question.
@Tom – “I should probably preclude myself from discussing “Bonnie and Clyde” in particular any further since I haven’t seen since, oh, 1996, when I was fourteen years old.”
I don’t know – I doubt any of us are basing our arguments on having seen the film yesterday.
Also, Campaspe, I really didn’t think “Silence of the Lambs” romanticized Lector. The later films did, yes, but I thought Demme had him nailed as a monster.
“As I see it, the film asks the audience to overlook the blood spilled by Bonnie and Clyde, because they’re human beings – heck, they’re just kids!”
No, I don’t think so. I didn’t feel that way at all. Why do you think the film asks us to overlook the blood? (even it does say they’re human beings, and kids in some respect)
And as for your Nixon film, Frost/Nixon presented a sympathetic Nixon and only mentioned a small part of his checkered history. Does that count?
Just wanted to toss into the mix this David Thomson essay on the superiority of “Bonnie & Clyde” to “Public Enemies”: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ae31adde-f3f3-44b0-9908-cda98c074399
As is not atypical of Thomson for me, I shared his preference in movies and found his arguments completely ridiculous.
@Yuval – Maybe “overlook” was not exactly the right word (I’m not convinced it is, but maybe I should see the film again before I hammer on that point), but the film at least wants us to sympathize with Bonnie and Clyde, and feel their deaths with more emotional force than the deaths of their victims. Their victims, and their murders, are minimized, to the glorification of the murderers themselves.
And I haven’t seen “Frost/Nixon”, so I can’t answer that question.
I don’t think Bonnie and Clyde is at all an evil film. Mentioning it in the same breath as Birth of a Nation won’t hold up, to coin a phrase. Bonnie and Clyde brings up some sharp and still-painful points about which was more criminal at the time–the social and economic system that had thrown millions of blameless people into desperate poverty, and the agents enforcing that system, or the reckless, self-centered, give-a-damn kids wreaking havoc on the margins of society. The movie sides much more with the kids but by no means does it do so entirely. And I can’t agree with Bill that the central question is somehow off limits, especially when parts of the public were asking it at the time the real, murderous Bonnie and Clyde were on their tear.
Badlands is based on the Starkweather/Fugate case. It’s often compared with B&C but aside from the basic criminal-couple premise the two films don’t have much in common, in my view. The Malick is a hell of a lot more grim, the couple utterly un-glamorized and the Sheen character a stone-cold sociopath whom the movie examines like a plant under a glass. Another work of genius, but I agree with Bill that it can’t be said to invite any kind of identification with the murderous lovers.
Not to put words in anyone’s mouth, but I can confidently state that the great Dave Kehr definitely believes that “Silence” makes a kind of lovable character out of Lecter; the film’s “I’m having an old friend for dinner” punchline is his exhibit A. The picture pretty much ruined Demme for Kehr, who prior to that thought Demme could have been the American Renoir. It speaks well of Demme and Foster that they wouldn’t go along with Harris’ appalling rethink of the character (and indeed, in an interview I did with Demme years ago, he spoke admiringly of Harris’ “moral vision;” this was prior to the unveiling of “Hannibal”), but it’s true there are a few who think that “Lambs” itself crosses a certain line.
@Campaspe – “And I can’t agree with Bill that the central question is somehow off limits”
Which central question have I said is off limits? I don’t know what you mean here.
@Glenn – Does Kehr not go in for gallows humor at all? Plus, Kehr also used the floor-tile used in the first murder scene in “No Country for Old Men” as exhibit A that the Coens were mocking Midwesterners, so…
The novel “Hannibal” is appalling. Martin Amis’s evisceration of it is one of the best reviews of anything I’ve ever read.
@Glenn – Elliott Leyton, the serial-killer expert and author of Hunting Humans, was completely appalled by “Silence” for the same reasons. I still remember his phrase; he said serial killers are “pathetic, dull, defective” individuals who have nothing in common with the intellectual, at times quite debonair Lecter. The Demme film wants to have it both ways, but such moral underpinnings as the movie has come with Jodie Foster’s character. For me, the most effective scene is the one where she is examining one of Buffalo Bill’s victims, pulled from a river. The way it’s shot and Foster’s acting all give you a sense of the girl on the table as a human being, something that is quite absent from the way a lot of victims are portrayed in serial-killer movies. And the way the whole movie becomes focused on saving a single life, that worked for me as well. But there’s no question in my mind that we are supposed to find Lecter appealing on some level, and Kehr’s exhibit A would be mine, too.
