Dirty Harry

1971
Director: Don Siegel

Writers: Harry Julian Fink, R.M. Fink, Dean Reisner

With far too much time on my hands during holidays, they’re always a good time to catch up with films I haven’t seen for a long time. After a year supposedly studying film academically, I suppose I wanted to see whether my opinions on any of my favourite films would be any different. To be honest, I doubt they ever would, not unless I could now see some glaring flaw in any of them I wasn’t aware of before, but I have no idea what they could possibly be. I still don’t watch them in the same way as the films we study at uni- I’m not going out of my way to note the mise-en-scene or studying the editing techniques; to me they’re still simply films I love to watch. Although I’ve found that on some base level, I do keep an eye open for these things when I watch films for fun (especially if they’re particularly distinct), just not in as much detail as during lectures.

It’s from this slightly confused standpoint that I decided to watch a film I’ve always had a lot of love for: Dirty Harry. Along with the likes of A Clockwork Orange, Pulp Fiction, Being John Malkovich and several others, this is one of the few films that are actually quite personal to me in that they were amongst the ones I watched when I was around 13/14 and being more adventurous in my viewing. These were some of the films that showed me how diverse and captivating cinema could be and ignited my passion for film which remains today. Dirty Harry also has the honour of being my first introduction to the living legend that is Clint Eastwood, a man whose sheer screen presence and effortless cool is still a pleasure to watch. Dirty Harry is still my favourite Clint film and his most memorable role, revisited across four sequels of unfortunately widely varying quality.

It had been a few years since I last watched this and so I wanted to see whether my high regard of it was still deserved or whether I was simply looking at it through rose tinted glasses. It is very different to a lot of my other top films in terms of factors like its content, scale, the period it was made in and its visuals. Of course I’d be worried if all my favourite films were especially similar but I did wonder what it was about this film that kept leading me to look on it so positively.

The time: 1971. The place: San Francisco. The city is being held hostage by a sadistic serial sniper known only as Scorpio. He has already murdered a young woman by shooting her from a rooftop and now demands $100, 000 or else he will kill another person each day. With the police on high alert, Inspector Harry Callaghan is assigned to the case. His no-nonsense style, lack of respect for his superiors and unorthodox methods have helped form the basis of many onscreen maverick cop imitations ever since. They’ve also developed his infamous reputation in the police department- many different theories are suggested as to why he’s called ‘Dirty’ Harry, from the fact that he’s the one most willing to do all the dirty jobs to the point that he is simply a bit of a perv (as evidenced several times during the film). What starts as a routine investigation soon escalates into an intense battle between Callaghan and Scorpio, with the two men resorting to increasingly offhand tricks to win their own personal wars.

I think that’s where this film’s greatest strength lies: in its simplicity. It’s less a police thriller and more a study into two dark and violent men. Rewatching it this time made me realise how similar they both are; it just happens one is on the side of the law and one isn’t. Both are driven solely by single forces- Scorpio with his sadistic love of killing and Callaghan with his need to enforce the law, although as the film progresses his methods become increasingly unethical as his desire to overpower Scorpio overtakes. Very little is revealed about the lives of either man other than the events onscreen. Scorpio’s name or history is never discovered, his life seems to consist of nothing more than his insatiable urge to cause pain. A scene of him robing a liquor store shows he has no interest in money or gaining possessions; he’s simply there to retrieve a new weapon to restart his campaign, although he does slip a bottle of whisky on the way out. He’s always presented in a dehumanised manner- our first glimpse of him at the very start is simply that of the barrel of his rifle. We don’t see his face until about 10 minutes later and don’t hear his flat voice later still; even then it’s only on the other end of a telephone line where we can’t see him. The music distorts and becomes far more sinister in his presence.

