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