Discussion:
Gangster Films Questions
(too old to reply)
Von Fourche
2008-06-05 01:16:33 UTC
Permalink
I am currently in a summer film class at college. The class is on

gangster films. So far we have watched Little Caesar, the Grandfather

of gangster films. Then we watched Public Enemy. I guess this film is

famous because it shows society as one of the contributing factors in

the creation of gangsters. Today we watched Angels with Dirty Faces.

This film didn't seem much like a gangster film at all. The gangster aspect

seemed more like the vehicle for the film. It seemed formulaic. This film
was made in 1938 - post code/censorship. Angels was more like stupid happy
go-lucky film. This film felt neutered compared to Little Caesar.
Obviously the code was to blame.



Anyway, Thursday we watch Bonnie and Clyde (1969). Now this film set the
mark for violence but wasn't this also an anti-Vietnam film
(anti-establishment)? Was this film an anti-Vietnam film or am I wrong on
this? It's an anti-hero film, right? It's not like the gangster films of
the 1930's

is it?
Howard Brazee
2008-06-05 01:35:03 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 21:16:33 -0400, "Von Fourche"
Post by Von Fourche
the creation of gangsters. Today we watched Angels with Dirty Faces.
This film didn't seem much like a gangster film at all. The gangster aspect
seemed more like the vehicle for the film. It seemed formulaic. This film
was made in 1938 - post code/censorship. Angels was more like stupid happy
go-lucky film. This film felt neutered compared to Little Caesar.
Obviously the code was to blame.
Why obviously? I'm not seeing it.
Opry phantom
2008-06-05 02:15:59 UTC
Permalink
  I am currently in a summer film class at college.  The class is on
gangster films.  So far we have watched Little Caesar, the Grandfather
of gangster films.  Then we watched Public Enemy.  I guess this film is
famous because it shows society as one of the contributing factors in
the creation of..........
Yeah, they tried that Society creates public enemies stuff, but when
kids saw Cagney swagger and snarl, they saw the image of what every
Irish hood wanted to be.
Tom Sutpen
2008-06-05 11:58:37 UTC
Permalink
  Anyway, Thursday we watch Bonnie and Clyde (1969).  Now this film set the
mark for violence but wasn't this also an anti-Vietnam film
(anti-establishment)? Was this film an anti-Vietnam film or am I wrong on
this?  It's an anti-hero film, right?  It's not like the gangster films of
the 1930's
is it?
*****
No. I think Robert Benton and David Newman had 'Nouvelle vague'
landmarks like 'Breathless' in mind far more than any general
statement on current events, '67. Arthur Penn, in interviews, always
tries to drag 'Bonnie and Clyde' into the political maelsrom of its
time, but beyond a very mild anti-authoritarian bent, you can see
little of that realized in the film itself.

By the way, any course on Gangster films that doesn't include the two
most essential works of the first cycle ('The Public Enemy' and 'The
Roaring Twenties' . . . the film that closed out an entire era of
American filmmaking with the finality of a coffin lid) is . . . not
complete.

Tom Sutpen
Richard Schultz
2008-06-05 13:54:48 UTC
Permalink
In article <66231412-536c-4d31-9acc-***@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Tom Sutpen <***@gmail.com> wrote:

: By the way, any course on Gangster films that doesn't include the two
: most essential works of the first cycle ('The Public Enemy' and 'The
: Roaring Twenties' . . . the film that closed out an entire era of
: American filmmaking with the finality of a coffin lid) is . . . not
: complete.

I ain't so tough, but he did say that his course included "The Public Enemy."

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
Tom Sutpen
2008-06-05 21:21:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Schultz
: By the way, any course on Gangster films that doesn't include the two
: most essential works of the first cycle ('The Public Enemy' and 'The
: Roaring Twenties' . . . the film that closed out an entire era of
: American filmmaking with the finality of a coffin lid) is . . . not
: complete.
I ain't so tough, but he did say that his course included "The Public Enemy."
*****
So he did (which goes to show that I shouldn't post before my morning
coffee infusion), but I still say that course is for the birds if it
didn't include 'The Roaring Twenties'.

Tom Sutpen
Richard Schultz
2008-06-06 12:07:05 UTC
Permalink
In article <247c35d4-cac0-464d-9f31-***@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, Tom Sutpen <***@gmail.com> wrote:

:> I ain't so tough, but he did say that his course included "The Public Enemy."

