Violence in the 1970’s Cinema
Webster’s dictionary defines violence as the “exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse.” Violence is all around us when it comes to the media. We see it every day on the news, video games and even on television. However, there is one source of entertainment where violence is more powerful, impressionable and even more influencing. Violence is a cornerstone in American Cinema; it adds edge, emotion and gory content. Movies in the 1970’s revolutionized how violence is used in the movies industry today. Violent movies in the 1970’s were controversial because they progressed through real stories, fed off of society and culture, and depicted ways of life, survival, social acceptance and law.
With violence as a theme to lure people into the studios, filmmakers looked to real world topics involving violence. One issue stood at the top of that list; the Vietnam War. In the 1970’s, exploitation films ruled supreme. They exposed the real world, our opinions and thoughts on the topics. Films such as All the President’s Men (1976, Pakula) gave viewers a firsthand look at the conspiracy of Watergate. Now filmmaker’s new audiences wanted conspiracy and cover-up. The Vietnam War proved to be a great and powerful platform for which to allow viewers the chance to come to their own conclusions and experiences.
Arguably, there may be no movie made in the 1970’s as controversial when addressing the Vietnam War as Apocalypse Now (1979, Coppola). The movie was anticipated for nearly three years, however many setbacks and tragedies prevented the movie from being released on time. Juregen Muller writes in the book Best Movies of the 70’s, “The legendary status of Apocalypse Now is inseparable from the spectacular circumstances of its making. Many people, including Coppola himself, have drawn an analogy between the Vietnam conflict itself and the agonized struggle to complete the film” (340). The movie struck on all levels on its release, and was a success at the box office. However one would argue the reason for its success. Could it be the star power of Marlon Brando, or could it be the over lying shadow of the realism viewers felt.
This realism was portrayed with the brutal and sometimes graphic violence depicted in the film. Francis Ford Coppola in said in the book Best Movies of the 70’s, “My film is not a movie. My film was not about Vietnam. It is Vietnam. That’s what it was really like. It was crazy.”(340). Violence gave the film realism and emotion because viewers knew how violence was in real life. Violence was the fuel behind exploitation movies like this, and was the factor that gave the movie life and an uneasy realism.
Violence made movies controversial because it showed itself as a way of life. The main type of genre that proved this, were the gangster and mobster movies of the 1970’s. The first of the movies was Mean Streets by Martin Scorsese. The movie debuted in 1973, and showed the main character struggle to choose a life between the pulpits, or the life of violence and corruption as a small time mobster. His decision was the latter; he chose the life of violence in little Italy New York. The reality of this movie parallels' with the real world. In the streets of New York during the seventies, there was a choice between brutality and innocence. This choice of conflict was made by the director of the film who also grew up in the streets of little Italy in the 1950’s.
John McCarty states in his book Bullets over Hollywood, “Scorsese’s alter ego in Mean Streets…is torn between his religious convictions and his conflicting attraction to the anarchy and excitement of the New York underworld-much as Scorsese himself was conflicted in his early years…” (216). The movie showed viewers the world that they knew of and read in newspapers; stories of murder and corruption that lead to the crimson blood flow in the streets. The final chase scene of the movie, the characters are being shot down by a collector and this gives a cold look into the brutality and immortality of the world in which human beings are shown with no decency.
These photos’ show the characters lost in a world of violence and brutality. The expressions show a state of acceptance to this society. The main character has succumbed to his decision of what life he wants to lead; the life of violence and corruption. The image of the hand illustrates that the path of violence and misery will always be the path he will always have to follow.
One of the most famous and successful movies to show how violence was a daily means of survival in the mobster way of life was The Godfather by Francis Ford Coppola in 1972. The movies glorified violence in a way that society never saw it in that kind of light. McCarty says this of The Godfather, “Anticipating the ends-justify-the-means philosophy of the family of hoodlums in The Godfather movies…who view their worst violence as not personal, just business”(42). It gave viewers the sense of violence not just as a barbaric way of life, but almost as a problem solver. Viewers sat at the edge of their seats at the end of the movie during the infamous baptism/death scene where violence was almost glorified as a way to get business done. This method of storytelling proved to be intriguing as the film took in more than $134,000,000 since its release in 1972.
Violence was now evolving in the 1970’s. It began with touching on real moments and events in history and adapted to showing it as a way of life. A more controversial and effective way of demonstrating violence was to romanticize it. There was no better way to romanticize violence than to depict it in the genre known as vigilante film. In a vigilante film, there is one movie that stands out as the originator or even as the godfather of vigilante films; Dirty Harry. The movie is still forever glorified and quoted to this day. The quote, “You’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya’ punk?” sits proudly as the 51st most memorable quote in movie history according to the American Film Institute. The type of violence portrayed in Dirty Harry is acceptable in a way to protect society.