@bill: I disagree almost completely with Dave’s“Old Men” linoleum musings, but his “Silence” thoughts do give me pause. (Paws?) Still, I hold very strongly to the notion that any film featuring The Fall’s “Hip Priest” on its soundtrack can’t be all bad. (And even so, its presence in the “Silence” is problematic, suggesting that serial killers have excellent taste in post-punk rock…or is it that post-punk rock can only appeal to the sociopathic or psychopathic? Given Demme’s own musical taste I’d say the former, or maybe neither. Now Mongo confused.)
And yes, Amis’ takedown of “Hannibal” is a masterpiece of both refined snark (which I believe used to be known as “irony”) and clear-eyed moral outrage. Great stuff, which, if I recall correctly, can be found in Mart’s “The War on Cliché.”
@Bill – I had in mind your contention that Bonnie and Clyde asks us to sympathize with the wrong characters. Bonnie and Clyde aren’t the only ones the movie asks us to sympathize with–here I am thinking of the farmers they visit–but must I always side with the police? Even Southern police, circa 1933–34, engaged in extrajudicial killing? That puts an awful lot of movies beyond the pale…
@Campaspe: I was putting the “Birth”/“JFK”/“B&C” thing out there more to be impish. 🙂
Your points about the film’s divided loyalties/viewpoints are well-taken.
“the film at least wants us to sympathize with Bonnie and Clyde, and feel their deaths with more emotional force than the deaths of their victims.”
I agree, but in what way is that different than any movie that has murders and thieves as their protagonists? I’m guessing Mr. Orange’s death had more of an emotional impact on you than the poor woman in the car or the cops that Mr. White shots down. The victims are not the story here, but that doesn’t mean the film belittles them or condones their murder.
“Their victims, and their murders, are minimized, to the glorification of the murderers themselves.”
I don’t agree, they’re minimized because the movie is not about them. In what way are Bonnie and Clyde glorified?
@Campaspe – “but must I always side with the police?” No, you mustn’t, so it’s a good thing I never said that. But siding with the police against a couple of spree-killers seems pretty reasonable to me.
@Yuval – “I’m guessing Mr. Orange’s death had more of an emotional impact on you than the poor woman in the car or the cops that Mr. White shots down.”
Well, Mr. Orange isn’t a murderer, is he? And the scene where he shoots the the woman, out of reflex, is a pretty big moment, to me. Her death, and the deaths of the cops, DO have a greater emotional impact on me than the death of Mr. White or Mr. Blonde or Joe or on and on.
And Bonnie and Clyde are glorified in that we’re asked to care about their deaths despite the blood they’ve spilled, and because they’re portrayed as romantic against the thuggish police trying to stop them, and the dreaded “system” which they’re attacking. Most of the deaths they were actually responsible for are removed – or even, in one case, someone who was killed in reality, is allowed to live in the film.
More details here:
http://www.historyonfilm.com/reviews/bonnie-and-clyde.htm
I agree about the problems of Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. The seeds of the later films, which certainly feature Lecter as an enviable criminal mastermind, are all laid in Demme’s film, where he’s frightening, but also powerful, seductive, otherworldly. He doesn’t really belong in Demme’s universe at all, which is why he backed out of directing the sequel, I’m sure.
All that said, I have a perverse admiration for the Ridley Scott film, because I think it operates under a completely different moral framework.
Apparently, a comment got lost along the way, so here it is again (roughly):
Why is Lecter’s morbid joke at the end of “Silence” so much more offensive than the kind of gallows humor you can find in any number of, say, Hammer films?
@Glenn, I picked up a Fall compilation on your recommendation. I haven’t listened to it yet, and I can’t remember the title off-hand, but still.