: So he did (which goes to show that I shouldn't post before my morning
: coffee infusion), but I still say that course is for the birds if it
: didn't include 'The Roaring Twenties'.

We have to keep in mind that we're getting all of this at second hand -- we
can't know what the professor actually taught, only what he was reported
to have taught by a possibly unreliable witness (and believe me, I know
from personal experience just how unreliable students can be when it comes
to reporting what they heard in a lecture). But *if* the description of
the course that we have received is even close to being correct, its
failure to include _The Roaring Twenties_ is among the least of its problems.

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
David Oberman
2008-06-05 15:18:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Sutpen
No. I think Robert Benton and David Newman had 'Nouvelle vague'
landmarks like 'Breathless' in mind far more than any general
statement on current events, '67. Arthur Penn, in interviews, always
tries to drag 'Bonnie and Clyde' into the political maelsrom of its
time, but beyond a very mild anti-authoritarian bent, you can see
little of that realized in the film itself.
Clyde's impotence & "gun-toting violence" together are a metaphor of
America's rapidly waning imperialism.

....


Just kidding!









____

Beware of medical quacks & "health food" pushers!

www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/spotquack.html
Flasherly
2008-06-05 18:40:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Oberman
Post by Tom Sutpen
No. I think Robert Benton and David Newman had 'Nouvelle vague'
landmarks like 'Breathless' in mind far more than any general
statement on current events, '67. Arthur Penn, in interviews, always
tries to drag 'Bonnie and Clyde' into the political maelsrom of its
time, but beyond a very mild anti-authoritarian bent, you can see
little of that realized in the film itself.
Clyde's impotence & "gun-toting violence" together are a metaphor of
America's rapidly waning imperialism.
Directorial metaphors (aren't they all) for actualization allied to
rumors Clyde went either way, (sic, "swishy," or not, which seems
better in keeping to considerations an effect rehabilitation serves
infrastructures so large as the penal system);-- one could presume in
the case Arthur Penn, lacking to encompass an ancillary criminal
aspect of development and character traits, Clyde's negated
homosexuality then is nonessential to serve, ironically, at some
greater future portent apparently now acceptably inculcated. [Perhaps
second to CA, TX ... "According to John Neal Phillips, Clyde's goal in
life was not to gain fame and fortune from robbing banks, but to seek
revenge against the Texas prison system for the abuses he suffered
while serving time." -Wiki.]

In implication, I wonder, if at all worthy an end any more deviant, an
hailstorm by bullets in riddled bodies is adequate to tradition,
popularly served established senses in agreeable presentment. Clyde
packing stuff up somebody's butt, regardless, might seem more than
tritely placed these days -- certainly not fare I'd expect from
MSNBC's off-time investigating repertoires.

--
When in a land of extremes -- do too much or too little as will
suffice, and no more.
Tom Sutpen
2008-06-05 21:17:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Flasherly
Post by David Oberman
Clyde's impotence & "gun-toting violence" together are a metaphor of
America's rapidly waning imperialism.
Directorial metaphors (aren't they all) for actualization allied to
rumors Clyde went either way, (sic, "swishy," or not, which seems
better in keeping to considerations an effect rehabilitation serves
infrastructures so large as the penal system);-- one could presume in
the case Arthur Penn, lacking to encompass an ancillary criminal
aspect of development and character traits, Clyde's negated
homosexuality then is nonessential to serve, ironically, at some
greater future portent apparently now acceptably inculcated.
*****
Actually that was in Benton and Newman's screenplay, but Warren Beatty
(who produced the film) refused to play any kind of homosexual . . .
negated, implied, inferred or flat-out flaming . . . and had all trace
elements of it removed from the character. The impotence angle was a
substitute.