Similarly, Callaghan is shown as being motivated almost entirely by his work. There is frequent reference to the fact that he doesn’t have a wife and the only time we do see him off-work, he’s using his time to follow Scorpio. We learn little more about him, other than brief glimpses into his voyeuristic tendencies and his general dislike for other people, especially those in power he sees as ineffective (although he does show increasing respect for his new partner Chico Gonzalez after he shows his capabilities in the field). Many critics and reviewers have pointed out the conservative right-wing tendencies of the character and the film and its series in general. This sort of view never really occurred to me the first times I watched this, as I tend to prefer to remain generally apolitical when I watch films, although now Callaghan’s desire to preserve justice over an need to follow rules or preserve human rights  is quite obvious. The controversy surrounding this film in the early 1970s doesn’t seem at all shocking now, although I can understand why it caused such concern over issues like police brutality and fascist ideals, with scenes such as Callaghan torturing information out of an unhelpful Scorpio or shooting a gang of African-American bank robbers being the most obvious. At times it does seem like a critique of the legal system, one which is slow, ineffectual and which preserves the rights of the criminal over those of the victim, a criticism which still rings around today. The film does definitely seem to side with Callaghan on this issue, most notably when Scorpio, having been captured, is released because the evidence is inadmissible due to it being collected without a warrant. However, Callaghan’s methods are so unusual and so extreme than they can hardly be called realistic; it seems this film is intended more as a study of Callaghan himself and how his determination to stop this criminal drives him to extreme lengths, with any sort of social commentary coming second in priority.

Dirty Harry is definitely intended to be an entertaining piece of action cinema and it’s in that sense that it works so well. The pacing is very brisk and precise; no time is wasted on showing anything which isn’t entirely relevant. Instead we get a series of strong and memorable set-pieces, the telephone chase around town and the school bus hijacking especially. Don Siegel directs this very well with a strong steady eye for detail- the violence in this film is convincingly messy and unchoreographed-looking yet retains a sense of style and clarity that makes it incredibly watchable and tense. There’s also an intelligent use of time and place; San Francisco is treated almost like a character in itself with numerous long shots of skylines tied with intimate filming right on the streets and alleys to give it a distinct feel. Several landmarks are used inventively in the action sequences; what stood out for me was the ironic use of religious imagery such as the cross in Mount Davidson Park and the neon ‘Jesus Saves’ sign outside the church, these two locations being home to some of the bloodiest violence in the film. These signs reflect the burgeoning tolerance and general peace of the city being put under threat by this maniac. The city is also distinguished here because of its association with the Zodiac killings that took place here in the late 1960s and that would have been still fresh in the memory of those who watched this when it was released. Those real life crimes were obviously an inspiration for the writers as similarities are drawn such as the sending of threatening letters and the threat of kidnapping a schoolbus full of children. This is referenced directly in David Fincher’s rich drama Zodiac (2007), based on the investigation of the murders, where investigators watching Dirty Harry at the cinema are shown to be visibly uncomfortable with how much overlap there actually is between reality and fiction.

 My brother complains that Clint Eastwood always plays the same role no matter what film he’s in. I suppose there is an element of truth in that (definitely in his earlier films) although his demeanour is most definitely his own and for me that’s what makes him so watchable. Here he is cocksure and confident; you can’t imagine him taking any shit off anyone. Harry Callaghan is just such a distinct character, with a swagger and a smart-talking economy with words all to himself. His ironic tone with his superiors and the mayor are a lot of fun- I loved spotting the homage to this in The Naked Gun with Leslie Nielsen’s Frank Drebin repeating Callaghan’s ‘I shoot the bastard’ speech. And of course you can’t forget Andy Robinson’s chilling turn as Scorpio, who on first appearances seems so unlikely- director Don Siegel describes how he has “the face of a choirboy”. But often it’s simply the cold smirk on his face that makes him so horrendously unpleasant, this marring of supposed innocence with such evil. His disintegration from the calm controlled sniper to the maniacally driven monster is creepy; he is definitely one of the most horrible movie villains I can think of.

