- Amazon Originals Now Playing, For Free: Watch hilarious comedies and lovable children's pilots from top creators, featuring stars you love, only at Amazon Instant Video. See all the shows and let us know what you think.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
At least in the larger U.S. cities 30 years ago, residents had become totally fed up with traditional law enforcement initiatives. It was no longer safe to walk the streets at night. Even more dangerous to do so in public parks. Homes were robbed while people worked during the day. Many of the same homes were robbed again later after insurance coverage replaced the articles previously stolen. Racial animosities, drug abuse, and a widespread contempt for institutional authority all contributed to such problems.
Under Don Siegel's crisp direction, Eastwood and his associates in the cast bring R.M. Fink's screenplay to life (and yes, to death) as they focus on what is obviously an irreconcilable conflict between Callahan and his superiors who include the mayor of San Francisco. Callahan's motto seems to be "Whatever it takes." In some situations, it may take his 44 Magnum, "the most powerful handgun in the world." Callahan has not totally lost faith in his society nor in the importance of the legal system. However, he does feel betrayed. The mayor and even Lieutenant Bressler (Harry Guardino) just don't "get it." This is precisely the same point Jim Malone (Sean Connery) makes to Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner) in The Untouchables 26 years later: When orthodox ("by the book") crime-fighting strategies and tactics don't succeed, use others even if they are not (at least technically) legal. Countless other films (such as Magnum Force, The French Connection, and L.A. Confidential) also make the same point.
It is important to remember when seeing this film again, as I did recently, that it portrays elements of an urban society few of us ever experience. Also, that it is a drama, not a documentary. Its primary purpose is to tell a story. The plot focuses on a serial killer named "Scorpio" (Andy Robinson) whom Callahan is determined to eliminate. Even when he eventually does so, questions remain. Don't criminals also have rights? What would happen if all or most other detectives followed Callahan's example? To what extent (if any) should private citizens also be actively involved in law enforcement? I agree with several critics who claim that, with Dirty Harry, Siegel and Eastwood created a new film genre. Its influence proved to be substantial. Each viewer must decide for herself or himself how much social relevance it has retained after 32 years but almost everyone would agree that it has lost little of its entertainment value.
San Francisco, as many times as it has been used as a film site, is showcased spectacularly. Director Don Siegel's excellent work is a model of how to maximize the potential of location shooting.
Lalo Schifrin's haunting musical score fits the film like a glove.
With regard to acting, Clint Eastwood ( with typically effective subtlety ) gives just enough hints of Inspector Harry Callahan's interior life (a widower, wearily independent detective, sympathetic to the "common" man ) to allow the viewer to fill in the rest of the details. "Less is more", while a cliché, does accurately describe the minimalist style with which Eastwood brings substance to the character.
The main storyline is extremely focused ( no distracting subplots ), the action sequences displaying a practically unrivalled tension ( e.g., the dizzying cross-town rush with Callahan as "bag man" carrying ransom for a kidnapped teenager ). Andrew Robinson, as the killer "Scorpio" ( obviously modeled on the uncaught "Zodiac" murderer c. 1970 ) animates one of the most evil characters in film history. We know nothing of his name or background; he functions anonymously, a destroying plague killing randomly and effectively hidden in the midst of urban society. In a chilling and critically important scene ( an effective emblem of ironic "displacement" ) "Scorpio" wears a belt buckle modeled as a "peace sign" while smilingly looking over a playground full of the same kinds of children he has recently murdered.
Since it is so often brought up, it is proper to spend a few moments on certain "political" objections raised about the film. Many reviewers continue to parrot the notion that "Dirty Harry" is a "fascist" film ( this accusation was first implied by the late film critic Pauline Kael ). The film was stamped "Nixonian" in a jibe clearly designed to label it as siding with the "oppressors" ( "law and order" campaign themes ) against the ( typically unquestioned ) revolutionary purity of "the people". To this day various "anointed" critics tend to regurgitate this line as if it were actually true, revealing ( among other things ) an unfortunate tendency to reduce every element of human life to the realm of politics. To this reviewer, such attacks reflect an attitude stemming from an affliction once termed "radical chic", a condition common to a certain class of intellectuals. Valid criticism should be directly linked to the content of the movie ( citing specifics ), not relying on half-baked media generalizations. And as far as the term "fascist" goes, George Orwell long ago noted the essential meaningless to which this word had already been reduced through repeated misapplication ( in a fate that has since befallen many other words, "fascist" is now commonly used to batter into silence those who dissent from a given line of thought ). On the most basic level, Harry Callahan is concerned with the innocent victims of violent crime, who were ( and are ) often denied justice due to legal machinations ( "penumbras" ) applied by monomaniacal civil libertarians whose self-proclaimed concern for "rights" is often a canard betraying a fatefully flawed ( not bearing the light of reason ) allegiance to an unconstrained ideological "vision".
To conclude: "Dirty Harry" is a brilliant action film. If excitement is all one needs, the film delivers in spectacular fashion. If one wishes to "probe" further, it also works as a ( humble ) meditation on our "fallen" world and ( necessarily ) imperfect human justice.
|