Steele, Robert. The Good-Bad and Bad-Good in Movies: Bonnie and Clyde and In Cold Blood. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc., 1973 

 

 

Robert Steele’s essay in John G. Cawelti’s Focus on Bonnie and Clyde discusses two of the most important film critics’ opinions of the violence in the film regarding Bonnie and Clyde. A conversation between Richard Schickel, a critic for Time magazine, and Bosley Crowther, a former critic for The New York Times becomes the basis for the article regarding violence in cinema and the moral obligations of both the filmmakers and critics alike. Schickel adopts the opinion that it is a filmmaker’s responsibility to reflect the times, which would of course include portraying violence. Crowther, however, agrees with that statement, but believes that Bonnie & Clyde, “had gone beyond the bounds of good taste and judgment in the way it presented these killers” (115).
Steele’s follows the conversation with a critique of the two critics’ views by examining how and for what reason violence is used in the film. Steele’s main argument revolves around the difference between art and entertainment, “art is entertainment, and some entertainment may be art” (117). He believes that Schickel’s claim that films should represent society would be true should it apply to documentaries, but Arthur Penn’s film strives to be art, and not simply a truthful depiction.
Steele, while defending the use of violence to a certain extent, finds complaints with the film from an artistic viewpoint instead. Slow motion and fast paced editing in the final shootout separate the deaths of Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow from every other death in the film elevating them to a heroic status, but for what purpose? He classifies the film as taking, “a tragic stance without giving us a tragedy” (119). Steele feels that Penn’s use of artistic editing and cinematic devices become “shenanigans” (120) because they are meant simply to disguise the underlying unpleasantness of a story where the two beautiful heroes die. In this sense, Penn’s stunning and artistic use of violence adds nothing to the film other than making it entertainment genius.

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.