Look Closely at Your Own Soul: A Review of Savage Cinema

Last updated on: October 17, 2012 at 10:57 pm by J. Ryan Parker

Look Closely at Your Own Soul: A Review of Savage Cinema 2012-10-17T22:57:11-07:00 J. Ryan Parker

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Even though he is not working from an explicitly religious or theological perspective, Stephen Prince’s writing on film is a must read for all film lovers interested in the theological and/or religious dimensions of film. I’ve written and raved here about the collection of essays he edited, Screening Violence, and I have just finished reading his Savage Cinema: Sam Peckinpah and the Rise of Ultraviolent Movies, part of which he includes in Screening Violence. I was equally thrilled by it. Peckinpah aficionados and those who haven’t seen a single film of his should read this book.

Few writers can make film theory and studies as accessible as Prince. He gets into the cinematic nitty-gritty, breaking down Peckinpah‘s films on a frame by frame basis in some cases, and, miraculously, such attention to detail is never boring. A strength of Prince’s work is the way in which he combines attention to Peckinpah’s personal life and personality with changes in the filmmaking industry and the culture at large (the late ’60s through the ’70s) in which he worked that created both the perfect storm and ideal conditions in which Peckinpah could unleash his complex cinematic visions. This is the perfect book for readers who think they “know” Peckinpah based on his films or those who think they have a “handle” on these films, particularly their violent elements and their influence on subsequent uses of violence in cinema, which, Prince recognizes, has become more ultraviolent but, unfortunately, detached from the more complex representations and themes that grounded Peckinpah’s influential films. Prince reveals an emotionally and aesthetically complex filmmaker who raged against both the political corruption and cultural apathy of his time and those critics and audience members who failed to accurately understand his films and, especially, his use of violence.

Prince highlights and disarms numerous popular misconceptions of Peckinpah’s work and impact on the history of Hollywood. Chief among these is that he aestheticized violence in order to glorify and celebrate it. Prince argues that accurate viewings of his films reveal that this could not be further from the truth. Instead, Peckinpah did aestheticize violence but only in order to wake people up to its brutal destructiveness. Having known and witnessed the horror of violence, he could no longer tolerate Hollywood’s blithe treatment of it in which victims suffered little and died gracefully on screen or invisibly off it. Moreover, he broke with traditional cinematic portrayals of clearly-defined good vs. evil. Prince writes:

The moral abrasiveness of Peckinpah’s work, particularly its tendency to place a brutal or compromised protagonist at the center of the narrative has been a tremendous influence on subsequent filmmakers. […] Peckinpah decisively shifted the moral parameters of commercial cinema away from a clear separation of good and evil and toward the unsettling contemplation of flawed, debased behavior viewed up close and without a secure moral reference point. (xv)

Prince devotes the bulk of his book to a detailed analysis of Peckinpah’s films from The Wild Bunch in 1968 to Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia in 1974. The other films include The Ballad of Cable Hogue (1970), Straw Dogs (1971), Junior Bonner (1972), The Getaway (1972), and Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973). Chapter One explores the tumultuous times in which Peckinpah lived and worked and how he responded to them professionally and personally. Chapters Two through Four are the heart of Prince’s work, which he organizes around three key characteristics of Peckinpah’s aestheticization of violence. Chapter Two focuses on montage editing, Chapter Three on emotional and psychological attitudes attached to violent events and Chapter Four to the audiovisual designs he used to lay out truths of human violence. These designs included “didactic tableaux,” irony, and the use of mirrors to examine alienated subjectivity (169-170).

Prince concludes his study with a chapter on Peckinpah’s cinematic legacy and shows how so many contemporary filmmakers who trade in ultraviolence fail to do so in as complicated fashion and as maturely as Peckinpah. These filmmakers trade emotional and intellectual stimulation for spectacle and titillation. As a result, Prince is forced to ask himself and readers/audience members: “Are Peckinpah’s explorations of graphic screen gore invalidated by their legacy of contemporary movie ultraviolence” (213). Prince, through this insightful and important text, offers a resounding “No” to the question. In fact, he reminds us, as Peckinpah so often did with his viewers, that oftentimes our experiences of and with Peckinpah’s films say more about us than it does the director or the production. As Peckinpah told a disgusted Straw Dogs viewer: “‘I didn’t want you to enjoy the film, I wanted you to look very close at your own soul'” (228).

Film

Previous Post

October 17, 2012

A Fraternal Order of Eagles Ten Commandments Print

Next Post

October 18, 2012 Here Kitty Kitty

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Classics DVD Film Music News Pop Culture Events Print Sports Television Uncategorized Video Games

Select a Month March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which disciple was known as "the beloved"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Matthew Andrew Peter John