Running Down a Dream
Arthur Penn’s 1967 film Bonnie and Clyde typifies what was to
become the modern American film throughout the late sixties into the
seventies. This film was heavily
influenced by the French New Wave movement; and its script even passed through
its most well known director, Francois Truffaut, before finally arriving in the
hands of Warren Beatty who decided to produce it. The film was a risky endeavor on all fronts
and was not a success on first release. But
it many ways this signaled what made it so triumphant in coming months and
years. This film took aim at old
fashioned sensibilities in terms of how sex, violence, and the traditional hero
were shown onscreen; and threw them aside to make way for a more modern
mindset.
The
film takes a look at the two populist heroes/robbers/murderers and shows them
in a sympathetic light. The audience
does not so much agree with what these characters are doing, but they are the
only ones that we follow throughout the film.
The film’s director, Arthur Penn, never leaves us alone with any other
character for long enough for us to align our sympathies with anyone else. The only authority figures that we are
allowed to become familiar with are a Texas Ranger and Ivan Moss, the father of
C.W. Moss. Both of them are made out to
be despicable and uncaring. Whereas
may shoot a police officer that is trying to kill him, he goes out of his way
to make sure a poor farmer gets to keep his money. The authority figures are basically
dehumanized due to how little we see them in the film, and because we identify
so much with Bonnie and
same manner that they do. While seeing
the bad side of
also see how he cares for his brother and for Bonnie as well. This film puts forth a startling role
reversal, we are made to sympathize and identify with some brutal
criminals. The concept of the anti-hero
was much more startling at the films 1967 release, which is part of what
created so many adverse reactions to it.
Upon
its initial release, Bonnie and Clyde
was received with condemnation and derisive comments from the majority of the
critical world. This is exemplified by
Bosley Crowther in his review for The New York Times. To paraphrase, he states that the film is
despicable because of the juxtaposition of violence and humor that permeates
the film. He seems genuinely offended by
this and does not understand the point. Crowther
seems to believe that the film takes too light-hearted of an approach at times,
but also becomes too violent as well. He
believes no film should portray killers as fun loving cutups. This leads him to his point that he perceives
this film as being overly sentimental, and much too sympathetic towards these
criminals.
While
one can understand his concern over glamorizing criminals, it seems that Mr.
Crowther looked at this film in stubbornly close-minded manner. First of all he does not take the time to
analyze the narrative technique, nor the editing, or the way images are used on
the screen. He seems to have written his
review in a state of shock over what he had just seen as a crude blood fest,
and had not stopped to think about why the film made him feel so strongly
upset. Perhaps he was upset with the
narrative technique which made him spend nearly two hours with killers. Crowther did not enjoy his time with these
killers, but he should have remarked how the film defied narrative conventions
by aligning audience sympathy with the villains, instead of the heroes. This had been done before, most notably in
Alfred Hitchcock’s masterpiece Psycho. But usually any time spent with a villain
in a Classic Hollywood film makes them either seem inept, purely evil, or
crazy. And while the Barrow gang may
seem all of these things at some moments in the film, the script gives their
characters enough nuances for the audience to know that they are quite complex
characters; as are most people in real life.
Bosley
Crowther also seems to dislike the comedic aspects of the film, because it
makes their life of crime seem like fun and games. While a life of crime is not one that most
people envy, it should be noted that most criminals find aspects of their life
quite enjoyable or they would not continue to do it. If a life on the run robbing banks was not
fun, it seems that Bonnie and
after their first job and gone back to living civilized lives. The point that this film makes is that a life
like theirs did offer an escape from their previously not so exciting
lives. Bonnie was a waitress, and
was her escape from her small town life.
In fact one of the ways Bonnie’s attraction for
is increased is when he is describing her daily life and her job with great accuracy.
is getting agitated with his description, mainly because it is hitting close to
home. She sees a life on the run as
excitement, which it most surely would be, and an escape from her predictable
life waiting tables in rural
Another
important aspect of the film is one that Mr. Crowther also takes issue with;
the juxtaposition of blood and humor. He
does not take the time to see how effectively the movie is written, directed,
and acted out in terms of how shocking some of this violence is after some very
light hearted moments. He does not
appreciate the filmmakers’ decision to do this, but it has obviously had a
strong effect on him. He thinks that the
film should be played as a straight tragedy, or perhaps it could have the
comedy without the bloodshed. But the film
lets it be known through this juxtaposition of comedic moments, violent ones,
that this story is tragic. The fact that
these people are having fun and forgetting about their troubles is quite
tragic. They do not understand the
severity of their actions, and at times they believe that maybe all they will
get away. This hope seems to be squashed
by Bonnie’s mother in a dreamlike scene where she is reunited with her
family. When the topic of marriage and
moving back home comes up, Mrs. Parker bluntly states that Bonnie will be dead
before she can ever move back home. This
scene is one of many that are masterfully shot.
The color scheme and mood of the setting has connotations of a dream,
this symbolizes the harsh reality that going back to her family is only a dream
now for Bonnie.
There
are many things to admire in Bonnie and
very strongly, sometimes in a good way, and sometimes in a bad way. This shows the skill of Arthur Penn as a
filmmaker, and the strength of David Newman and Robert Benton’s
screenplay. While this film was not well
received upon its initial release, it was because they had never seen anything
like it before. Especially in terms of
what was coming out of
that permeates, and the poetic justice of its famous ending. The final moments are visual poetry that
leaves the audience stunned even though they know it is coming all along. Perhaps Bonnie and
were just as shocked when they met their end, and that would make this film a
cautionary tale. Hopefully that would
please Mr. Crowther.
posted by TAH at 8:49 PM
0 comments
