The late sixties and seventies saw the growth of the "tough cop" thriller. In earlier crime thrillers ("White Heat", from the late forties, is a good example) the police had generally been portrayed as honourable and incorruptible men who did everything by the book. The new breed of heroes were different. They were not only tough but also morally ambiguous, capable of bending and even breaking the rules when they thought it was necessary.
Before making "Dirty Harry", Clint Eastwood had acted in another film of this type, "Coogan's Bluff". Both films had the same director, Don Siegel. "Coogan's Bluff, however, is a lightweight film, with a rather annoying hero who likes to cut corners because he cannot be bothered to go through the proper channels. My sympathies are with Lee J. Cobb's old-school New York cop, irritated beyond measure by Coogan's impatience and cowboy brashness.
In "Dirty Harry" much more important matters are at stake. A serial killer calling himself "Scorpio" is terrorising San Francisco by carrying out killings at random. Some of his victims seem to have been chosen on the basis of religious or racial bigotry, but Scorpio's main motive is blackmail; he will stop killing if the city authorities pay him $100,000. When this blackmail fails, Scorpio kidnaps a young girl, buries her underground with a limited supply of oxygen and announces that he will let her die if his demands are not met. Reluctantly, the authorities agree to hand over the money.
The police officer on the case is Inspector Harry Callahan, nicknamed "Dirty Harry", partly because of his uncompromising methods and partly because he gets the jobs other officers don't want. Disgusted by the willingness of the authorities to meet Scorpio's demands, Harry tracks down the main suspect, arrests him after shooting him in the leg, finds the murder weapon and forces him to reveal the girl's whereabouts (unfortunately too late to save her life). Although there can be no doubt of the man's guilt, the city's Mayor and District Attorney order his release because the evidence against him is inadmissible; Harry had no warrant to search his premises and the confession obtained by strong-arm methods would not be admissible in Court. Scorpio's narrow escape does not, however, persuade him that crime does not pay, and soon afterwards he kidnaps and holds hostage a busload of schoolchildren. Only Harry can save them
In some ways Harry is an unsympathetic character. He is cool to the point of coldness and always has an air of menace about him, particularly during the famous "Do you feel lucky?" speech. Some of his dialogue suggests that he is racially prejudiced himself. Clint Eastwood made the role so much his own that it is strange to think he was only fourth choice after Frank Sinatra, John Wayne and Paul Newman. It is doubtful whether any of those actors could have played the part so well. Sinatra might have made him too unsympathetic. Newman could have conveyed his coolness but might not have had the same underlying menace. Wayne (as he was to prove in "Brannigan" a few years later) was definitely too old for a role of this type.
This film has always been controversial, with critics divided along ideological lines. (The film-makers seem to have intended a deliberate juxtaposition of Harry's values with those of the city of San Francisco which, during the hippie era, was becoming known as America's most liberal city). Liberals such as Roger Ebert have loathed Harry, seeing him as a man who thinks himself above the law, even a fascist. They note that his treatment of Scorpio violates (as the DA points out) at least three, and possibly four, constitutional amendments. (Such liberal critics are divided as to whether the film condemns or condones Harry's methods). Conservatives, however, see him as a hero, a man who will defend the public from crime while his superiors seem more concerned to defend the criminals. They point out that the seventies liberals who were so quick to condemn Harry for acting in breach of the constitution did not apply the same literal-minded legalism to, say, those who were resisting the (constitutionally permissible) Vietnam draft or to civil rights protesters who were engaged in civil disobedience against (constitutionally tolerated) racism in the Southern states.
"Dirty Harry" is much more than a cop thriller; it is a film that asks some important questions. It may seem odd to compare a tough cop with draft resisters or with civil rights campaigners, but Harry faces a moral choice similar to that confronting those two groups of people. In each case the central question is "If there is a conflict between the two, should one obey the law of the land or should one obey one's own conscience". This is a question to which there is often no easy answer and is particularly acute for Harry because, as a police officer, he is duty-bound to uphold the law. The law states that he should not carry out a search without a warrant and that he should not use force to obtain a confession from Scorpio. His conscience tells him that he must do both these things to save an innocent life.