Also, yes, Amis’s review of “Hannibal” is in “War Against Cliché”.
Bill, I’d say the difference is simply context. Hammer films are joky-horror movies with, typically, no ambition beyond mild shocks and entertainment. Silence of the Lambs is attempting (and largely succeeding) to say something about violence and trauma and damaged people doing damaging things, and in the middle of this otherwise serious-minded, cogent, thoughtful film is a James Bond cannibal supervillain.
@bill “Well, Mr. Orange isn’t a murderer, is he?”
You ought to rewatch the movie. He shoots the woman that shot him.
Well, dammit, that’ll teach me to post before I finish reading a comment. Sorry bill.
Jeff -
“Hammer films are joky-horror movies with, typically, no ambition beyond mild shocks and entertainment.”
Ooh, not the best of them. Have you seen, for instance, “Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed”? In its way, it’s every bit as serious as “Silence of the Lambs”, and it’s an excellent film.
Lecter is the Ultimate Evil, so he can’t be another Buffalo Bill (though he ain’t James Bond, either). In a basic way, he’s like Chigurh. I don’t want to get too deeply into that comparison, because it won’t hold up for too long, but both represent death and unstoppable evil. And Chigurh provided a laugh or two, as well, although of a different sort.
Can we have less discussion of Bonnie and Clyde and more discussion of what an asshole John Nolte is?
@Matt – No problem.
First, sorry about my ‘joky’ typo.
Bill, I haven’t seen Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed, but I suspect, based on the ones that I have seen, that it’s something of an exception? Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of the likes of the Hammer version of The Mummy and The Vampire Lovers, but few of them are morally serious works of art.
The biggest difference between Lecter and Chigurh is that Chigurh was still shown to have all-too-human weaknesses in his final scene. Lecter might as well be able to fly and shoot lasers out of his eyes for all the humanity he possesses.
“I have to say that I’d hate to see an actual escapist liberal action film…”
Arguably, “Lethal Weapon 2” was such an animal.
“Dip-lo-matic Im-MUN-ity!”
“It’s just been revoked.”
‘For his efforts to put more conservative fannies in front of the DVD player for stuff like Paths of Glory, John Nolte gets a big, genuine “Spasibo, Tovarich” from this lefty.’
As always, Campaspe, you’re a much nicer person than me. However, I’m keeping my skepticism. When I look at the comments received by Big Hollywood, my skepticism doubles.
Of course, the interaction between politics and cinema is always going to be a tangled one. Nolte’s broad, urgent, sweeping declarations are not the best way to untangle it.
@hisnewreasons–Lethal Weapon 2 was very refreshing in that regard. The Crimson Pirate can also be viewed as a left-wing actioner, as can a number of swashbucklers. And for god’s sakes, don’t look at the Big Hollywood comments. Even Glenn and I have stopped. In all fairness, the comments sections of any political site can be a peek into the abyss–and my fundamental problem with BH is that aside from Nolte and Avrech, it’s 90% Pure Politics. Not much Hollywood at all.
@bill – no, you didn’t make that point in so many words. But when you excuse leaving out the full truth about Wyatt Earp on the grounds that he stands for law and order, and condemn the movie Bonnie and Clyde because it leaves out the full truth about the criminals in order to make a point about whose side law and order was on in the 1930s, the point pretty much makes itself.
@Jeff McMahon – if you don’t mind, I am ceding the Silence of the Lambs argument over to you, since you’re doing it better. What Jeff said, folks.
@Jeff – I’m not sure if “Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed” is in the minority of Hammer films or not. Some of my other favorites aren’t clinging to my memory the way I’d like them to. But “Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell” is morally serious, but also pretty bad.
“The biggest difference between Lecter and Chigurh is that Chigurh was still shown to have all-too-human weaknesses in his final scene. Lecter might as well be able to fly and shoot lasers out of his eyes for all the humanity he possesses.”
Okay, but I don’t see what this has to do with the perceived line-crossing of the “old friend for dinner” line.
Also, in the film version of “Hannibal”, Lecter chops his own hand off, and shit. So, you know.