The movie also showed the conflict between traditional law and this new type of vigilante hero law. The way of the old law was shown as not effective and sympathetic towards the criminal. This is demonstrated when the San Francisco Police let the Scorpio killer free after raping and killing a young woman because his rights were violated when Harry broke into his living quarters without a warrant and used excessive force by shooting him. Though Clint Eastwood was the star of the movie, many would argue that the main star was the .45 magnum caliber gun that was used by Detective Callahan. In the book Action Speaks Louder by author Eric Lichtenfeld, Lichtenfeld describes Harry’s attitude and his weapon of choice: “He is a man of the past that his methods cannot be condoned by a progressive civilization. These include his willingness to take violent action to protect the community-particularly with his iconic .44 magnum” (24). Most importantly, the look of Harry personified the look of law. It gave violence the image of being okay, and accepted in society as a means to an end whether needed or not. In most violent movies, the good guys have noticeable traits; clean cut look, dressed appropriately, and behave by acceptable standards. However, some filmmakers jumped on this stereotype of the American good guy, and decided to throw the standard image out of the window.
This photo from Dirty Harry (Siegel, 1971) symbolizes the face of vigilante law and the force behind that drove the vigilantism, the .44 caliber magnum. This photo embodies everything the audience would expect; a cold smile, strong chiseled face, clean cut hair and a rough looking cop holding a gun. This photo illustrates what this character is all about and that is upholding the law.
Though audiences were able to distinguish the good guy and the bad guy from violent movies, Martin Scorsese threw the rule book out of the window when he directed Taxi Driver (1976). In movies, the hero or protagonist develops the traits of what is needed to become a hero. However, Scorsese took a different turn. Lichtenfeld describes it, “In Taxi Driver, however, instead of the villain adopting the symbols of the hero, it is the hero, who adopts the symbol and the spirit of what has traditionally been the enemy” (50). This movie showed the American audience that violence, when abused, can be pure evil. In this movie, Travis’s love for the young Jodie Foster helped escalate his violent nature into anti-hero. Violence became his master, and drove him to attempt to and commit horrendous acts on others. His attempt to murder a political figure showed how much of a negative impact violence can have on a law-abiding citizen. Just as Dirty Harry rose up to fight against the antagonists, Travis fell in a downward spiral to become an antagonist that society deems as unacceptable.
Although most audiences felt their lust for vigilante justice satisfied, there was still one culture that too needed this lust fulfilled. That culture or, groups of people were, African Americans. African Americans who were in violent and grisly films were usually either the comical sidekick or the drug loving pimp of a villain. The movie, In the Heat of the Night (Jewison, 1967) showed what society saw in African Americans, their place in the world of the law and in the world of violence. Sidney Poitier was the African American detective who could never be accepted into his position as an enforcer of the law. He was always facing adversity of from fellow bigot law men and from the community he was trying to protect. Though this movie showed a harsh reality of the real trials that faced African American cops, blacks in the real world were looking for a cinema hero to break the stereo type their people faced in the movies. Lester Friedman addresses this thirst for the African American community in his book American Cinema of the 1970’s Themes and Variations, “African American audiences were ready to see someone respond to the cinematic police brutality and racial profiling...” (57). They received their answer in the form of a cult hit titled Shaft (Parks, 1971). This movie helped pave the way for African Americans to be the hero in the predominately white cinema category of protagonists. Movies like Shaft now showed the opposite of Dirty Harry. The antagonists now were wealthy white men in positions of power and authority, who were corrupt and usually shown as keeping the black man “down”. This new breed of hero was showed as cool, low tempered and a ladies’ man. The way they proved this was the amount of violence they inflicted on their enemies. To them violence was as sacred as the bible, and the violence in the movies proved that.
Movies such as Shaft now helped pave the way for African American actors to now be the lead role as an authority figure and to receive respect from his white comrades. Andrew J. Rausch cements the point I’m making on the acceptance of African Americans as heroes in his book Turning Points in Film History, “By 1971, blacks were becoming increasingly tired of police brutality, of having to turn the other cheek to racial injustice, and of watching a constant barrage of submissive black characters on-screen”(188). The time for African Americans could not have come any sooner, and they were now accepted by their target audience made up of African Americans.
These photos of Sidney Poitier show him being surrounded by a group of white men and trapped up against the wall. This photo embodies the feelings and emotions that blacks would never have a part in violent movies as the hero, but only as the victim. Another photo shows Poitier holding a weapon to show that he will not succumb to the white man due to violence.
