I found this article by Stephen Hunter at Commentary Magazine on the real Bonnie and Clyde vs. the film versions and the larger cultural ramifications of their glorification…. Here’s a couple of different tastes, but go read the whole thing here.
The squalid ambush that ended their careers in 1934 disappeared down the collective memory hole in the years that followed. The two diminished into a narrow regional celebrity, if that. I was the little boy who wanted to be a G-man and work for Mr. Hoover and I knew of all the great law enforcement triumphs of the 30s over the Dillingers and the Nelsons and the Capones. I had never heard of Bonnie and Clyde.
That all changed in 1967 when Arthur Penn’s film version came out with Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway and created the Bonnie and Clyde most people remember: vibrant, beautiful movie stars with witty ripostes on their lips and grace in their limbs and superbly tailored haberdashery on their shoulders, while bluegrass legends Flatt & Scruggs plucked away brilliantly behind them. Quickly, they commanded the allegiance of Baby Boomers hungry for anti-establishment heroes, killed (virtually crucified) by ruthless officers out of mean-spirited vengeance. It was an easy generational transference for the nascent Boomers to see themselves as so beautiful, so in love, so radical, so entitled to self-expression, so embittered by a failing economic system, so martyred by a crusty older generation that despised them for those attributes exactly.
And then this on Frank Hamer, the Texas Ranger portrayed b y Denver Pyle in the film:
In fact, Hamer was almost a prototype of the kind of man the Boomer generation would be taught to distrust, both in life and in fiction. Almost insanely brave and almost unbelievably tough, he was Texas’s most famous man hunter. He wouldn’t sell his life story to the movies; he was too dignified, too suspicious of the alien (even then) West Coast culture and of “dramatic license.” But if he had, John Wayne would have played him, with all 50 of his shoot-outs accounted for, as well as his numerous wounds.
The Duke would have been portrayed standing up against lynch mobs murderously incensed by African-Americans (Schneider re-creates this scene), uncovering murderous bounty-hunter schemes. And Wayne would have yelled out fair warning to the pair, as both he and another posse member, the selfsame Ted Hinton, claimed occurred in their written accounts of the incident. And the Duke would have replicated Hamer’s odd body posture so evident in the photographs, his almost contemptuous slouch, off center always and listing one way or the other as he refuses to look at the lens, sucking on an always-present tailor-made cigarette.
That movie, however, certainly could not have been made in 1967 and it certainly can’t be made in 2009: Hamer is too straight, too commanding, too uncompromising for such a treatment. The irony is that Hamer is forgotten while Clyde and Bonnie live on. Hamer stood for something: the idea of right and the guts to make it stick. Clyde and Bonnie stood for nothing, except perhaps infantile nihilism, unformed, incoherent, vicious. If they were ambushed without warning, it’s because each had weapons at hand, and so they wouldn’t widow and orphan other police families. If they were shot to pieces, it’s because the old-time law enforcement guys knew you shot them, and then you shot them some more.
Hamer stands for your grandfather’s authority, annoyance at fools, and the willingness to kill in the belief that he was saving the weak by eliminating their predator. He was a righteous killer, a dinosaur whose time has passed. He’s what Barack Obama swears he’ll change about America.
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
Let me say, in short, not over my dead body. Our work over at Modern Conservative (and Floyd’s involved with a bit of it) is taking a long view and forming an offensive strategy for the open market to make sure that doesn’t happen. We’re tired of the defensive posture on the Right and it’s time for balls-out artistic and commercial push. The technology and market are there. No longer have an excuse.
That is one of the most spot-on analyses of a movie as a cultural artifact that I’ve ever read. No surprise at all that it was written by the redoubtable Stephen Hunter, our greatest living action novelist.
For the record, I’ve always had something like this attitude toward the movie, and I was around when it was new and all the rage.
A favorite memory is Mad Magazine’s parody, “Balmy and Clod.” At the end, after the bloodbath, Denver Pyle shouts, “I just couldn’t stand it any more!”
Bystander: “What? Their life of crime?”
Pyle: “No! That rotten poem!”
I feel the same way about the Birdman of Alcatraz.
Well, it does have a happy ending, almost as good as the one in “Easy Rider”.
I remember that,Lars…that was the golden age Of “Mad”.My dad used to buy my sis and me a copy every month
Mort Drucker was a genius caricaturist.
Every one of them,Lars
Just a small historical aside… When I was with the railroad, I was working out of a small north Texas town. The sheriff there was named Billy Don Hinton and was a direct descendant of Ted Hinton.
Two points:
1- Americans have always had a fascination with the antihero, it’s just in our nature. Bonnie and Clyde didn’t start it, Jimmy Cagney didn’t start it, it’s just always been there.
