This rather too short (it's only 24 minutes long), but intelligent and intriguing documentary does a pretty nice and insightful job of exploring the moral, political, and ethical themes of the Dirty Harry pictures. Among the folks interviewed are Clint Eastwood (effortlessly exuding his trademark laid-back charm and assurance), writers Shane Black, Steven E. de Souza, and John Milius, directors Peter Hyams and the Hughes brothers, film critics Jay Cocks and Richard Schickel, actors Reni Santoni, Andrew Robinson (who jokes that several of his friends in New York severed their ties with him after he was cast as Scorpio in the first "Dirty Harry" film), and Hal Holbrook, and actress Tyne Daly. Among the subjects discussed herein are that Harry is a kind of cowboy hero who doesn't like authority and acts on hunches rather than abiding by the rules of the system, how the original was embraced by the silent majority and was made in a time of great social and political upheaval, that Harry is an angry man with a strong sense of right and wrong (however, said sense of right and wrong is decidedly edgy), and that the first four movies in the series alternate between right-wing and left-wing villains. The most enjoyable aspect of the doc centers on noted film critic Pauline Kael's legendary fierce critique of the '71 classic in which she accused the movie of being blatantly fascist. (Someone else mentions that a female film critic roughly the same age as Kael gets killed in the fifth and final Dirty Harry picture "The Dead Pool"!). Milius also brings up a neat point when he addresses the fact that the second Harry outing "Magnum Force" centered on the other side of the moral coin by having Harry going after a gang of rogue vigilante cops who have taken upon themselves to execute criminals who manage to slip through the court system. Worth a look for fans of the Dirty Harry series.
3 Reviews
Edgy Endorsements.
rmax30482328 December 2016
"Dirty Harry" was a feature film released in 1971, so successful that a number of sequels followed, each weaker than the last, which is the usual progression for sequels. The original was wildly popular and the values that it embodied -- one man's conception of morality against "the establishment" -- was consistent and controversial. An organization wanted Inspector Callahan, San Francisco Police Department, to follow the rules in applying the law. Inspector Callahan was a pragmatist more concerned with outcomes than with the means of achieving them. "There's nothing wrong with shooting -- as long as the right people get shot."
This short film examines the moral value of that proposition. Should Harry shoot anybody he thinks is worth shooting? Should he follow the code even if it allows serial murderers to go free? Is any compromise possible? Well, there's not much doubt in the minds of most of the commentators. "There burns in the heart of every liberal a desire to bypass the courts and just go out and shoot a guy." "If somebody cuts us off on the highway, we can't do anything about it, but Dirty Harry can just shoot them. It's great. And he's always on the side of right." John Milius contributes his point of view. He's the screenwriter who had it put in one of his contracts that any animals shot on screen would be killed by him. Another commentator is nearer the bull's eye when he describes Harry as being "consistent in his view of the universe" but the question is how far is he allowed to go before he becomes the thing he despises? It doesn't bother Clint Eastwood. He laughs it off as "just a movie."
Most of the commenters have some sort of, how you say?, skin in the game? They include the writers of some of the films and the authors of books on Clint Eastwood and the Dirty Harry character. The commentators don't include the most popular of all in the 70s, Pauline Kael, who called the film a brutal fascist dream. When her attitude is being described, the image we see is of the hand of some mad person slicing a newspaper feverishly with a carving knife. Andy Robinson, who gives an incandescent performance as the killer, and some of the others, give what strikes me as reasonably balanced remarks on Dirty Harry. Pauline Kael, now as dead as Robinson's innocent victims, gets no chance to say anything in her defense.
"Dirty Harry" was a rattling good tale of mayhem but it was as brutal as Kael said and it turned Harry into a monomaniac who just happened to be on the side of the law. The first sequel, "Magnum Force," was original in the sense that it turned things around. The heavies became a death squad within the police force, a kind of half-arsed answer to the "fascist" question. Milius makes the interesting (and entirely accurate) point that "Magnum Force" differed from today's sequels. Today, the sequels are merely repeats of the original story with more action and special effects. At least "Magnum Force" was responsive rather than simply repetitive.
The several sequels that followed alternated between right-wing villains and left-wing villains. The quality of the stories and characters declined monotonically and aren't worth description except that the sadistic hippy villain in "The Enforcer" is Bobby Maxwell, a name of renown.
The film is about equally divided between clips from the Dirty Harry series and the commentators. It's not badly done, sort of middle brow, and should offend no one to any extent. You're not going to find skull-numbing discussions of Aristotle or Michael Davis or retributive justice.
The original was a great commercial success but what is it really? The single-minded gunslinger rides into a town full of rowdies and cleans it up by killing the evil doers, in disregard of legal restrictions.
Anyone remember 1971 and the cities? What had been peaceful milieus had just turned into hunting grounds on which any white person was a legitimate target, or so it seemed in the popular press and in the statistics. The black kids had turned the cities into nightmares. The transposition of the narrative -- gunslinger, outlaws -- would have been made manifest if instead of Andy Robinson's single white villain, there had been a dozen black kids with names like Tyrone and T-Bone.
Other MBAs picked up on the theme with movies like Charles Bronson's "Death Wish." The dusty Western town had simply turned into the big dirty city.