Tom Sutpen
Flasherly
2008-06-06 02:52:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Sutpen
Post by Flasherly
Post by David Oberman
Clyde's impotence & "gun-toting violence" together are a metaphor of
America's rapidly waning imperialism.
Directorial metaphors (aren't they all) for actualization allied to
rumors Clyde went either way, (sic, "swishy," or not, which seems
better in keeping to considerations an effect rehabilitation serves
infrastructures so large as the penal system);-- one could presume in
the case Arthur Penn, lacking to encompass an ancillary criminal
aspect of development and character traits, Clyde's negated
homosexuality then is nonessential to serve, ironically, at some
greater future portent apparently now acceptably inculcated.
*****
Actually that was in Benton and Newman's screenplay, but Warren Beatty
(who produced the film) refused to play any kind of homosexual . . .
negated, implied, inferred or flat-out flaming . . . and had all trace
elements of it removed from the character. The impotence angle was a
substitute.
Short of flat out flaming or particularly bothering for authenticity
of parenthetical angles I was looking at -- being one such w/ Warren
neither refusing either if in instead favorable deference is given to
playing both the homo and hetero, as an allegedly "rumored bisexual"
gangsta -- again, of no consequence for Penn's directive sway, not
Warren's, and that subsequent decision impotence served entirely to
blanket. First I've seen of any attributive issues implied to the
works. Also, as I only could have been at two places, easily to cite -
IMDB's trivia, along with Wiki;- apart from authenticating the former,
which perhaps is no less a daunting proposal.
Tom Sutpen
2008-06-06 05:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Flasherly
Post by Tom Sutpen
Actually that was in Benton and Newman's screenplay, but Warren Beatty
(who produced the film) refused to play any kind of homosexual . . .
negated, implied, inferred or flat-out flaming . . . and had all trace
elements of it removed from the character. The impotence angle was a
substitute.
Short of flat out flaming or particularly bothering for authenticity
of parenthetical angles I was looking at -- being one such w/ Warren
neither refusing either if in instead favorable deference is given to
playing both the homo and hetero, as an allegedly "rumored bisexual"
gangsta -- again, of no consequence for Penn's directive sway, not
Warren's, and that subsequent decision impotence served entirely to
blanket.  First I've seen of any attributive issues implied to the
works. Also, as I only could have been at two places, easily to cite -
IMDB's trivia, along with Wiki;- apart from authenticating the former,
which perhaps is no less a daunting proposal.
*****
Let me guess:

English isn't really your first language, is it.

Tom 'And I thought *my* sentences were needlessly congested' Sutpen
Flasherly
2008-06-06 13:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Sutpen
Post by Flasherly
Post by Tom Sutpen
Actually that was in Benton and Newman's screenplay, but Warren Beatty
(who produced the film) refused to play any kind of homosexual . . .
negated, implied, inferred or flat-out flaming . . . and had all trace
elements of it removed from the character. The impotence angle was a
substitute.
Short of flat out flaming or particularly bothering for authenticity
of parenthetical angles I was looking at -- being one such w/ Warren
neither refusing either if in instead favorable deference is given to
playing both the homo and hetero, as an allegedly "rumored bisexual"
gangsta -- again, of no consequence for Penn's directive sway, not
Warren's, and that subsequent decision impotence served entirely to
blanket. First I've seen of any attributive issues implied to the
works. Also, as I only could have been at two places, easily to cite -
IMDB's trivia, along with Wiki;- apart from authenticating the former,
which perhaps is no less a daunting proposal.
English isn't really your first language, is it.
Tom 'And I thought *my* sentences were needlessly congested' Sutpen
I suppose it's all a bit complicated to unravel words adamant and
effective to a stance Warren irrevocably refused to play: "the
homosexual" -- in rebuttal that should take upon such queerly
congested turns, reading what I could as well to presume to be true,
that Warren in fact signified deference at some earlier juncture when
planning the production -- stating a willingness to play the part of a
bisexual -- contrary to issues you apparently would disallow Warren,
an attribute of a sexually engendered role he may, or not, then well
have played.

Tom -- apart from what Hypothetical Jack propounds to say better, you
have yet to steamroll me into some consequence there's in what you say
a sense supportive, better to deny what I already cited as easy: Go to
the left of IMDB, look for the trivia link on the left, click it,
whereupon now read:

--
"The real Clyde Barrow was rumored to be bisexual and Warren Beatty
was willing to play the part that way, but director Arthur Penn talked
him out of it. He was [a resultant role played out -FL] impotent
instead." -Hypothetical Jack
Tom Sutpen
2008-06-06 13:29:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Flasherly
"The real Clyde Barrow was rumored to be bisexual and Warren Beatty
was willing to play the part that way, but director Arthur Penn talked
him out of it. He was [a resultant role played out -FL] impotent
instead." -Hypothetical Jack
*****
IMDb Trivia entries are . . . not what I'd call reliable.