What’s stood out for me on this repeat viewing is just how unbelievably dark and grim this film is. Although age adds to this, it is definitely a grimy looking film as we’re introduced to some of the most inhospitable parts of San Francisco hidden in the shadows. Lalo Schifrin’s jazzy score does add a touch of class but ultimately this is a supremely gritty film. It’s so cheesy of me to say this but Dirty Harry is very much a dirty film, not necessarily because it is explicit but because it doesn’t hesitate from showing the dark underbelly of urban space, the impersonal machine-like working process of law enforcement and the blackest reaches of human depravity- there are no limits to which either Scorpio or Callaghan will go to which will stop them from overcoming the other. I’m surprised how much of this I missed when I watched it at around age 14. Then it was just a highly watchable thriller, one that has aged surprisingly well. It’s strange how much more disturbed I was by it this time, although I’m glad I was because seeing this in a new way was refreshing and it reaffirmed my respect for this film. I know this has ended up turning more into an essay than a review but I guess I just have a lot to think about with this- I’m glad I still like this film so much, it certainly makes my favourites list much more intriguing. 

Peaches/Iggy Pop - Kick It

I've started listening to Peaches a lot lately, I like her style and I've not really listened to anything like her before, even though most of her songs seem to consist solely of her talking about fucking. 
This song makes a bit of a change though and I can't think of a better collaborator. Again, this song doesn't have much content and is no more than them being self-referential with each others music but they do play well off each other. And the video is fucking brilliant. 

The Girl Who Played with Fire/ The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest

2009/2009
Director: Daniel Alfredson
Writers: Ulf Rydberg/ Jonas Frykberg

Thank you Lisbeth Salander, thank you for ruining the idea of Sweden for me. Once a place of annoyingly beautiful blondes, stunning landscapes, flatpack furniture and nudists; it’s now a cold hostile place full of violent rapists, misogynists and secret government agencies infringing basic human rights. She really has had it tough, Ms Salander, and now things are really going to get trying for her. After investigating the shady history of the Vanger family with journalist Mikael Blomkvist in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009), Lisbeth made her escape to the Caribbean using funds stolen from the corrupt Wennerström corporation. One year later she’s back in Sweden and being thrown back in the deep end.

In The Girl Who Played with Fire, her investigative partner from Dragon Tattoo Mikael Blomkvist and Millenium magazine are preparing to publish an article on human trafficking by young journalist Dag Svensson and his girlfriend Mia. Just days before the release of the issue, both journalists are found horrifically murdered in their apartment. Meanwhile Nils Bjurman, Lisbeth’s sexually abusive guardian is also discovered to have been executed, both crimes having been commited on the same night and with the same gun. Unfortunately, Lisbeth’s fingerprints are recovered from the murder weapon and she’s now the police’s main suspect. Forced to go into hiding and on the run, Lisbeth sets out to stop the people who framed her while Mikael uses Dag’s article as a starting point to investigate the people behind the crimes and prove her innocence. Both begin to find themselves being drawn into a mysterious web of intrigue, prostitution rings and political abuse, all headed by a shady figure known only as ‘Zala’. To top it all off, Lisbeth is now also being hunted by a seemingly unstoppable man mountain called Niedermann.

To be honest my expectations going into this film weren’t sky high. Played with Fire was my least favourite of the novels, finding it to be slow and slightly muddled in terms of pacing and plotting. Any reviews I’d read for this were mixed at best. I doubt it would ever be able to match the heights of previous film, a much more solid thriller and more in line with a murder mystery, a genre which I have a real soft spot for. I’ve always been intrigued as to how much of an impact prior expectations have on my opinions of the final products; often low expectations lead either to pleasant surprises or disappointments, often because I tend to stay a bit too biased against the film (something I should really try to stop doing!)

The problem in this case is that whatever attitude I had going into watching it, that doesn’t stop it from being a poor film, especially when compared to the previous film. A good adaptation should retain the essentials from the source while moulding them into a form that’s more cinematic. Fire however feels subservient to the novel, following it slavishly. This isn’t helped by the fact that the novel is itself so disorganised and heavy and simply results in a film that feels plodding and slow, despite it being by far the shortest of the trilogy in terms of running time. I ended up checking my watch several times- the framework of the screenplay allows little sense of any overriding tension or progress; it feels like it’s simply doing what it’s being told to do.