2- (Directed mostly at David and Lars, but anyone can play along) The question then, my little culture warriors, is what do we do? You’re totally right that there isn’t an excuse for not having some kind of counterprogramming to counterpoint the left. The fact that they have a virtual monopoly on production and distribution and talent matters not at all because (A) those methods of production and distribution are waning in the days of the new media and (B) “Talent” in film basically means “pretty” and that’s just a scalpel away.
The problem as I see it is a lack of vision, inspiration, and creativity. The tools are there, but we seem – as a group – a bit confused as to what to do with them, and most of those with the motivation to do so are churning out stuff like “Fireproof,” which has its place, certainly, but is not the kind of thing that would appeal to most Americans. We need conservative entertainment that isn’t strictly evangelical if we’re to have any ‘crossover’ success.
Thoughts?
The key is to make good movies using classical virtues. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bonnie and Clyde and a lot of the 1970s anti-hero movies die with baby Boomers. I watched The Graduate… dreck… absolute dreck — much like the late 1960s. John Wayne/John Ford movies (not Genghis Khan), Capra, etc. will stand the test of time. Some of those Bonnie and Clyde-type films will be noted for their time and technique — much like an Andy Warhol film or for their controversy like Duchamp, but will lose whatever mainstream cache they had.
The success of Iron Man, The Dark Knight, Star Trek and others is a hopeful sign that good, redemptive positive films can be and are being made and that people will plunk down good money to see them.
Did John Wayne’ Genghis Khan movie suck that bad?
“I want that Tar-tar woman.”
I liked it, in an Ed Wood kinda way.
John Wayne as Genghis Khan…. just think about that Kit.
Thought about it, seems silly.
Am I right.
I follow C.S. Lewis’s maxim as a general rule, “We don’t need more Christian books, we need more Christians writing books.” But I apply it to conservatives, as opposed to just Christians.
1. Organize:
There’s plenty of talent, but we need to team up, forming companies and industry groups. We’re too isolated and we keep crashing our heads into the brick wall that is the entertainment industry. Luckily, we’re starting to see this change.
2. Market:
The need for marketing, promotion and distribution is not going to disappear, even on the internet. While it’s possible now to make a decent as an independent creator with a cult following, you still need capital to start a company and to pay staff. You still have hosting costs (which can be quite expensive for a large audience). You still need backing for promotion and advertising, even on the internet. Where new media comes in is that it makes the process easier for talented creators with business sense.
Conservatives need to take a lesson for Sam Walton (who started Wal-Mart) and negotiate directly, which corporations are more willing to do in this day and age. For instance, if you’re a small indie animation studio, why not approach Hulu and Netflix about getting content hosted on their streaming services? They’re both heavily trafficked and Hulu (which hosts third-party content) means ad revenue. If you’re a comics company, why not go to Wal-Mart, Target, and K-Mart and negotiate for shelf space, sidestepping the comic shops?
In tandem, conservatives need to understand how to market and shape the message of what they want to sell. In doing that, we need to get out of the mindset of their respective ghetto and understand how to reach a larger audience. They need to quit stamping *conservative* on their foreheads and doing a bad imitation of the radical chic the Left pushes. They need to let the strength of their work speak for itself.
3. Tell the Damn Story!
The Right needs to look at the Left as an object lesson and learn how to tell stories and quit preaching at audiences. They need to let their imagination do its work and let the stories lead by example. If their heroes exude certain virtues, that will come across and do its part influencing the audience.
Let’s take a look at Pixar as an example. They value people above ideas, always looking for talent. They have a company structure and culture that protects and promotes creativity. Their pursuit is to tell great stories. Time after time, they succeed in making movies that break ideological mold, are commercial successes, and they critically acclaimed well-received by hyper-partisan Hollywood, yet conservatives often laud those movies as well.
While its definitely in its embryonic stages, we’re working on an imitative involving comics and animation (which budgetarily feasible for us), with licensed and original properties and (hopefully) some real industry talent and fairly big names behind it. You won’t find “conservative” or anything of the sort in the line up, despite the fact that it comes from that corner. Instead, we’re focusing on telling good stories with talented people telling them.
Well, I do write novels. Not many people buy them, though.
Touché
[...] on TCM. Bonnie and Clyde is at 8:00 PM. It is a well-made piece of morally repugnant detritus as we’ve discussed before ’round these parts. A great revenge flick, Point Blank is on, at 10:00 PM (it’s a prior pick so check it out) [...]
[...] none of which are showing on TCM tomorrow. Bonnie and Clyde is on in prime time tomorrow, but that movie is morally repugnant to me so while it’s well made it’ll not be my pick. Reds is on too and while I’m sure zzzzzzzzzz… oh I’m sorry was I talking about [...]