@Campaspe -
“no, you didn’t make that point in so many words. But when you excuse leaving out the full truth about Wyatt Earp on the grounds that he stands for law and order, and condemn the movie Bonnie and Clyde because it leaves out the full truth about the criminals in order to make a point about whose side law and order was on in the 1930s, the point pretty much makes itself.”
That’s not what I said at all. I did NOT excuse the portrayal of Wyatt Earp, and in fact said, in so many words, that it bothers me. What I DID say is that the difference between the Earp films is that at least they’re asking us to sympathize with a man they’re portraying as a decent human being. “Bonnie and Clyde” is asking us to sympathize with people they are portraying as thieves and killers. Even with the white-wash of Bonnie and Clyde, they’re still shown to be killers. I never excused the Earp films.
Please refrain from making my points for me if this is how you’re going to make them.
Hmm. As the de facto moderator of this thread, it occurs to me that now might be a good time to try and lighten the mood.
I remember, as a teen, seeing a scandal-sheet type talk show that had a paroled ’30s bank robber as a guest, and he had known the real Barrow personally. His verdict? “He weren’t no Clyde Beatty.”
That’s the best I can conjure up at the moment.
Look, Barrow and Earp were both killers – you made the distinction that in the movies, one is portrayed on the side of law and order, and one isn’t. And now you are reiterating that this is the essential difference to you, so I don’t see how I am misrepresenting it. I don’t even think it’s completely illegitimate reasoning, I just don’t share it. I suspect that the skeptical attitude toward lawmen and society is at the root of the dislike that many people felt for Bonnie and Clyde (and I guess still feel, although I haven’t read the Commentary piece yet).
Maybe Clyde Beatty was that guy’s favorite circus impresario, and tried to work him into conversations whenever he could.
Campaspe -
“you made the distinction that in the movies, one is portrayed on the side of law and order, and one isn’t. And now you are reiterating that this is the essential difference to you, so I don’t see how I am misrepresenting it.”
That is NOT what I’m saying. The important distinction is that Earp is presented as a decent human being, not that he’s on the side of law and order. Though it DOES bother me that his past gets white-washed, the Earp films stick in my craw SLIGHTLY LESS only because on one hand the filmmakers don’t depict him committing cold-blooded murder, and then on the other hand ask us to admire him anyway.
This really is a much different point from the one you claim I’m making.
And the main point is that the portrayal of Earp in films DOES BOTHER ME.
I’d use italics, but I don’t know how to on this site.
@Glenn – in the same spirit, I will here tell the story of my distant cousin on my father’s side, who with his wife decided to make a family tree. In keeping with the real purpose of such missions, which is to relate yourself to as many bigshots as possible, the wife had managed to come up with some sort of branch-pruning that had us related to the Churchills and was eager to work this into the final draft in a big way. But she also turned up a distant connection to none other than Clyde Barrow (not Beatty). A big argument ensued wherein my cousin insisted that Clyde Barrow had as much right to be in the family gene pool as Jennie and Lord Randolph.
Perhaps my regard for the movie is just misplaced family defensiveness…
Well, My Darling Clementine’s falseness doesn’t bother me, because I am watching Henry Fonda, not Wyatt Earp. And in Bonnie and Clyde, I am watching Warren Beatty not (ahem) Cousin Clyde.
Unfortunately, I have to leave this thread now as duty calls, but it has been most enjoyable.
Let me add that when the Siren says “duty calls,” it ain’t a feint. The lady does gave a lot on her plate, bless her.
I’m about to go home, too, so I suspect my involvement in this thread is also at an end.
So, to sum up:
If anyone here hasn’t seen “Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed!”, you really need to check it out. Good stuff.
I’m not sure how much, if anything, I contributed to this thread. I do apologize for misinterpreting some of Bill’s arguments and if my impishness went a bit overboard; I also want to reiterate that I do agree with a lot of what he and Campaspe both have to say and I think I see Bill’s point re: the mythologization/white-wash of Wyatt Earp films vs. Bonnie and Clyde.