Peter Biskind's somewhat more reliable book 'Easy Riders and Raging
Bulls' tells it somewhat differently. In short, Beatty wanted the
bisexuality removed because a) as a Great Big Shiny Star in the
Hullawood Firmament he was uncomfortable with how it would affect his
all-important screen image; and b) as Producer he knew he'd have an
even bigger chore on his hands placating Jack Warner (who was never
favorably disposed to the project) if the picture had the extra-added
burden of *that* issue.

Tom Sutpen
Flasherly
2008-06-06 14:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Sutpen
Post by Flasherly
"The real Clyde Barrow was rumored to be bisexual and Warren Beatty
was willing to play the part that way, but director Arthur Penn talked
him out of it. He was [a resultant role played out -FL] impotent
instead." -Hypothetical Jack
*****
IMDb Trivia entries are . . . not what I'd call reliable.
Peter Biskind's somewhat more reliable book 'Easy Riders and Raging
Bulls' tells it somewhat differently. In short, Beatty wanted the
bisexuality removed because a) as a Great Big Shiny Star in the
Hullawood Firmament he was uncomfortable with how it would affect his
all-important screen image; and b) as Producer he knew he'd have an
even bigger chore on his hands placating Jack Warner (who was never
favorably disposed to the project) if the picture had the extra-added
burden of *that* issue.
In light of fledgling though tenuous career decisions affecting golden-
boy statures, Biskind's rationale is a sound piece of advice Warren
well would reconsider;-- considering a man not immune to a tempest
Madonna signifies, post flowerchild acceptance levels I'd advance to
consider for not other than qualities apt favorably disposed to issues
of a sort bisexuality might pose;- inasmuch for a "fleshier" Biskind
then to better qualify the in-&-outs leading to rounding leftover
edges, or what opportunistic forays a quote as I cited might invite.

--
"Tell them I don't smoke cigars" -BONNIE PARKER (When asked by Percy
Boyd what she wanted him to relay to the newspapers).
Sean O'Hara
2008-06-05 21:38:46 UTC
Permalink
In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Tom Sutpen
Post by Tom Sutpen
By the way, any course on Gangster films that doesn't include the two
most essential works of the first cycle ('The Public Enemy' and 'The
Roaring Twenties' . . . the film that closed out an entire era of
American filmmaking with the finality of a coffin lid) is . . . not
complete.
I'd argue that "The Roaring Twenties," not "Angels with Dirty Faces"
is the film neutered by the Code. It's a gangster film in which none
of the "good" gangsters ever do anything even remotely
reprehensible. It's not enough of an outright comedy to pull it off
like "All Through the Night" does, but the Code was too strict to
let Cagney and pals get away with the stuff Sinatra pulls in "Robin
and the 7 Hoods."
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
The truth is that the only person who can ever really play himself
is a baby.
-Richard Widmark
l***@my-deja.com
2008-06-05 13:18:14 UTC
Permalink
  I am currently in a summer film class at college.  The class is on
gangster films.  So far we have watched Little Caesar, the Grandfather
of gangster films.  Then we watched Public Enemy.  I guess this film is
famous because it shows society as one of the contributing factors in
the creation of gangsters.  Today we watched Angels with Dirty Faces.
This film didn't seem much like a gangster film at all.  The gangster aspect
seemed more like the vehicle for the film.  It seemed formulaic.  This film
was made in 1938 - post code/censorship.  Angels was more like stupid happy
go-lucky film.  This film felt neutered compared to Little Caesar.
Obviously the code was to blame.
  Anyway, Thursday we watch Bonnie and Clyde (1969).  Now this film set the
mark for violence but wasn't this also an anti-Vietnam film
(anti-establishment)? Was this film an anti-Vietnam film or am I wrong on
this?  It's an anti-hero film, right?  It's not like the gangster films of
the 1930's
is it?
What about the original SCARFACE (1932) directed by Howard Hawks and
starring Paul Muni as a veiled version of Al Capone? That's far more
important as a gangster film than ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES. Or BONNIE
AND CLYDE.
David Oberman
2008-06-05 15:18:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@my-deja.com
What about the original SCARFACE (1932) directed by Howard Hawks and
starring Paul Muni as a veiled version of Al Capone? That's far more
important as a gangster film than ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES. Or BONNIE
AND CLYDE.
Yes, & SCARFACE has an interesting sociological secondary title.









