subscribe to this page
Bonnie and Clyde remains as influential today as it it was in 1967. This film has been charged with glamorizing criminals and elevating the acceptable threshold for screen violence. Additionally, French New Wave Cinema heavily influenced the film, particularly in its mixture of tones and choppy editing. Director Arthur Penn began a new tradition of auteur-driven projects and capitalized on the weakening Production Code, which permanently changed the Hollywood Studio System. While it was not the first film to depict violence, it was the first do so in the name of art film and in such an extreme manner. The reception of this film was controversial, with some critics praising its innovativeness, while others condemned the explicit violence. These sources lend insight into the controversy surrounding Bonnie and Clyde, the influence of French New Wave Cinema, and the impact of Arthur Penn on New Hollywood. Drawing inspiration from French New Wave cinema, Bonnie and Clyde broke Hollywood taboos by portraying murdering bank-robbers as a glamorous and sympathetic romantic couple.
tagged 1960s arthur_penn auteur_theory bonnie_and_clyde french_new_wave screen_violence
by kingsley
...on 09-APR-08
Call#: Van Pelt Library--4 East--Temporary Location Annenberg PN1997.B6797 C3
Samuels, Charles Thomas. “Bonnie and Clyde.” Focus on Bonnie and Clyde. Cawelti, John G., ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1973.
Charles Thomas Samuels’ essay attempts to legitimize why some Bonnie and Clyde critics condone violence without purpose, why others lash out against the “glamorization of violence”, and why viewers identify with Bonnie and Clyde. First, he explains how some critics (like Pauline Kael of The New Yorker) see the violence as entertaining, and those who are opposed to this depiction of violence seem “out of step (90)”. On the contrary, he says the commercial success of the movie is worrisome because the film is biased in favor of the criminals and makes society seem excessively punitive. For example, in the final scene, the sheriff is wearing black and Bonnie and Clyde (and their car) are in all white, which reverses traditional archetypes and symbolism. In this sense, the criminals are the “good guys”, which is what Samuels finds problematic. Samuels says Bonnie and Clyde makes serious comments about the “sick and joyless (85)” nature of crime and therefore does not completely glamorize criminals, but instead elevates Bonnie and Clyde as rebels against tradition. He establishes why Bonnie and Clyde turn into “folk heroes”, even though they are also portrayed as brutal criminals. They are a young, in love and become sympathetic throughout the movie. The 1960s was full of violence and anarchy, and according to Samuels, Bonnie and Clyde represent a backlash against convention, which was a popular cultural theme at the time.
Because of the shifting and mixture of tones within the movie, Samuels both confirms and contradicts the idea that Bonnie and Clyde glamorizes violence. On one hand, Bonnie and Clyde are seen as sick and dysfunctional. For instance, Clyde is seen to overcome his sexual impotence by using lethal weapons as a symbol of masculinity and power. From this perspective, the movie should warn people against the dangers of crime. On the other hand, people identify with Bonnie and Clyde’s sense of rebellion and freedom, and therefore, crime is seen as an acceptable outlet, which Samuels (and the critics he supports) sees as the main problem with this film.
Charles Thomas Samuels’ essay attempts to legitimize why some Bonnie and Clyde critics condone violence without purpose, why others lash out against the “glamorization of violence”, and why viewers identify with Bonnie and Clyde. First, he explains how some critics (like Pauline Kael of The New Yorker) see the violence as entertaining, and those who are opposed to this depiction of violence seem “out of step (90)”. On the contrary, he says the commercial success of the movie is worrisome because the film is biased in favor of the criminals and makes society seem excessively punitive. For example, in the final scene, the sheriff is wearing black and Bonnie and Clyde (and their car) are in all white, which reverses traditional archetypes and symbolism. In this sense, the criminals are the “good guys”, which is what Samuels finds problematic. Samuels says Bonnie and Clyde makes serious comments about the “sick and joyless (85)” nature of crime and therefore does not completely glamorize criminals, but instead elevates Bonnie and Clyde as rebels against tradition. He establishes why Bonnie and Clyde turn into “folk heroes”, even though they are also portrayed as brutal criminals. They are a young, in love and become sympathetic throughout the movie. The 1960s was full of violence and anarchy, and according to Samuels, Bonnie and Clyde represent a backlash against convention, which was a popular cultural theme at the time.