If we remove the historical factor for just a moment and suppose those films were not about real people but complete fictions– a story of a lawman on the one hand and of violent bank robbers on the other– I think the point is that asking us to identify with a violent lawman killing bad guys is inherently less immoral than asking us to identify with a violent gang of criminals killing innocents. And that’s certainly a point that most, if not all of us, can get behind. (If I’m not misstating/misrepresenting said point…?)
@Tom – You got it exactly. Thank you. I should have phrased it that way.
And let me just add that I agree with Bill 100% on the importance of seeing “Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed.” I might break the DVD out this weekend myself.
Man, I want to watch it now, too. It’s possibly Peter Cushing’s finest hour.
You know, people always ask me why I think A New Hope is better than Empire. And my answer always is: “EVACUATE? In our moment of TRIUMPH?”
Politics aside, six months? To Big Hollywood I say “Big deal!”
Conservative actions films, what are they, exactly? “Red Dawn” has often been pegged as one, but Milius’ vision is tempered with a certain level of humor and humanity that suggests the work of anything but a one-dimensional paranoid cold warrior, as he has been so wrongly portrayed. As for “Bonnie and Clyde”…being bothered by the violent acts they commit is as legitimate a response to being bothered by any of the many murders committed by Al Pacino in “Scarface”. Stone and De Palma clearly identify with Tony Montana to a degree, but does that mean they are endorsing his acts? And, as for glamorization, would John Dillinger have captured the imaginations of poverty-stricken Americans if he wasn’t, to some degree, glamorous? Peckinpah romanticized outdated codes of violent behavior, while portraying their grisly nature with a clear eye. You know, before slo-mo slaughter became a cliché. I recall Paul Schrader(in “Decade Under the Influence”) describing Peckinpah’s point of view as something along the lines of, “I know it’s fascist, but, God, I love it so”. And the whole deal is indeed troubling, attractive, confounding, and morally complex, and that is “Bonnie and Clyde” is a great motion picture.If films were only “socially responsible”, they’d be boring as hell. We identify with Henry Hill, a two bit racist thug because he’s so, to use a Bruce Dernism, “fucking interesting”. And Martin Amis needs to relax, read some Swift, and stop bitching about Muslims.
hisnewreasons: Nolte’s review of Bruno is filled with the kind of thing you were pointing out.
I find RED DAWN politically offensive and despite flashes of humor, I don’t like its crude jingoism. Seeing it in the red-baited 80’s didn’t help. Tho I do quite like John Milius as a Hollywood contrarian.
I’ve been on a Hammer/Amicus kick, so FMBD is on the list. AT THE EARTH’S CORE is incredibly cheap but we couldn’t stop watching. Cushing has a field day as a daffy scientist. But those plastic monsters!
“Pathetic, dull and defective” seems to fit nicely for Martin Amis – the guy has some serious issues, just like Hitchens, and seems to have decided that cheering on the so-called WoT is more fun than therapy.
Besides, whatever happened to “it’s just a book/film, you’re not supposed to try this at home”? Art is a playground to transcend boundaries we respect in real life. I think “American Psycho” is a great novel in that it forces us into the perspective of a truly evil individual, yet in real life I’m bleeding-heart champagne socialist who would never hurt a fly.
@ Mike and Yann: say what you will about Martin Amis, but his review of “Hannibal,” which is the only thing of his that has been discussed on this thread, was written quite a ways before the author discovered His Muslim Problem. So why you mention it in this context is beyond me, unless it’s just to prove that you’re up on current events. (And the Amis who wrote the “Hannibal” review would know just what you’re talking about, Mike; his writing on “Goodfellas” is in a rather similar vein as your own.)
Also, “American Psycho” is a blatant satire. An inept one, in my opinion, but a blatant one. Whereas Harris’ “Hannibal” is practically prescriptive, while just as thoroughly one-dimensional as “Psycho.”. There’s a difference.
Mike, you put “socially responsible” in quotes as though someone (possibly me) said that’s what films should be. No one did. Certainly not me. And you bring up Dillinger to defend the glamorization of Bonnie and Clyde, which doesn’t make sense. You’ve pretty clearly missed my point, but I don’t have the energy to restate it all.
And your understanding of Amis’s point of view regarding Islam is very simplistic.
