Dirty Harry: fascist? (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Gatie]

You obviously never worked at the software places that I have. Every engineer (cept' me, of course ) at my past employers have equaled the stereotypes and most far surpassed them; bad enough that even the engineers stereotyped by the general population were making fun of them.

All I have to mention to make my case is the guy that showed up to work in the Star Trek uniform (Next Generation, not Original Series). When complimented on the quality and asked where he bought it, he replied "I couldn't buy one to exact specs so I ordered a pattern online and sewed it myself".

The prosecution rests . . .

 

[Cam McFarland]

OK.....simple question & only requires
a YES or NO answer

So, in this instance, if it was your daughter, given the fact that Harry knew he was guilty, you would rather your daughter die, than have Scorpio's rights violated???

 

[Michael Reuben]

Well, in this moderator's opinion, it requires no answer, because it's a loaded question that tries to treat the carefully constructed and artificial scenario of the film as if it were real life. Let's move on.

M.

 

[Cam McFarland]

Awww, come on, everybody loves a little debate....





What's wrong with this, I just layed out specific
criteria to see what peoples answer would be.
If ya dont want to play, dont play, no big deal.

By the way, peoples daughters get abducted every day,
I wonder how many would have been saved if a few civil
rights were trampled.

I am not saying it is right or just, and, no, i would not want it to happen to me, but at the risk of repeating myself, if it was my daughter I wouldnt care.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I'm sure it's an interesting topic, Cam, but it's not going to be pursued in the Movies area of HTF. Move on, please.

M.

 

[Daniel J.S.]

Scorpio wears a peace sign as a belt buckle: what do you think that's all about? Is the film saying that hippies may preach peace and tolerance, but in fact they're the real threat to society? Remember, this was the time where construction workers were attacking protestors (not to mention Kent State). On the doc on the DVD, Andy Robinson characterized him as a Vietnam vet who went crazy. So what was he? A disillusioned vet or a radical extremist? This is actually one of the charms of the series: how it purposefully muddies the political issues. Rememeber that in Magnum Force, the seemingly "liberal" police captain turns out to be the head of the fascist execution squad.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Miller uses Superman as the bureacratic version of Batman, the officially endorsed gov't version of super vigilante, and his methods result in worse outcomes as it turns out.

And beyond that Miller shows that the bureaucracy that would reign in Batman is unable to respond appropriately to the real needs of the public. In the end they (govt) need Batman, a figure of authority able to act quicker than the establishment, just as much as the people do.


And that's a lot of what Dirty Harry is also about. Not just wanting facist authority to stablize their world, but also expressing a resentment and dissatisfaction with their current governing authority's slow response to their needs. It's both facism AND anti-establishment at the same time.

That's probably why the characters (Batman and Dirty Harry) are so compelling.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

We agree again, Seth. One thing that I shied away from posting but your discussion of The Dark Knight Returns opens the door for is that the underlying morality of the "fascist" vigilante is certainly open for comparison with history's traditional "fascists". While a slippery slope and certainly nothing to be encouraged outside of the movies; it is the moral clarity of Callahan or Batman that allows us to see him as a sympathetic "fascist". As for actually describing Dirty Harry as a "fascist" or his actions as "fascism", I don't know. Personally, when I hear "fascism" I just keep picturing Mussolini doing the hanging-by-the-heels cha-cha and find it unfair (to both the millions slaughtered in WWII and to those poor, unfortunate, "rights" starved, innocent until proven guilty persons mentioned in this thread) to have that image in the same discussion as Clint Eastwood. YMMV!

 

[Lew Crippen]

I think that it is worth considering that characters like Harry Callaghan, Jack Bauer and even Owke (and his cohorts) in Dirty Pretty Things no matter how much they are portrayed as being willing to operate outside the system, really never have to make any real moral choices when they act outside the law or common moral precepts.

One can view this as either lazy writing or (more likely) that the filmmakers have no interest in presenting the viewer with any moral ambiguity.

When Jack Bauer kills a man in cold blood and saws off his head, we have no moral qualms because the writers set up the man who was murdered without due process to be extremely morally repugnant. The viewer not only has no sympathy for him, but actively wishes for retribution even before Bauer pulls the trigger. The moral dilemma would occur to the audience, if the guy about to be shot were shown to be something other than a moral degenerate—someone with a family of his own

Callaghan is presented with a bad guy who is known to be bad. And not only bad, but very bad. So when he operates outside normal bounds, it becomes easy to believe that he is doing the right thing and that other weaker people would not be able to match his result. But real life is not so easy, bad buys are not always that bad, nor does every cop have certain knowledge of a specific criminal committing a specific crime.