____

Beware of medical quacks & "health food" pushers!

www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/spotquack.html
mack
2008-06-05 17:12:10 UTC
Permalink
I am currently in a summer film class at college. The class is on
gangster films. So far we have watched Little Caesar, the Grandfather
of gangster films. Then we watched Public Enemy. I guess this film is
famous because it shows society as one of the contributing factors in
the creation of gangsters. Today we watched Angels with Dirty Faces.
This film didn't seem much like a gangster film at all. The gangster
aspect
seemed more like the vehicle for the film. It seemed formulaic. This film
was made in 1938 - post code/censorship. Angels was more like stupid happy
go-lucky film. This film felt neutered compared to Little Caesar.
Obviously the code was to blame.
Anyway, Thursday we watch Bonnie and Clyde (1969). Now this film set the
mark for violence but wasn't this also an anti-Vietnam film
(anti-establishment)? Was this film an anti-Vietnam film or am I wrong on
this? It's an anti-hero film, right? It's not like the gangster films of
the 1930's
is it?
What about the original SCARFACE (1932) directed by Howard Hawks and
starring Paul Muni as a veiled version of Al Capone? That's far more
important as a gangster film than ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES. Or BONNIE
AND CLYDE.

Right! and there are some memorable images in SCARFACE, like Karloff dying
in the bowling alley before his ball makes a strike, the travel agency sign
"The World is Yours" outside Muni's barricaded apartment, etc.
And you won't understand the gag in
SOME LIKE IT HOT when George Raft asks his coin-flipping henchman "Where'd
you get that cheap trick?" unless you've seen SCARFACE.
Richard Schultz
2008-06-05 13:58:10 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@earthlink.com>, Von Fourche <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

: gangster films. So far we have watched Little Caesar, the Grandfather
: of gangster films. Then we watched Public Enemy. I guess this film is
: famous because it shows society as one of the contributing factors in
: the creation of gangsters.

Actually, it's famous because of Cagney's performance. I'm surprised
that your professor hasn't discussed the impact that his acting style
had on the gangster film. I don't want to say any more in case he's
planning to put "Compare and contrast the acting styles of James Cagney
in _The Public Enemy_ and Edward G. Robinson in _Little Caesar_" on the final.

I'm also a little surprised that he hasn't discussed the development of
the gangster film at Warner Brothers in general.