Because of the shifting and mixture of tones within the movie, Samuels both confirms and contradicts the idea that Bonnie and Clyde glamorizes violence. On one hand, Bonnie and Clyde are seen as sick and dysfunctional. For instance, Clyde is seen to overcome his sexual impotence by using lethal weapons as a symbol of masculinity and power. From this perspective, the movie should warn people against the dangers of crime. On the other hand, people identify with Bonnie and Clyde’s sense of rebellion and freedom, and therefore, crime is seen as an acceptable outlet, which Samuels (and the critics he supports) sees as the main problem with this film.
belongs to Bonnie and Clyde project
tagged 1960s danger_of_crime folk_heroes glamorization_of_violence screen_violence tone by kingsley ...and 1 other person ...on 05-APR-08
tagged 1960s danger_of_crime folk_heroes glamorization_of_violence screen_violence tone by kingsley ...and 1 other person ...on 05-APR-08
Call#: Van Pelt Library PN1997 .B6797 2000
Prince, Stephen. “The Hemorrhaging of American Cinema: Bonnie and Clyde’s Legacy of Cinematic Violence.” Arthur Penn’s Bonnie and Clyde. Friedman, Lester D., ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
According to Stephen Prince, Bonnie and Clyde was a landmark film because it presented graphic violence in an unprecedented way and changed the future of cinema. Prince even calls Bonnie and Clyde’s ultimate death “ferocious” (127). While at the time the film was very controversial, it set a precedent for violence that is consistently surpassed in contemporary films. Prince identifies two important factors that made this extremely violent film possible. First, he says that the social unrest of the period and the extremely bloody Vietnam War put violence on the cultural agenda, and influenced the graphic scenes in Penn’s film. Furthermore, even though the movie is set in the 1930s, Penn wanted to metaphorically relate to the 1960s by presenting the idea of resisting the Establishment. Secondly, Hollywood institutions were changing and directors were gaining more creative freedom, especially because of changes to the Production Code. Bonnie and Clyde used new and cutting edge cinema techniques to enhance the action. For example, Penn used multi-camera filming, slow motion, and intercutting slow-and-normal speed action to heighten the effects of screen violence. He also drew inspiration from unique sources, and Prince identifies Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa as an essential inspiration. The final (and goriest) scene in the movie draws heavily from techniques used in The Seven Samurai (1954), particularly the use of intercutting and multiple cameras to capture the action.
Penn broke tradition and overturned decades of “polite violence (139)”. Prince’s argument supports the idea that Bonnie and Clyde was a watershed film in Hollywood history, and ignited intense levels of screen violence. In fact, Bonnie and Clyde would no longer even seem violent to modern viewers because of the infinitely increasing threshold for on-screen aggression, which Prince says this film sparked. Bonnie and Clyde transformed cinematic violence to an exciting, entertaining spectacle.
According to Stephen Prince, Bonnie and Clyde was a landmark film because it presented graphic violence in an unprecedented way and changed the future of cinema. Prince even calls Bonnie and Clyde’s ultimate death “ferocious” (127). While at the time the film was very controversial, it set a precedent for violence that is consistently surpassed in contemporary films. Prince identifies two important factors that made this extremely violent film possible. First, he says that the social unrest of the period and the extremely bloody Vietnam War put violence on the cultural agenda, and influenced the graphic scenes in Penn’s film. Furthermore, even though the movie is set in the 1930s, Penn wanted to metaphorically relate to the 1960s by presenting the idea of resisting the Establishment. Secondly, Hollywood institutions were changing and directors were gaining more creative freedom, especially because of changes to the Production Code. Bonnie and Clyde used new and cutting edge cinema techniques to enhance the action. For example, Penn used multi-camera filming, slow motion, and intercutting slow-and-normal speed action to heighten the effects of screen violence. He also drew inspiration from unique sources, and Prince identifies Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa as an essential inspiration. The final (and goriest) scene in the movie draws heavily from techniques used in The Seven Samurai (1954), particularly the use of intercutting and multiple cameras to capture the action.
Penn broke tradition and overturned decades of “polite violence (139)”. Prince’s argument supports the idea that Bonnie and Clyde was a watershed film in Hollywood history, and ignited intense levels of screen violence. In fact, Bonnie and Clyde would no longer even seem violent to modern viewers because of the infinitely increasing threshold for on-screen aggression, which Prince says this film sparked. Bonnie and Clyde transformed cinematic violence to an exciting, entertaining spectacle.
belongs to Bonnie and Clyde project
tagged 1960s aggression arthur_penn film_editing graphic_violence hollywood_institutions production_code social_unrest vietnam_war by kingsley ...and 1 other person ...on 05-APR-08
tagged 1960s aggression arthur_penn film_editing graphic_violence hollywood_institutions production_code social_unrest vietnam_war by kingsley ...and 1 other person ...on 05-APR-08