“Dirty Harry” & Moral Ambiguity
I’m going to give you all a reprieve: if you don’t care about the film “Dirty Harry” or it’s place in the context of the cultural landscape of the seventies, just skip this entry…for it will be as boring as watching paint dry, ants fuck, or any other metaphor used to equate boredom.
Last night at the Film Center their Seventies Retrospective continued with “Dirty Harry.” I remember watching it years ago, but now with time and education on my side I read the movie quite differently. I found it to be a prime example of conservative fascism in its failure to recognize moral dilemmas, even though it was, I have to admit, pretty fun to watch at times. I won’t just throw out a sentence like that without explaining myself, so here goes:
Before I go on about this, I found it an interesting piece of trivia that before “Dirty Harry” came out in 1971, “R” rated movies weren’t screened at the White House. However, thanks to our pal Nixon, that archaic practice has now gone the way of honest politicians…EXTINCT!! Equally telling was Nixon’s reply to someone asking him if he thought screening a film of questionable merit was wrong, he retorted with, “Eastwood can do no wrong.” And there ya have it…from the mouths of fools come truisms.
It seems to me that this film speaks directly to the Patriot Act. Simply insert the character of Scorpio (our bad guy) in place of Bin Laden or Saddam, and there you have it. As a cute little side, I was happily surprised to see that the actor who played Scorpio was none other than Andy (Andrew) Robinson, AKA Plain, Simple Garek from “Star Trek: DS9.” Yup, I’m a much bigger dork than you are, so don’t even try and challenge me.
Pauline Kael wrote a scathing review of this (found in her book “For Keeps”), and to truly appreciate the connections between the film and 70’s culture it’s imperative to read it. The lecturer who talked after the film last night, Lester Friedman, said that he thought Kael was too harsh on the movie…he thought Don Siegal (the director) presented enough information to let the audience know he didn’t always sanction EVERY action the character of Harry committed during the course of the film. I disagree.
Harry is a racist, bigoted, homophobic cop who doesn’t balk at using force, whichever and whenever necessary to bring the bad guys to justice. While watching the film, it’s hard to think of Siegal being anything but racist, bigoted and homophobic as well…and the little bones he throws the audience to let them know he “really isn’t” that way are labored and feel forced: giving Harry a Mexican partner for instance, or juxtaposing a scene where Harry makes racist comments only to have the next scene show him talking friendly-like with his black doctor, etc. Too little, too late in my opinion. The film shows as it’s hero a man who is repeatedly “held down” by bleeding heart liberals in bringing the horrible rapist\sniper\murderer\slapper of children to justice, and only when he renounces orders and takes the “law into his own hands” does justice truly prevail, Miranda or Escabido rights be damned.
In terms of a culturally important film that would go on to influence countless others is concerned, yes, it’s an important and skillfully done piece of work…but the messages it sent to the audience are ones that have never left us, and have contributed to an American culture that would rather have it’s children see horrible, shocking scenes of violence (video games, Kill Bill and Passion of Christ given R ratings)…than have them be exposed to something as harmless and unequivocally human as nudity and sexuality (The Dreamers getting an NC-17, as well as banning gay marriages). To sum up, I quote from Kael’s review:
“Dirty Harry’ is obviously just a genre movie, but this action genre has always had a fascist potential, and it has finally surfaced. If crime were caused by super-evil dragons, there would be no Miranda, no Escobedo; we could all be licensed to kill, like Dirty Harry. But since crime is caused by deprivation, misery, psychopathology, and social injustice, Dirty Harry is a deeply immoral movie.
To excite an audience, you don’t really need to believe in anything but manipulative skills-and success. If you’re intelligent and work this way, you become a cynic; if you’re not very intelligent, you can point with pride to the millions of people buying tickets.”
They have, and they will. In other news, First Lady Laura Bush just “can’t wait” to see The Passion of Christ.
And SPEAKING of "Passion," jeremyrichards has a great convo going on reguarding What Would You Put On The Marquee for "The Passion of Christ?" Funny shit.
Last night at the Film Center their Seventies Retrospective continued with “Dirty Harry.” I remember watching it years ago, but now with time and education on my side I read the movie quite differently. I found it to be a prime example of conservative fascism in its failure to recognize moral dilemmas, even though it was, I have to admit, pretty fun to watch at times. I won’t just throw out a sentence like that without explaining myself, so here goes:
Before I go on about this, I found it an interesting piece of trivia that before “Dirty Harry” came out in 1971, “R” rated movies weren’t screened at the White House. However, thanks to our pal Nixon, that archaic practice has now gone the way of honest politicians…EXTINCT!! Equally telling was Nixon’s reply to someone asking him if he thought screening a film of questionable merit was wrong, he retorted with, “Eastwood can do no wrong.” And there ya have it…from the mouths of fools come truisms.
It seems to me that this film speaks directly to the Patriot Act. Simply insert the character of Scorpio (our bad guy) in place of Bin Laden or Saddam, and there you have it. As a cute little side, I was happily surprised to see that the actor who played Scorpio was none other than Andy (Andrew) Robinson, AKA Plain, Simple Garek from “Star Trek: DS9.” Yup, I’m a much bigger dork than you are, so don’t even try and challenge me.
Pauline Kael wrote a scathing review of this (found in her book “For Keeps”), and to truly appreciate the connections between the film and 70’s culture it’s imperative to read it. The lecturer who talked after the film last night, Lester Friedman, said that he thought Kael was too harsh on the movie…he thought Don Siegal (the director) presented enough information to let the audience know he didn’t always sanction EVERY action the character of Harry committed during the course of the film. I disagree.
Harry is a racist, bigoted, homophobic cop who doesn’t balk at using force, whichever and whenever necessary to bring the bad guys to justice. While watching the film, it’s hard to think of Siegal being anything but racist, bigoted and homophobic as well…and the little bones he throws the audience to let them know he “really isn’t” that way are labored and feel forced: giving Harry a Mexican partner for instance, or juxtaposing a scene where Harry makes racist comments only to have the next scene show him talking friendly-like with his black doctor, etc. Too little, too late in my opinion. The film shows as it’s hero a man who is repeatedly “held down” by bleeding heart liberals in bringing the horrible rapist\sniper\murderer\slapper of children to justice, and only when he renounces orders and takes the “law into his own hands” does justice truly prevail, Miranda or Escabido rights be damned.
In terms of a culturally important film that would go on to influence countless others is concerned, yes, it’s an important and skillfully done piece of work…but the messages it sent to the audience are ones that have never left us, and have contributed to an American culture that would rather have it’s children see horrible, shocking scenes of violence (video games, Kill Bill and Passion of Christ given R ratings)…than have them be exposed to something as harmless and unequivocally human as nudity and sexuality (The Dreamers getting an NC-17, as well as banning gay marriages). To sum up, I quote from Kael’s review:
“Dirty Harry’ is obviously just a genre movie, but this action genre has always had a fascist potential, and it has finally surfaced. If crime were caused by super-evil dragons, there would be no Miranda, no Escobedo; we could all be licensed to kill, like Dirty Harry. But since crime is caused by deprivation, misery, psychopathology, and social injustice, Dirty Harry is a deeply immoral movie.
To excite an audience, you don’t really need to believe in anything but manipulative skills-and success. If you’re intelligent and work this way, you become a cynic; if you’re not very intelligent, you can point with pride to the millions of people buying tickets.”
They have, and they will. In other news, First Lady Laura Bush just “can’t wait” to see The Passion of Christ.
And SPEAKING of "Passion," jeremyrichards has a great convo going on reguarding What Would You Put On The Marquee for "The Passion of Christ?" Funny shit.