Part of what helped make Dragon Tattoo so engaging was the presentation of the unusual relationship between Lisbeth and Mikael and watching it develop, from tentative and perhaps suspicious foundations up to a positive working partnership and a burgeoning sexual relationship, leading to what could be love on her part. Regrettably, there is no building on that in Played with Fire as the two barely interact at all in person. Each pursues their own storylines and frankly Mikael Blomkvist isn’t an enticing enough character to command full attention. Thankfully the saving grace of this film is again Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth. Throwing herself so dedicatedly into playing such an emotionally complex and troubled character, Rapace wonderfully exudes the right sense of intensity as well as vulnerability to fully flesh out Lisbeth into someone so engaging. Unfortunately she isn’t given as much to work with here, often being shown either smoking and looking moody or threatening people for information. The supporting characters aren’t given much space for development either.

The film does begin to pick up slightly at the end but the laboured pacing and lack of exciting enough action scenes or set pieces isn’t enough to make it worthwhile. It seems like the film edit of Played with Fire feels mostly like a bridge between its neighbours.

Which brings us on to The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets’ Nest .Without wanting to give too much away, Lisbeth is now in hospital having been severally shot several times and despite the benefit of starting to make a recovery from her injuries, is now having to face trial for all her crimes, both those forced upon here and those she committed in self-defence and revenge. Mikael and Millennium now face battle against a dangerous and covert secret government agency known only as ‘The Section’, which will use any means to possible to try to silence Lisbeth and stop her from revealing the truth. As they discover more about the illegal practices of the Section, the danger grows for Lisbeth as they build a case against her to have her incarcerated against in a mental hospital, as well for Mikael and the entire staff of seemingly around only four employees at Millennium, as the bad guys become increasingly desperate.

Hornets’ Nest already has the benefit of stronger source material- the novel is a pretty hefty tome but is in general far more controlled and engaging than the previous book. This works more as a political thriller in some ways, as the numerous layers of plot begin to intertwine. It’s also far more complex and this can work against the film sometimes, as a large number of new characters are introduced, mainly linked to The Section and the police. It sometimes tricky to keep track of all of them and some don’t get much of a look-in as Hornets’ Nest tries hard to maintain its labyrinthine structure into something more cinematically feasible. This also means we see far less of Lisbeth than I’d prefer. Even worse, she spends most of the film either confined to a hospital bed or sat in a courtroom, horribly restricting her dynamism that made Played with Fire ultimately bearable. Incidentally, due to a lack of many notable setpieces, it’s the court scenes in the final third that carry the most trepidation, as we’re engaged in a battle of wits over who knows what and what evidence either side of the law actually has.

One wonders how many elements of truth there are in the existence of such a corrupt and illegal operation as The Section, as we consider how the novel tries to combine Stieg Larsson’s desire to expose political and social prejudice and abuse alongside a need for more entertaining pulpy content. A lot of the men (and they are all men) and the methods involved with The Section do seem extreme, almost pantomimishly so as they discuss means of silencing Lisbeth in fairly cliché evil villain talk. The character of Dr. Teleborian, the man who ‘treated’ Lisbeth in her stint in the asylum as a child is so unbelievably unpleasant that it feels it can undermine some of the authenticity of the plot.

Perhaps another factor that works against these two films is that they have a different director to Dragon Tattoo. I’m not able to find out much about Daniel Alfredson other than that he is the brother of Tomas Alfredson, director of Let the Right One In (2008), so I suppose most of his previous work was in his native Sweden. The two films aren’t badly directed, in fact they’re filmed quite solidly; it’s just they lack some of the style and vivacity of the first film which leaves them feeling more like the TV movies that you forget they actually are. Neither film has any shots or stand-out moments that linger around in the mind long after the film is finished- it ends up feeling a bit pedestrian. Again, not to say that they are bad films; I did enjoy Hornets’ Nest once it finally began to pick up pace but I would have like to have seen something more substantial. A lot of the novel’s commentary on the state of modern Sweden and the unwelcome prominence of abuse and misogyny isn’t featured as prominently as it deserves to be as the films try to remain entertaining. Ultimately though neither film is engaging enough to really be called totally entertaining. This trilogy was highly ambitious and I’m intrigued to see if I can ever get my hands on the extended versions of each film which were shown on European TV in several parts and deduce whether that leads to any improvements. For now though I have to conclude that Played with Fire in my eyes is a fairly admirable failure while Hornets’ Nest is a mixed success.