subscribe to this page
Arthur Penn began two very important trends in Hollywood filmmaking with Bonnie and Clyde, specifically introducing a new type of gangster film and creating a signature director’s style. First, audiences were attracted to Bonnie and Clyde, even though they were the gangsters. He describes Bonnie and Clyde as folk-heroes “who live from their spontaneous impulses, not from any codified morality (80).” He identifies several scenes in the film, such as the reunion with Bonnie’s mother, that humanize the gangsters and portrays conventional society as abnormal. Secondly, the French New Wave inspired Penn’s use of slow motion, special photographic textures, and free intercutting to create a sense of tension, excitement, and escalating violence. But, Cameron argues the “released” his artistic signature and desire for a distinguishable style. Penn really applied his own "mark" to his films through editing.
Cameron’s analysis explains that despite the unequivocal evidence that crime does not pay, the film is still very likely to encourage spectators to like Bonnie and Clyde because these outlaws are attractive, spontaneous, and even seem fun. Cameron believes people do not identify with their criminal nature, but rather their carefree sense of independence. This essay supports the notion that Penn glamorizes the perpetrators of violence by creating endearing characters. From Cameron's perspective, there are sociological and cultural implications that the audiences identify so intensely with outlaws, which up until this film was nonexistent.
tagged _film arthur_penn directors folk_heroes gangster outlaw by kingsley ...on 09-APR-08
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.
tagged 1960s danger_of_crime folk_heroes glamorization_of_violence screen_violence tone by kingsley ...and 1 other person ...on 05-APR-08