and creative peole who shape the national mind.
Dirty Harry on violence, responsibility, and role models?
Precisely. Who better to describe to us, in first-person terms, what the
appeal is in violent films and how far we can go with it. As evidence of
his social influence, "Go ahead, make my day" is now listed in Bartlett's
Book of Familiar Quotations, right up there with Shakespeare and William
Jennings Bryan.
Beginning with this interview, we'll be talking with people who
have an impact on our lives in some important way - whether it's through
the media or their work in the laboratory or the therapist's office.
There's no getting around it - movies both reflect and influence our
psyche. Yet with Unforgiven - his latest film - is this
once-Magnum-toting icon expressing regrets about his violent images and
their effect on society? Maybe, but the question remains: Forgive who,
and for what?
Stuart Fischoff, Ph.D., for PSYCHOLOGY TODAY: In 1986 you were
quoted as saying, "Movies are fun but they are no cure for cancer." Now
why did you say that?
CE: probably relating the fact that movies may have an
entertainment value, but we are not curing heart disease or AIDS or any
other blight on mankind, so don't get overly enthralled.
PT: Some people could interpret it as meaning that movies should
not be thought of as something which affects our culture. Don't you think
your films have an impact on society?
CE: Well, they might. They might. But if you approach a film with
the feeling that you are going to have some impact on society then you're
liable to get carried away with yourself. Alfred Hitchcock once told me,
when I was analyzing a lot of things about his pictures, "Clint, you must
remember, it's only a movie."
PT: But whether or not you intend to send a message when you make a
film, somehow it impacts on society. "Make my day," for example, was
absorbed into the public consciousness. Can't films be used to teach
people instead of sending messages of violence?
CE: Yeah, I think they can do that. They certainly have the
ability. But I don't think that Hollywood should get to the point of
propagandizing. I mean, it should have its effect unintentionally. I just
would hate to think that Hollywood would start dwelling on that.
PT: Okay, but there's a peculiarity here. One part of your film
career - the "Dirty Harry" aspect of it - contains a lot of violence, as
well as people who use violence to resolve conflicts. There's an argument
that, if enough of these points of view are put in movies or on
television, eventually it becomes an educational experience. So do you
ever consider the social implications of your films before you make
them?
CE: I consider them, yeah. I consider the social implications. But
you mention violence as a means of resolving conflict. Well, conflict is
the basis of drama. I guess that goes back as long as time has existed as
far as mankind is concerned, dating back to the Greek tragedies or the
Old Testament. And violence is a form of conflict, so whether that's
catharsis or whether that has some socially damaging effect on audiences
- I suppose that would just depend. I tend to believe that audiences are
relatively well-balanced people. You're making the film for the average
person. You are not making it for the one guy out there who is going to
take it seriously and go, "Yeah, gee, that's crazy, I might jump off a
building or what have you."
PT: Did you think about the social messages of the "Dirty Harry"
movies?
CE: I approached it from the uncomplicated point of view, that it
was an exciting detective story but it also addressed the issue of the
victims of violent crime. In the 1960s and early '70s, it was very
fashionable to address the plight of the criminals instead of the
victims. Dirty Harry came along and it seemed like it was ahead of its
time.
And also, like my character in White Hunter, Black Heart said, you
can't let eighty million popcorn-eaters pull you this way or that way.
You kind of have to go ahead. But as you get older you try to do things
that please you more. You get a little more selfish. You start thinking I
want to do things where I enjoy myself. I don't want to go and just jump
across buildings. You know, shoot nameless people off the top of
stagecoaches or what have you. That's not interesting. That's why
Unforgiven became a very important film for me, because it sort of summed
up my feelings about certain movies I participated in - movies where
killing is romantic. And here was a chance to show that it really wasn't
so romantic.
PT: But after the first "Dirty Harry" movie, the political and
social controversy that swirled around you is something you couldn't
avoid noticing and reacting to.
CE: Yeah. But I went my own way. Because attitudes change. I
remember when I did Play Misty For Me in 1970, the first film I ever
directed, some lady got up at a film festival and asked, "Why are you so
oppressive to women in your films?". And I thought, I wasn't oppressive
to women. We were dealing with films that had very prominent roles for
women and I felt I was actually contributing something. Many people had
wondered why I would want to do a film where the best part was a woman's
part. But I wasn't afraid to be the lesser intelligence in a film.
PT: So you really don't think of yourself as being particularly
uncharitable to women in the films you have control over?
Tags:
alfred hitchcock,
bartlett,
blight,
Clint Eastwood,
cure for cancer,
dirty harry,
entertainment value,
familiar quotations,
film,
first person,
Hollywood,
magnum,
mankind,
morality,
peole,
psyche,
social influence,
stuart fischoff,
violence,
violent films,
violent images,
william jennings bryan