Though violence showed an effective way to enforcing the law for all races, a way of life, and a reflection of the world around us, it now had a different topic to address. That topic is survival. When people think of violence, we usually think of it as murder to take one’s life. We rarely think of it in terms of survival. One specific movie that portrays this to perfection is Walter Hill’s 1979 cult classic The Warriors. Hill showed the positive side and almost innocence to violence. A gang that is ousted and targeted for killing a rival gang member now has to use that same violence to not only escape, but to prove the innocence of the rising gang. Many factors proved this movie to be effective. First, off the movie shows African Americans and Whites fighting with each other instead of against each other. Second, the movie only has two scenes of gun violence. The violence in the movie is almost all strictly hand to hand combat. The movie also shows a changing environment. The city almost seems as if it is the main villain of the movie.
Lichtenfeld states, “In The Warriors, gangs are the savages, and the city is their wilderness, a hostile neon jungle and an exotic, almost alien world of unknown dangers” (569). Violence almost seemed to be stemming from every possible angle and setting in The Warriors. Opposing gangs and the town they called home was rooting up against them. The only way to combat against it was to use violence. Violence, the same thing that society deems them acceptable, is now their only outlet to survive against the same society that has now sentenced them to fear and violence.
This photo in The Warriors shows a member of the Warriors striking an enemy from an opposing gang. It shows the animalistic nature of survival because it illustrates that violence is the key to survival, as Darwin’s natural selection theory. This movie also shows the use of violence without guns, but instead with modern items and hand to hand combat.
Movies that now showed violence as a way of survival now had a twist to violence; hand to hand combat. The legend, Bruce Lee, popularized martial art hand to hand combat. Though Bruce Lee starred in many films, the specific film that gave him superstar status was the martial arts classic Enter the Dragon (Clouse, 1973). The film showed that people were now capable of using excessive violence physically without the use of hand guns or any other weapons. The film also showed human beings capable of taking punishment and facilitating out even more.
Friedman writes, “…or the sense that once an opponent was hit he/she would be down for the count. Rather the film uses long shots to highlight the fighter’s prowess and speed” (107). Bruce Lee convinced the viewers that these fight scenes could be just as or even more enjoyable than the typical “shoot-em-up” movie. Even though the film was released one month after his death, the movie cemented his icon status, and now made way to a new type of violence that would be mimicked and copied to this day.
Two of the photos from Enter the Dragon show the agility and skill of martial arts, and how they are not only effective in disabling the enemy, but are as elegant as a work of art. The third photo is of a bloody cut-up Bruce Lee. This photo symbolizes the toughness and non-stop determination of the hero in the martial arts genre. It showed that even after being wounded one could still fight on with pride.
Violence has proven to be an effective tool when it comes to making movies; it conveys messages and helps portray emotions effectively. However, like all controversial topics and techniques, violent films have met their fair share of criticism. Many groups and parents have claimed that violent films are unnecessary and send the wrong message to the audience and especially to children. In a survey done by Time Magazine on June 14, 1971, it reported that 51% of males interviewed for the survey felt that the shooting of looters is not a violent act. This is around the same time as the release of movies such as Dirty Harry and Shaft, which glorify vigilante justice. Research from HBO stated, “Media violence can cause aggressive behavior in children, desensitize children to the effects of violence, and give children the impression that their world is more dangerous than it really is.” Many arguments such as these have good ground on which they stand; however, movies are merely forms of entertainment. Arguably, they still come off with realism which can influence children to believe films do depict the real world. However, these arguments have not been successful in stopping the production of violent films.
Violence has been an effective tool for portraying real life events on film, it has been shown to be a new useful tool in law enforcement, and has even been portrayed as a way survival. Violence has revolutionized movies. Violence has revolutionized from guns to kung fu, and from meanings to it use to who uses it. Violence has torn races apart and has drawn races together. Violence in the 1970’s cinema paved the way for violence in today’s cinema. Violence has expressed emotion, helped excite the climax and definitely helped shock the viewer who has is left wanting more. No matter what critics say, violence adds edge and humanity to the silver screen and has definitely changed the way movies are watched and how they are made.
Works Cited
Friedman, Lester D. American Cinema of the 1970’s: Themes and Variations. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2007.
Lichtenfeld, Eric. Action Speaks Louder: Violence, Spectacle, and the American Action Movie Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 2007.
McCarty, John. Bullets Over Hollywood. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 2004.
Muller, Jurgen. Best Movies of the 70’s. London: Taschen, 2005.
Muscari, Mary E. “Violent Children.” 10 April 2005, 3 December 2007. http://www.bookrags.com/researchtopics/violent-children/05.html
Rausch, Andrew J. Turning Points in Film History. New York, NY: Kensington Publishing Corp, 2004.
“Redefining Violence”. 14 Jun. 1971, 3 Dec. 2007. http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,909881,00.html www.afi.com
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/business
No comments:
Post a Comment