This short film examines the moral value of that proposition. Should Harry shoot anybody he thinks is worth shooting? Should he follow the code even if it allows serial murderers to go free? Is any compromise possible? Well, there's not much doubt in the minds of most of the commentators. "There burns in the heart of every liberal a desire to bypass the courts and just go out and shoot a guy." "If somebody cuts us off on the highway, we can't do anything about it, but Dirty Harry can just shoot them. It's great. And he's always on the side of right." John Milius contributes his point of view. He's the screenwriter who had it put in one of his contracts that any animals shot on screen would be killed by him. Another commentator is nearer the bull's eye when he describes Harry as being "consistent in his view of the universe" but the question is how far is he allowed to go before he becomes the thing he despises? It doesn't bother Clint Eastwood. He laughs it off as "just a movie."
Most of the commenters have some sort of, how you say?, skin in the game? They include the writers of some of the films and the authors of books on Clint Eastwood and the Dirty Harry character. The commentators don't include the most popular of all in the 70s, Pauline Kael, who called the film a brutal fascist dream. When her attitude is being described, the image we see is of the hand of some mad person slicing a newspaper feverishly with a carving knife. Andy Robinson, who gives an incandescent performance as the killer, and some of the others, give what strikes me as reasonably balanced remarks on Dirty Harry. Pauline Kael, now as dead as Robinson's innocent victims, gets no chance to say anything in her defense.
"Dirty Harry" was a rattling good tale of mayhem but it was as brutal as Kael said and it turned Harry into a monomaniac who just happened to be on the side of the law. The first sequel, "Magnum Force," was original in the sense that it turned things around. The heavies became a death squad within the police force, a kind of half-arsed answer to the "fascist" question. Milius makes the interesting (and entirely accurate) point that "Magnum Force" differed from today's sequels. Today, the sequels are merely repeats of the original story with more action and special effects. At least "Magnum Force" was responsive rather than simply repetitive.
The several sequels that followed alternated between right-wing villains and left-wing villains. The quality of the stories and characters declined monotonically and aren't worth description except that the sadistic hippy villain in "The Enforcer" is Bobby Maxwell, a name of renown.
The film is about equally divided between clips from the Dirty Harry series and the commentators. It's not badly done, sort of middle brow, and should offend no one to any extent. You're not going to find skull-numbing discussions of Aristotle or Michael Davis or retributive justice.
The original was a great commercial success but what is it really? The single-minded gunslinger rides into a town full of rowdies and cleans it up by killing the evil doers, in disregard of legal restrictions.
Anyone remember 1971 and the cities? What had been peaceful milieus had just turned into hunting grounds on which any white person was a legitimate target, or so it seemed in the popular press and in the statistics. The black kids had turned the cities into nightmares. The transposition of the narrative -- gunslinger, outlaws -- would have been made manifest if instead of Andy Robinson's single white villain, there had been a dozen black kids with names like Tyrone and T-Bone.
Other MBAs picked up on the theme with movies like Charles Bronson's "Death Wish." The dusty Western town had simply turned into the big dirty city.
Two Sides of the Law
Michael_Elliott14 June 2015
A Moral Right: The Politics of Dirty Harry (2008)
*** 1/2 (out of 4)
Very good documentary taking a look at the controversial politics of the DIRTY HARRY series and how so many people agreed with the type of killing that Harry was doing while others saw him as something bad. The documentary features Clint Eastwood, several cast members of the series, Eastwood biographers and just filmmakers/fans of the series. This is certainly an entertaining documentary but at just 24 minutes you can tell things were rushed at times and there's no doubt that a feature-length documentary could certainly be made about the issue. We hear the work liberal an conservative several times throughout the picture as those being interviewed talk about their own personal beliefs and why the political climate in 1971 was just ripe for something like DIRTY HARRY. We also get some great discussion about Pauline Kael's review of the original film and how many feel she attacked it too strongly and for the wrong reason. Screenwriter John Milius is also on hand to discuss the other side of the coin with MAGNUM FORCE and how they wanted to make something different than the first film. Fans of the series will enjoy hearing these interviews and it certainly makes for an interesting conversation no matter which side of the law you're on.
*** 1/2 (out of 4)
Very good documentary taking a look at the controversial politics of the DIRTY HARRY series and how so many people agreed with the type of killing that Harry was doing while others saw him as something bad. The documentary features Clint Eastwood, several cast members of the series, Eastwood biographers and just filmmakers/fans of the series. This is certainly an entertaining documentary but at just 24 minutes you can tell things were rushed at times and there's no doubt that a feature-length documentary could certainly be made about the issue. We hear the work liberal an conservative several times throughout the picture as those being interviewed talk about their own personal beliefs and why the political climate in 1971 was just ripe for something like DIRTY HARRY. We also get some great discussion about Pauline Kael's review of the original film and how many feel she attacked it too strongly and for the wrong reason. Screenwriter John Milius is also on hand to discuss the other side of the coin with MAGNUM FORCE and how they wanted to make something different than the first film. Fans of the series will enjoy hearing these interviews and it certainly makes for an interesting conversation no matter which side of the law you're on.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
