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.

*****

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Duffy. That old tangerine hipster.

Duffy (1968) (SPOILERS) It’s appropriate that James Coburn’s title character is repeatedly referred to as an old hipster in Robert Parrish’s movie, as that seemed to be precisely the niche Coburn was carving out for himself in the mid to late 60s, no sooner had Our Man Flint made him a star. He could be found partaking in jaundiced commentary on sexual liberation in Candy, falling headlong into counter culture in The President’s Analyst , and leading it in Duffy . He might have been two decades older than its primary adherents, but he was, to repeat an oft-used phrase here, very groovy. If only Duffy were too.

You know what I sometimes wish? I sometimes wish I were ordinary like you. Ordinary and dead like all the others.

Séance on a Wet Afternoon (1964) (SPOILERS) Bryan Forbes’ adaptation of Mark McShane’s 1961’s novel has been much acclaimed. It boasts a distinctive storyline and effective performances from its leads, accompanied by effective black-and-white cinematography from Gerry Turpin and a suitably atmospheric score from John Barry. I’m not sure Forbes makes the most of the material, however, as he underlines Séance on a Wet Afternoon ’s inherently theatrical qualities at the expense of its filmic potential.

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

A ship is the finest nursery in the world.

A High Wind in Jamaica (1965) (SPOILERS) An odd one, this, as if Disney were remaking The Swiss Family Robinson for adults. One might perhaps have imagined the Mouse House producing it during their “Dark Disney” phase. But even then, toned down. After all, kids kidnapped by pirates sounds like an evergreen premise for boy’s own adventuring (more girl’s own here). The reality of Alexander Mackendrick’s film is decidedly antithetical to that; there’s a lingering feeling, despite A High Wind in Jamaica ’s pirates largely observing their distance, that things could turn rather nasty (and indeed, if Richard Hughes’ 1929 novel  had been followed to the letter, they would have more explicitly). 

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

I tell you, it saw me! The hanged man’s asphyx saw me!

The Asphyx (1972) (SPOILERS) There was such a welter of British horror from the mid 60s to mid 70s, even leaving aside the Hammers and Amicuses, that it’s easy to lose track of them in the shuffle. This one, the sole directorial effort of Peter Newbrook (a cameraman for David Lean, then a cinematographer), has a strong premise and a decent cast, but it stumbles somewhat when it comes to taking that premise any place interesting. On the plus side, it largely eschews the grue. On the minus, directing clearly wasn’t Newbrook’s forte, and even aided by industry stalwart cinematographer Freddie Young (also a go-to for Lean), The Aspyhx is stylistically rather flat.

Just wait. They’ll start listing side effects like the credits at the end of a movie.

Contagion  (2011) (SPOILERS) The plandemic saw Contagion ’s stock soar, which isn’t something that happens too often to a Steven Soderbergh movie. His ostensibly liberal outlook has hitherto found him on the side of the little people (class action suits) and interrogating the drugs trade while scrupulously avoiding institutional connivance (unless it’s Mexican institutional connivance). More recently, The Laundromat ’s Panama Papers puff piece fell fall flat on its face in attempting broad, knowing satire (in some respects, this is curious, as The Informant! is one of Soderbergh’s better-judged films, perhaps because it makes no bones about its maker’s indifference towards its characters). There’s no dilution involved with Contagion , however. It amounts to a bare-faced propaganda piece, serving to emphasise that the indie-minded director is Hollywood establishment through and through. This is a picture that can comfortably sit alongside any given Tinseltown handwringing over the Wa