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
Kingo Gondo
2008-06-05 18:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Von Fourche
I am currently in a summer film class at college. The class is on
gangster films. So far we have watched Little Caesar, the Grandfather
of gangster films. Then we watched Public Enemy. I guess this film is
famous because it shows society as one of the contributing factors in
the creation of gangsters. Today we watched Angels with Dirty Faces.
This film didn't seem much like a gangster film at all. The gangster aspect
seemed more like the vehicle for the film. It seemed formulaic. This
film was made in 1938 - post code/censorship. Angels was more like stupid
happy go-lucky film. This film felt neutered compared to Little Caesar.
Obviously the code was to blame.
Anyway, Thursday we watch Bonnie and Clyde (1969). Now this film set the
mark for violence but wasn't this also an anti-Vietnam film
(anti-establishment)? Was this film an anti-Vietnam film or am I wrong on
this? It's an anti-hero film, right? It's not like the gangster films of
the 1930's
is it?
Watch the film first, discuss and/or ask questions about it later. That
seems the natural order of things.
Sean O'Hara
2008-06-05 21:29:47 UTC
Permalink
In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Von Fourche
Post by Von Fourche
Today we watched Angels with Dirty Faces.
This film didn't seem much like a gangster film at all. The gangster aspect
seemed more like the vehicle for the film. It seemed formulaic. This film
was made in 1938 - post code/censorship. Angels was more like stupid happy
go-lucky film. This film felt neutered compared to Little Caesar.
Obviously the code was to blame.
Did you happen to go to the bathroom in the last five minutes,
'cause I think Angels has the best ending of any gangster film other
than The Long Good Friday. Little Caesar and The Public Enemy have
straight-forward, "Crime doesn't pay -- see, we're socially
conscious, please don't censor us," endings. With Angels you have
the ambiguity of whether Cagney had a change of heart at the last
minute, or if he really did turn yeller, which I think makes the
film a lot more interesting.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
What's funny is that it's only the serious news media that takes us
seriously.
-Rob Cordry, Daily Show correspondent
Von Fourche
2008-06-05 22:32:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Von Fourche
Today we watched Angels with Dirty Faces.
This film didn't seem much like a gangster film at all. The gangster aspect
seemed more like the vehicle for the film. It seemed formulaic. This
film was made in 1938 - post code/censorship. Angels was more like
stupid happy go-lucky film. This film felt neutered compared to Little
Caesar. Obviously the code was to blame.
Did you happen to go to the bathroom in the last five minutes, 'cause I
think Angels has the best ending of any gangster film other than The Long
Good Friday. Little Caesar and The Public Enemy have straight-forward,
"Crime doesn't pay -- see, we're socially conscious, please don't censor
us," endings. With Angels you have the ambiguity of whether Cagney had a
change of heart at the last minute, or if he really did turn yeller, which
I think makes the film a lot more interesting.
I have been thinking of Angels more and more. The ending is great. I
figured
Cagney would be shot dead in the warehouse but he's taken alive, to my
surprise.
Then, what his friend asks him to do before his death and what Cangey
actually
does is amazing. I did not care for the Dead End Gang. They reminded me
too
much of the Three Stooges. Kids that deserve to be in prison. Then again,
they are
the poor and the losers in life and yet they deserve to be loved and deserve
a chance
like everybody else. The Bishop trying to save those kids, he was doing the
Lords
work for sure.

Watched Bonnie and Clyde today. I've seen this film before but never have
paid
much attention to the whole film. I say - this film is about self inflicted
pain. The gang can't rob a bank and get in a shoot-out without feeling sick
and nervous after they do it. They rob a bank, get a shoot-out, then are
real nervous after it, over and over.
Bonnie was bored out of her mind and wanted Clyde to provider her with
excitement
and also something that Clyde could not provide - sexual fulfillment. She
chose the one guy that could not fulfill her sexually. That frustrated her
but she filled that sexual desire
with guns and danger. Even tho shoot-outs and killing made her sick to her
stomach
like Clyde, the danger still turned her on.

Clyde wanted to be famous it seems. Bonnie wanted fulfillment. She chose
the wrong guy and they chose a profession that was the wrong one for sure.
Maybe it was their only choice. At the end when Bonnie is sexually
fulfilled, they both die. Interesting, she gets her fulfillment but it
comes at a high price - death.
l***@my-deja.com
2008-06-06 16:11:10 UTC
Permalink
  I am currently in a summer film class at college.  The class is on
gangster films.  So far we have watched Little Caesar, the Grandfather
of gangster films.  Then we watched Public Enemy.  I guess this film is
famous because it shows society as one of the contributing factors in
the creation of gangsters.  Today we watched Angels with Dirty Faces.
This film didn't seem much like a gangster film at all.  The gangster aspect
seemed more like the vehicle for the film.  It seemed formulaic.  This film
was made in 1938 - post code/censorship.  Angels was more like stupid happy
go-lucky film.  This film felt neutered compared to Little Caesar.
Obviously the code was to blame.
  Anyway, Thursday we watch Bonnie and Clyde (1969).  Now this film set the
mark for violence but wasn't this also an anti-Vietnam film
(anti-establishment)? Was this film an anti-Vietnam film or am I wrong on
this?  It's an anti-hero film, right?  It's not like the gangster films of
the 1930's
is it?
Hey, kid--go watch Cagney in WHITE HEAT (1949), the greatest crime
film ever made. (And it's only marginally a "gangster" film.) Don't
ask any questions about it, don't over-analyze it, just sit back and
enjoy it.

"If I turned my back long enough for Big Ed to put a hole in it--
there'd be a hole in it."

"What's that, Parker, ya need some air? All right, I'll give ya some
air." Blam! Blam! Blam!

"Made it, Ma. Top of the world!"

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...