Even in the recent Dirty Pretty Things where the writers do s reasonable job of mitigating the illegal immigrants position and that the hotel guy is perhaps a bit complex, we are not only shown the consequences of organ removal in a non-sterile environment, but right before the climax he is shown to be a moral degenerate, fully deserving of punishment when he requires the heroine to submit to his sexual demands.

All of this is the writer’s stock in trade. None of it remotely resembles what happens in real life, making questions as to moral justification, completely beside the point.

 

[RobertR]

Yes, but he's simply another fantasy extreme having even less to do with reality than the socially clumsy sexual neophyte.

 

[george kaplan]

I'll admit that there are movies that engender certain principles that I disagree with, that I still watch. On the other hand, some movies move so far towards promoting a position that I abhor (e.g., Birth of a Nation), that I don't watch them. I have to admit that for me Dirty Harry crosses the line, and isn't one that I will ever watch again.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

The one thing Hollywood gets right.

This certain physics professor I hate (I had this guy years ago) was one of the most arrogant bastards I've ever known. He tried his best to make you look stupid. Never happened to me, but the first thing I learned very quickly coming to college was that not everybody has the same cranial capacity. But evidently, he looks down on people for that (one of my pet peeves). To paraphrase Lou Systema's sig quote, "Only Superman is my superior".

I was in line during office hours to ask a question when I was overhearing one of the physics problems a girl had ask.

Hindsight told me she made the first mistake. She said, "I don't understand this."

He replies, "well of course you don't!"

You guys know that half smile/half sneer those "smart ones" have, right? You know, the ones that keep thinking why is everyone else so stupid? Yep, he's got one of those.

And you know what? As far as socially awkward is concerned.....he's got the audacity to wear TIGHT WHITE SPEEDOS!!! Who does he think he is!?

Oh crap, I just went off tangent. Long story short, Harry rules cause he's unrealistic.

P.S. You guys really want Indiana Jones looking for your daughter?

 

[Yee-Ming]

Well said. Reminds me (for some reason or other) of a West Wing episode in S4, when the Pres was still campaigning for re-election. During debate prep, someone floated the question, would you want the death penalty, if Zoe was raped/killed, for the killer? (Shades of Dukakis 88, obviously.) The suggested answer from the staff was "yes, as an outraged father I would, I'd do it myself, but that is why I'm against the death penalty, to protect us from ourselves" or something to that effect.

I must say I've always enjoyed Dirty Harry movies, notwithstanding the obvious fascist overtones. Perhaps living in a country where freedoms are nowhere nearly strongly enshrined as they are in the USA means I take less offence with his means.

(I hope I haven't overstepped HTF rules in the above: I don't think I have, but if I have, I apologise)

 

[Ashley Seymour]

I haven't seen much debate on the main assertion. By what criteria are you condemning Callahan as a fascist? As a cop Harry is generally acting within the law. During the bank robbery he shoots at several “suspects” hitting one or more of them. As he walks up to one who is down and possibly wounded he offers the “suspect” the option to peacefully give himself up or risk dire consequences. “I know what you’re thinking. Did he fire six times or was it only five. In all the excitement I forgot, but since this is a 44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and would blow your head clean off you have to ask yourself one question. Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, PUNK?”

No summary execution and a reasonable response to the alleged perpetrators question. “I gots ta know.” CLICK and the perp allows himself to be taken into custody.

Every movie is a fantasy and all are driven by emotion to almost the exclusion of reason. That is just what a movie is. A movie, like plays have for thousands of years, carries a moral that reinforces society values.

Is Harry the villain because he appears to trample on citizens rights, even if a suspect is reasonably known to be the perpetrator? I seems to me that the message is that Harry is a moral character, a defender of the rights of the weak vs. the strong. Harry is not a dishonest cop on the take. He is not trying to pursue a political or religious agenda. He may not abide by the letter of the law, but he does uphold the intent of the law.

The psycho character was released because Harry tortured a confession from him. Was there no other evidence to hold him on? I think the film mistakes the law to make a point.

Is DIRTY HARRY just mindless fare, or are there any current examples that can be sited to enable a discussion of one of the central points, that bureaucrats sometimes act counter to the public interest.

The FBI field agent from Minnesota was unable to get permission for a wiretap on Masoui (sp) prior to 911 and was chastised for passing information on to the CIA. Under the letter of the law she was prohibited from pursuing a lead and we now know the consequences were dire.

The suspect in the possible murder of Dru Sjodin was a candidate for “extra” interrogation. I would suspect that if he did not give up the information of where she was without resorting to a bit of “arm twisting” that he had already killed her. He wouldn’t risk a murder rap by allowing her to remain alive, but at risk of death by freezing etc. Then the police would really have a problem trying to work around the fact that the information they obtained would be thrown out. Sad to say, but the best option was for the police to do what they did.