“Quantum of Solace” seemed like a liberal action film to me. Bond takes the side of rebels fighting a multinational corporation trying to take over their country and steal it’s natural resources. It could have been written by a G8 protestor throwing a brick through a Starbucks’ window.
“It could have been written by a G8 protestor throwing a brick through a Starbucks’ window.”
Yeah, that sounds about right.
Glenn, you meant Stefano’s Psycho, not Hitchcock’s Psycho, right?
Oh yes, that Obama, what a maroon! I pine for the days when Presidents would show their mettle by play crawling under the Oval Office desk in a joking search for non-existent WMDs. Now that’s a president you can bank on!
As fer banks, I do think BONNIE AND CLYDE clearly creates a world of “Them Versus Those” and as John Simon pointed out in 68, you do it by casting beauties like Beatty and Dunaway. The police who get mowed down are in shadowy silhouette, denying them their humanity, but I think this is what Penn was after, if not Benton and Newman.
But the bank teller getting his face blasted is one of the most amazing moments in 60’s cinema – when I showed the film to a class of 19–22 year olds, you could hear the collective gasp that must’ve accompanied showings back in the day. And the next cut is to the gang paralyzed and distraught in the theater. A brilliant moment.
@ Jeff Mcm: Neither. “American Psycho” by Bret Easton Ellis. Which the film version greatly improves on.
That makes more sense.
And the deification of serial killers in this country over the past 10 years reveals something rotten in the fabric of this culture. Hello Dexter!
Christian, are you on coffee this morning or something? Yes, there are various and sundry things rotten with our country, but I don’t believe there’s been a ‘deification of serial killers’ lately. Any more than there was an idolization of gangsters in the 1930s and vigilantes in the 1970s. People are and always have been fascinated by outlaws to one degree or other.
Really Jeff? Do you know why QT wrote NATURAL BORN KILLERS? Because he saw the American over-fascination with serial killers. Yes, Americans are fascinated by outlaws. But people buying big bucks for John Watne Gacy paintings and serial killer trading cards is beyond just fascination. And if you don’t think that a giant DEXTER ad hanging on the side of a huge building in Hollywood, replete with bloody smiling face is not some kind of weird deification, then I don’t know what.
And agreed that LITTLE BIG MAN is Penn’s masterpiece on the dual nature of American myth and violence.
“Do you know why QT wrote NATURAL BORN KILLERS? Because he saw the American over-fascination with serial killers.”
And said, “Me too!”?
‘Bonnie and Clyde’ was specifically marketed to college kids in the 60s wasn’t it, pushing that it had an anti-establishment “come see young rebels sticking to the man!” message. I’m sure I read something once about the movie’s release being targeted and timed to attract that audience.
Yes Jeff, as a satire, which his original script clearly was. Just as Kubrick saw an over-fascination with war and made a war movie or two.
BONNIE AND CLYDE had one of the great tag lines in history, right?
“They’re Young.
They’re In Love.
And They Kill People.”
Christian, I like you, but sometimes I think you need to breathe into a bag for a few minutes.
Looks like I missed a good thread here, I wish I had more time to browse the net!
@Campaspe: Ms Jackson will have to go some way to top Batman & Robin/Speed 2 but you know what? She may yet do it 😉
I think there is a fascination with serial killers and other various and sundry unsavory individuals, but I don’t think there’s ever been a “diefication”– at least not a widespread one. It’d take some seriously damaged and disaffected people to worship, cheer for, or assist a real-life murderer. For all the ways it might romanticize its characters– and, as noted by the Siren and others, that protrayal can be considered far more nuanced than “romanticized” or “glamourized”– “Bonnie and Clyde” did not, to my knowledge, cause actual criminals in the 60s to be aided/abetted/worshipped/celebrated/etc.
I think, as far as “Natural Born Killers” goes– terrible, terrible movie, slightly less terrible script– it’s not a satire on the supposed diefication of serial killers so much as on the media circus/geek show that surrounds sensationalist no-good-niks. There is a major, major difference between worship/identification/condoning someone and gawking at them.
