Don Siegel, 1971
Dirty Harry is often held up as the movie that began, or at least codified, the hardcore right-wing ends-justify-the-means school of thought that dominated action movies (and, to a certain degree, society) in its wake. If anything, it is typically criticized for being too simplistic, and boiling complex moral issues down into a simple black-and-white scenario.Imagine my surprise, then, when I found that not only did the movie present a considerably more nuanced view of things, but that it did so in a not particularly subtle way. Sure, there is the basic conflict between Harry Callahan’s extreme methods and disregard for criminal rights vs. the weak constitution of the mayor and police lieutenant, who are forced to release an obviously guilty maniac because of their concern for said rights. And Harry’s perspective, that Scorpio has to be stopped, rights be damned, is demonstrably correct, within the world of the movie. I do not dispute this.
The thing is, though, that while Harry’s argument is validated, it isn’t celebrated. When Harry tortures Scorpio on the football field to find a kidnapped girl, the scene is not triumphant – it’s nightmarish. Even more critical is the transformation that Harry goes through over the course of the movie, which is clearly delineated in Eastwood’s reading of the famous “do you feel lucky, punk?” speech. The first time, when he says it to the bank robber, there’s a lightness to it. At the end, there’s even a joke and a smile. When he confronts Scorpio for the last time, it sounds like he can barely spit out the words. This is only the clearest example; throughout the first half of the movie there is a wry humor to Harry Callahan, which dissipates as Scorpio’s reign of terror stretches on.
Then there’s the final moment, where Harry throws away his badge. Siegel pointedly refuses to show any hint of Harry’s life outside of his work throughout the movie. A cop is all he is – and yet, after the lengths to which he went to stop Scorpio, he isn’t really a cop anymore. Harry no longer has a role in society – in a sense, he sacrificed his life. He was right to step beyond the law, but there was a price to be paid. Hardly an ode to police brutality.
I haven’t yet touched on the aesthetic qualities of the movie, so I’ll just quickly mention that it’s very well paced and quite atmospheric, with several bravura sequences – the best of which is Eastwood’s chase through the city on foot, led from phone booth to phone booth by Scorpio. Speaking of Scorpio, Andrew Robinson gives a very effective performance, presenting a villain that is dangerous and terrifying on one hand, but pathetic and childlike on the other.
All told, a well-deserved classic and one of the highlights of my viewing so far this year.
8.5/10
Lethal Weapon
Richard Donner, 1987
Lethal Weapon is basically the movie that made writer Shane Black’s career, which means, in a way that if it weren’t for Lethal Weapon, there would never have been a Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang. Which would be a tragedy. Unfortunately, Lethal Weapon doesn’t have half of the wit and cleverness on display in KKBB, but what it does have is enough to get by – mostly.The movie starts off with a bang, as a topless woman jumps off as a building. More filmmakers should have such a flair for the dramatic. The bulk of the movie is very good – granted, we get a parade of every buddy-cop cliché in history, but given that Lethal Weapon is buddy-cop patient zero, that’s not really a problem. Gibson and Glover have good chemistry, the dialogue is generally pretty sharp, and it all looks nice. Also, it’s great to be reminded that, once upon a time, Mel Gibson was actually awesome.
Eventually, however, Lethal Weapon wears out its welcome, and the action scenes just start getting tedious. The fistfight between Gibson and Gary Busey at the end, while very prettily shot, is shoehorned into things almost as hamfistedly as the ballet sequence in Singin’ in the Rain. Still, certainly worth watching.
6.5/10
No comments:
Post a Comment