There are far more movies made of vigilante characters than there are real life examples.

 

[Lew Crippen]

deleted due to my inability to correctly read

 

[RobertR]

Strictly speaking, it doesn't make sense to describe Callahan as a fascist. Fascism is a system of government marked by totalitarianism, aggressive nationalism, and racism. But it's obvious that Callahan isn't particularly nationalistic, and since he shows no interest whatsoever in nonviolent behavior or speech by individuals, he's not shown as even remotely totalitarian. As for racism, the film jokes that he hates everyone equally.

It appears that people are using the term "fascist" to connote someone who has no respect for civil rights. But in the fantasy context of the film, the only person who could be said to have his rights violated is someone we KNOW to be guilty of heinous crimes, so we have no sympathy for him, and don't see what Callahan does as wrong. When we object to a fascist connotation, we're objecting to government authority unfairly trampling on the rights of the innocent, and Callahan does no such thing.

 

[Anthony Neilson]

I agree that the word "fascist" is inappropriate here. However, most protagonists - certainly those in mainstream Hollywood fare - are carefully (sometimes clumsily) designed so that we, the audience, identify with them. It's purely a matter of commerciality.

What's endlessly interesting about the Cop movie as a genre is that they - or rather, the Law - represents the attempts of mankind to civilise itself i.e that civilisation is ultimately about our ability to transcend our instinct.
WE may well feel individually that someone who killed our daughter deserves to die - we might even want to kill them ourselves. That's understandable. But the Law must always hold higher ideals than we do as individuals. It must always remain just outside our moral reach - it must set an example to us.
The figure of the Cop is just a human being, like us, subject to the same emotions. But he must enforce the Law because he represents Civilisation itself. The ways in which a human being falls short of - or lives up to -these ideals makes for interesting drama.

Harry Callahan inverted this and presented a policeman who pursued justice, instead of upholding the Law. Justice is a subjective notion. For instance, one of the Iraqis in these awful photographs we've been seeing recently had RAPIST written on his leg. If he was a rapist, does that make his treatment justifiable ? I don't believe so, but that's me.

I don't have a problem with DIRTY HARRY's treatment of Scorpio because - as with most Hollywood fare - the character is painted as utterly irredeemable. That's why it's a thriller and not a drama.
However, I DO have a bit more of a problem with him blowing people away for armed robbery (even though they've usually been portrayed as homicidal). Especially in SUDDEN IMPACT where they're all black and talk in a stupid "jive" lingo.
It seems a bit racist to me. And yet I'm not that offended by it, because I really don't believe Eastwood's a racist in any meaningful way.

Which raises another question to tie in with the original post ; are we more forgiving of a film with a right-wing ideology when we know that its makers are left-wing ?

Personally, I have a real problem with John Wayne movies because of what I know about his politics.

 

[Jay E]

There was a lot of criticsm of Dirty Harry when it first came out because of it's politics.

The makers tried to appease this criticsm by making Magnum Force, where Dirty Harry is going against a gang of vigilante cops who make him seem like a bleeding heart in comparison. He refuses to join up with them & even utters the line "I hate the damn system, but until someone comes along with changes that make sense, I'll stick with it."

Those vigilante's were hard to sympathize with, especially after they blew up a topless Suxzanne Somers

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Danger! Danger Will Robinson!

Please, let's not get this interesting thread (especially your comments, I really thought you had some great insight) closed because of some throwaway political statements. I'm enjoying this thread about one of my favorites, but I think we've danced around the politics enough without blatantly asking for political opinion. I'm not a mod or anything, but I can spot a closed thread a mile away. Thanks.

 

[Daniel J.S.]

Is this the case though? Eastwood is a political conservative, although nowhere near as reactionary as Harry is (on the DVD, he mentions that he believes it's important for criminals to have rights). Siegel I'm not sure about: there's the endless debate over whether Invasion of the Body Snatchers is an anti-communist or anti-McCarthy text (personally, I read it as anti-McCarthy). However this film has to shed some light on where Siegel's head was at. Also, John Milius was (I believe) a script doctor and we all know what his politics are.

The reason I call Harry a fascist is because of his apparent belief that the government needs to take the reins off of the cops in order for society to function correctly. When he says stuff like "I'm all broken up about that man's rights" and "the law's crazy," it implies that how criminals should be dealt with should be the sole purview of the police, or more specifically Harry. The changes to the system that Harry hopes for in Magnum Force are likely such that his destructive methods would be not only acceptable, but encouraged. Of course, since Eastwood is playing the character, and we see how ineffective his colleagues methods are, we side with him, regardless of whether we approve of what he's doing (which I'm willing to guess is why critical reaction in 1971 was so vitriolic).