Jeff, if I had responded to you like that, you would have called it a “non-response.” Just because somebody has a different insight does not qualify them as crazy. You didn’t address the fact QT wrote a satire about celebrity serial killer and their groupies. What was he thinking?
LondonLee, Bonnie and Clyde was given a notably half-assed release by Warner Brothers and died quickly at the box office. It was certain critics, notably Pauline Kael, whose raves armed Warren Beatty with the ability to go back to the studio and wangle a second chance for the film. I don’t recall that it was marketed to college students in particular–they didn’t have to, young audiences embraced it right away. It was embraced by a lot of people; huge worldwide hit. Mark Harris has an excellent dissection of its release history in Pictures at a Revolution.
Wow, I really missed the boat on this thread. I think the bases have been pretty much covered re. Bonnie and Clyde, but I’m still fascinated by this notion of conservative vs. liberal movies.
Probably the most recent example of such categories seeming quite relevant was the debate over The Dark Knight – which I thought was pretty impressive from an aesthetic standpoint, but REALLY politically questionable.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s good that people are willing to examine a film for its ideological underpinnings. But doesn’t it expose the overall simplicity of their ideology when conservative critics feel the need to constantly trumpet their politics, and filter every critical judgment through the lens of Conservatism, as if this was a well-defined position? BH just seems to me to be a website for people who watch Fox News and occasionally watch movies.
I realize I’m overlapping a bit here with Campaspe’s comment that BH is 90% politics and 10% film. I’ll add that I think such a ratio speaks volumes about the status, politically and aesthetically, of the self-declared conservative movement in America.
I think the past week has shown that we worship pop singers far more than we do serial killers.
And Tarantino has done quite a bit himself to glamorize killing.
All this talk of “Bonnie and Clyde” begs for the comment that “Alice’s Restaurant” is not only a far better film, and one of Penn’s finest, but a perfect corrolarly with all this talk of “liberal”, “conservative” and “college kids.” “Alice’s Restaurant” is a brilliant film that directly engages with the aftermath of “the ’60’s” In some ways an American “Out 1” (not in style but content) addressing head on, and without condecension, the what now.
I have a lot of admiration for Kehr, but I love SotL. For me, the film is not animated by a fascination with Hannibal Lecter’s brilliance, but by Clarice’s intelligence and courage. It’s a profoundly feminist film.
Clarice deftly outwits and manipulates Lecter, so it’s not as though he’s some kind of superman. He’s, um, mythological, maybe, as no such person has ever existed, probably. That doesn’t make the film a celebration of him or his deeds. I think Brian Cox was (and would have been) better at portraying him as an intelligent and deeply disturbed human being, as opposed to some kind of evil super-genius.
With the benefit of hindsight, that last line is lamentable, but within the context of the film, I think it’s forgivable.
I think Red Dragon and Silence are great books, and I was crushingly disappointed to see the direction Harris had taken the story with Hannibal. It’s a betrayal of everything SotL is about, but that has nothing to do with Demme et al.
As for Victoria Jackson, in addition to being batshit crazy, apparently, she’s also rude and a bully. As someone who’s spent a lot of his life working in retail, I know it takes a special type of douchebag to treat hapless store employees as your personal sounding board. Nothing like a captive audience, I guess.
The problem with Hannibal Lecter is that he’s a device which flatters the audience. I am fascinated with sociopathic charisma onscreen – villains who seduce us and allow us to project our unfettered Id. But the other side of the bargain is that they should be presented in all their complexity – Lecter, and perhaps to a certaine extent B&C, allow us to have our cake and eat it too. On the one hand, he’s a cold-blooded killer, but on the other he’s got such exquisite taste, has paternal affection for Clarice, anyway, he only sups on boors. The character allows elitists to indulge in all their prejudices without any consequences.
Great observations here, and a great discussion, all. Wait, are those crickets I hear (could they be the ones Ms. Jackson spoke of)?
Oh. This post is eight months old.
Forgive me – I’m licking my wounds from some skirmishes on Big Hollywood to which I was compulsively and repeatedly drawn, and on a break from work I googled the site to get my fix without direct contact. Ah, well – the compliments are still true.