The German dramatist Friedrich Hebbel once remarked that tragedy does not arise out of the conflict of right and wrong. It arises out of the conflict of two rights. This is the situation which we see in this film, which means that both the liberal and conservative viewpoints quoted above are right- and both are wrong. The law is right to impose limits on police powers, in order to protect the citizen from abuse of those powers by corrupt or over-zealous officers. And Harry is right to go beyond those limits in an effort to save a life. 8/10
Before making "Dirty Harry", Clint Eastwood had acted in another film of this type, "Coogan's Bluff". Both films had the same director, Don Siegel. "Coogan's Bluff, however, is a lightweight film, with a rather annoying hero who likes to cut corners because he cannot be bothered to go through the proper channels. My sympathies are with Lee J. Cobb's old-school New York cop, irritated beyond measure by Coogan's impatience and cowboy brashness.
In "Dirty Harry" much more important matters are at stake. A serial killer calling himself "Scorpio" is terrorising San Francisco by carrying out killings at random. Some of his victims seem to have been chosen on the basis of religious or racial bigotry, but Scorpio's main motive is blackmail; he will stop killing if the city authorities pay him $100,000. When this blackmail fails, Scorpio kidnaps a young girl, buries her underground with a limited supply of oxygen and announces that he will let her die if his demands are not met. Reluctantly, the authorities agree to hand over the money.
The police officer on the case is Inspector Harry Callahan, nicknamed "Dirty Harry", partly because of his uncompromising methods and partly because he gets the jobs other officers don't want. Disgusted by the willingness of the authorities to meet Scorpio's demands, Harry tracks down the main suspect, arrests him after shooting him in the leg, finds the murder weapon and forces him to reveal the girl's whereabouts (unfortunately too late to save her life). Although there can be no doubt of the man's guilt, the city's Mayor and District Attorney order his release because the evidence against him is inadmissible; Harry had no warrant to search his premises and the confession obtained by strong-arm methods would not be admissible in Court. Scorpio's narrow escape does not, however, persuade him that crime does not pay, and soon afterwards he kidnaps and holds hostage a busload of schoolchildren. Only Harry can save them
In some ways Harry is an unsympathetic character. He is cool to the point of coldness and always has an air of menace about him, particularly during the famous "Do you feel lucky?" speech. Some of his dialogue suggests that he is racially prejudiced himself. Clint Eastwood made the role so much his own that it is strange to think he was only fourth choice after Frank Sinatra, John Wayne and Paul Newman. It is doubtful whether any of those actors could have played the part so well. Sinatra might have made him too unsympathetic. Newman could have conveyed his coolness but might not have had the same underlying menace. Wayne (as he was to prove in "Brannigan" a few years later) was definitely too old for a role of this type.
This film has always been controversial, with critics divided along ideological lines. (The film-makers seem to have intended a deliberate juxtaposition of Harry's values with those of the city of San Francisco which, during the hippie era, was becoming known as America's most liberal city). Liberals such as Roger Ebert have loathed Harry, seeing him as a man who thinks himself above the law, even a fascist. They note that his treatment of Scorpio violates (as the DA points out) at least three, and possibly four, constitutional amendments. (Such liberal critics are divided as to whether the film condemns or condones Harry's methods). Conservatives, however, see him as a hero, a man who will defend the public from crime while his superiors seem more concerned to defend the criminals. They point out that the seventies liberals who were so quick to condemn Harry for acting in breach of the constitution did not apply the same literal-minded legalism to, say, those who were resisting the (constitutionally permissible) Vietnam draft or to civil rights protesters who were engaged in civil disobedience against (constitutionally tolerated) racism in the Southern states.
"Dirty Harry" is much more than a cop thriller; it is a film that asks some important questions. It may seem odd to compare a tough cop with draft resisters or with civil rights campaigners, but Harry faces a moral choice similar to that confronting those two groups of people. In each case the central question is "If there is a conflict between the two, should one obey the law of the land or should one obey one's own conscience". This is a question to which there is often no easy answer and is particularly acute for Harry because, as a police officer, he is duty-bound to uphold the law. The law states that he should not carry out a search without a warrant and that he should not use force to obtain a confession from Scorpio. His conscience tells him that he must do both these things to save an innocent life.
The German dramatist Friedrich Hebbel once remarked that tragedy does not arise out of the conflict of right and wrong. It arises out of the conflict of two rights. This is the situation which we see in this film, which means that both the liberal and conservative viewpoints quoted above are right- and both are wrong. The law is right to impose limits on police powers, in order to protect the citizen from abuse of those powers by corrupt or over-zealous officers. And Harry is right to go beyond those limits in an effort to save a life. 8/10