Skip to main content

Well, I'm all broken up over that man's rights!


Dirty Harry
(1971)

Right-wing tract or a more ambivalent study of two extreme characters (as the tagline said, "Dirty Harry and the homicidal maniac. Harry's the one with the badge")?

There is evidently an element of wish-fulfillment in terms of identification with the Callahan character; he is pro-active in a world where bureaucracy and injustice are endemic. As such he is presented, initially at least, with situations in which it is easy to be u unperturbed by his casual dispensation of violent justice (recounting how he shot a would-be rapist) or setting up iconic scenes of coolness (dealing with a bank robbery whilst eating a hotdog, delivering his “Did I fire… “ speech for the first time).

Pauline Kael disliked the film, and it’s easy to understand her distaste with its flirtation with fascist or right-wing attitudes. But it would be inaccurate to ascribe the film with the any kind of polemic intent. Harry’s attitudes are reactionary, but first and foremost the film is an expertly-made thriller. That said, there’s definitively more going on her than in your average Charles Bronson vigilante picture. Particularly in respect of the parallels between the psychotic antagonist the Scorpio Killer, played by Andy Robinson, and Harry himself.

It’s a performance which, if you’ve seen the film several times, easily becomes the most powerful thing in it. Immensely unsettling, contrasting frenzied, maniacal laughter, almost inhuman babbling, with methodical engineering of  his situation (the scenes with the shopkeeper he takes a gun from, the man he employs to beat him up). Like everything here, the emphasis is on what will provoke the strongest audience he response. It’s unashamedly manipulative, but shrewd with it. Harry and Scorpio are broadly drawn, cartoonish even, when set against the same years The French Connection.

There’s likely a willfulness to make Scorpio such an extreme figure, such a grotesque, so encouraging the viewpoint that Harry’s behaviour in response is proportional or necessary. But it doesn’t ultimately make the scene in the football stadium, as Harry shoots his quarry down then tortures him while the camera pulls away in an aerial shot, any more palatable. That feels more like a trap the filmmakers want to pull on the audience; show them the unconscionable behaviour of the antagonist, such that they will the (anti-) hero to do anything and everything to stop him. Until he does precisely that (which is not to dismiss the possibility that an audience high on bloodlust may cheer Harry on as he extracts a confession from his prey). Then introduce the unlikely scenario of Scorpio walking free and top it off by having him heinously take hostage a school bus (in a number of nods to the real life Zodiac case) to enable Harry to have “right on his side” (if not the law) in executing him.

Siegel’s direction elevates the film at every turn, the location work oozing urban grit yet married to a heightened approach when shooting the action. And for all the cool of Eastwood’s persona (and hair!) and Lalo Schifrin’s score Siegel is quick to accentuate the sinister, which comes across in both music and performance.

Before he exits the picture, Eastwood’s partner (Harry Guardino) is also used to provide a contrast with the titular character; he is bookish and has a degree, and is quick to develop respect for street-wise Callahan. This is a varyingly effective device; he highlights a possibly seedy, voyeuristic side to Harry (Callahan’s wife is dead, and we see Harry showing possible peeping tom tendencies on several occasions – Scorpio also engages in voyeurism, to deadly effect). But he’s also use to emphasise the heroic in Harry, promoting the idea that the detective is given the jobs no one else wants. There is no real sense that Harry is at the end of his tether through repeatedly being put in that position, though. Rather, he gets a buzz from this on the edge lifestyle and rubbing authority up the wrong way.

The climax strays into overblown territory, making it look like a progenitor of the modern action movie (Lethal Weapon, please stand up) as Harry leaps from a handy bridge onto the ransomed school bus, and again it’s clear that any ideas (of any leaning) are at the mercy of what is most entertaining, not what is most believable.

Two years later Eastwood undid much of what made his character so interesting (so unyielding) by pitching him against a gang of motorcycle cops willing to go further than he does. This was a disappointing fudge, lessening the impact of a character whose unbending position is what makes him both attractive and repellant. Reformatting Harry into a more classical hero isn’t the only reason the sequels are fairly redundant. They’re workmanlike in production terms and repetitive in retooling set pieces to less and less iconic effect. They may have enable Eastwood to continue to make less commercial fare but it’s a shame he didn’t use such an inflammatory character for more interesting purposes. Or maybe all that could be said with him had been said.

Placed alongside Eastwood’s other collaborations with Siegel in that decade (The Beguiled and Escape from Alcatraz) provides a clearer perspective on a working relationship that was first and foremost interested in exploring strong subject matter and seeing where it would lead, not any political agenda. Dirty Harry is provocative, and given Eastwood’s recent Republican convention performance you might be forgiven for thinking their views are allied, but the key to movie's endurance is the filmmaking not its star’s politics. If another director had made it, with another lead (Irvin Kershner and Frank Sinatra?) it would most likely have resulted in a pedestrian, and forgettable, work. But I'd find it difficult to mount a solid defence against those who would wish to vilify it for what it may reduce to in terms of message; I can only attest that as a piece of cinema it remains fresh and vital 40 years on. Perhaps Harry brings out the fascist in one.

*****

Popular posts from this blog

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Archimedes would split himself with envy.

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) (SPOILERS) Generally, this seems to be the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad outing that gets the short straw in the appreciation stakes. Which is rather unfair. True, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger lacks Tom Baker and his rich brown voice personifying evil incarnate – although Margaret Whiting more than holds her own in the wickedness stakes – and the structure follows the Harryhausen template perhaps over scrupulously (Beverly Cross previously collaborated with the stop-motion auteur on Jason and the Argonauts , and would again subsequently with Clash of the Titans ). But the storytelling is swift and sprightly, and the animation itself scores, achieving a degree of interaction frequently more proficient than its more lavishly praised peer group.