Bonnie & Clyde - Arthur Penn > Reviews > They Fought The Law... But Did The Law Win?

Author's product rating:   

Degree of Information	Very high
How interesting was the book?	Interesting because I'm interested in that subject
How useful was it?	Indispensable
Would you read it again?	Maybe
Value for money	Satisfactory

Advantages:	Detailed analysis, occasional sniping between contributors
Disadvantages:	You really need to have seen the film

Recommend to potential buyers:

yes

Full review

This collection of essays on American cinematic milestone Bonnie and Clyde (1967) is indispensable for anyone studying that film. With its multiple interpretations of the movie, it is also inspirational to anyone who simply loves the film. The arguments are (mostly) persuasive enough to sway the opinions of those who are unconvinced by the film. Unfortunately, however, if you haven't seen the film, you might find the detailed analysis a little confusing without a context.

I might well be reviewing Bonnie and Clyde in the not too distant future, and I have to say that quite a few of the things I shall praise about it come from this book, which formed part of my background reading for a recent essay on screen violence. While a lot of the essays are quite speculative, positing possible interpretations according to various schools of critical theory, the book also throws up a number of things that are definitely there, such as the playful mobile camera work in the opening sequence in the high street.

The book kicks off, after the inevitable editor's introduction, with essays by Arthur Penn (the director) and David Newman (one of the writers), which chronicle the slow journey from the initial screenplay to the finished film and its immediate public reception.

Following this come close examinations of various key elements of the film. Visual style is looked at (all the groovy discontinuous editing in the opening scene, and the mobile camera along the high street - loads of point of view stuff), as is the initial fury over the graphic violence in the film. Most usefully for my essay, that particular article compares Bonnie and Clyde with Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers (1994), remembering the controversy that erupted over both. To my mind, the author is a little hard on Stone's film, but then he's trying to write an article on the earlier movie, so I couldn't argue too much with his chosen emphasis.

A more dedicated analysis of the film's violence is also extremely interesting viewing, discussing the use of slow-motion in the final bloodbath shootout, and describing the relaxation of the Production Code which allowed Penn to depict the acts as he did. In particular, discussion of Bonnie and Clyde's final scene in such minute detail should be of immense interest to anyone even remotely interested in film theory or production. Regardless of whether they've actually seen the film.

For light relief, there's also a queer reading of the film. I've read more parodies of queer film theory than I have genuine examples, and now I respect how totally well-observed the parodies were. The author here makes claims to the effect that Bonnie and Clyde is a 'gay' film in spite of Penn removing the bisexual side of Clyde Barrow's character. I seek not to ridicule here, Liora Moriel makes some excellent points about the construction of an alternative family (the Barrow gang) that probably do have a great deal of relevance to today's gay and lesbian audiences. It's just that the presentation of these ideas is so determinedly humourless. As I discovered when 'revealing' gay subtexts in X-Men on this very site, when you're suggesting things that are almost certainly gross distortions of the text, it pays to shove at least a small bit of your tongue straight into your cheek.

Still, self-important as it is, mention of Clyde's bisexuality introduces another edge to the film that was sadly lost in pre-production. There are indeed hints that the real Clyde Barrow might have batted for both sides, and that some of the Barrow gang members (incorporated in the Penn film into the dim-witted C.W. Moss) were there for the 'action'. However, Moriel's questions prompted Newman to give the full story in his article. On the subject of the original screenplay's proposed ménage-à-trois, he even mentions (and discredits quite nastily) Moriel's reading of the film. Naughty boy.

However, this is the cut and thrust of academic debate in its purest form, and contained in the same volume! This sniping (Moriel responds by referring to the film's makers as homophobic) livens things up no end, trust me.

The book also concludes with original reviews of the film. Of most interest is Pauline Kael's career-making defence of the movie, 'putting the sting back into death', and things like that. Not to mention Bosley Crowther's career-ending attack on the film. Silly man.

So, should you buy this book?

Depends on your disposable income, to be honest. I picked my copy up at university second-hand for £5. However, assuming you can find it at all in a high-street bookshop, you're looking at around a £12 price tag. Try university libraries or specialist bookshops such as the one at the British Film Institute on London's South Bank. As already stated, if you're a fan of the film, or if you're studying it, it's a really good read, but comes with a hell of a price tag. And you won't find it all terribly interesting. The Natural Born Killers comparison was useful for my essay, but a tiresome read otherwise. The investigation of the historical figures is also deeply dull. The book will please everyone at some point, but no one throughout. And none of it's as entertaining as actually watching the film.

Still, well worth a look.