Today in History: Bonnie, Donnie and Clyde

By Steve Evans

Let's play a game of perception v. reality.

On this day in 1934 the murderous bank robbing duo Bonnie and Clyde were machine-gunned to death in an ambush set by a posse of Louisiana and Texas law enforcement.

Arthur Penn's celebrated 1967 film that bears their names did no favors for the historical record, although accuracy was not Penn's intent. Though possessed of low cunning, the real Bonnie and Clyde could best be characterized as moronic and sleazy -- quite a departure from their charming cinematic counterparts Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty.

Penn's film treats the pair as folk heroes and they were embraced as such by audiences watching the film at the height of the counterculture. The paradox here is that despite the picture's many liberties with historical accuracy, Bonnie and Clyde in their heyday were indeed heroes to many victims of the Great Depression, people who were angry at the system, at the banks Bonnie and her beau enjoyed robbing.

I could draw parallels here to Trump supporters, those disaffected yahoos who root for a rebel as balm (or distraction) for their own problems. There's no doubt in my mind that the rise of Trump coming on the heels of the Great Recession is no mere coincidence. His ascension is a maneuver of pure exploitation as clever as any Hollywood rendering of historical record.

Make no mistake: Bonnie and Clyde were only out for themselves. Trump is no different, as evidenced by each new day. He's just a little more polished than Clyde, a bit more slick.

As it happened, the frivolity came to an end for Miss Bonnie and her Clyde on May 23, 1934. Penn's film, in a daring-for-its-day climax, also brings harsh reality crashing down on the antiheroes of his long frolic of a film. It's a classic example of yanking the rug out from under an audience, forcing viewers to confront, finally, the nasty truth of the characters they've been rooting for and maybe don't even understand why.

Wondering if the Donnie Trump Story can deliver a conclusion at least as exciting.



Cinema Uprising copyright © 2018 by Stephen B. Evans. All rights reserved.

Perils of Fortune and Glory

By Steve Evans

We are giddy with the acquisition of The Man Who Would be King (1975) in hi-def. A magnificent entertainment from the twilight of director John Huston's mighty career. Michael Caine and Sean Connery have made many enduring classics through more than six decades of working in cinema. The Man Who Would be King is equal to all of them and better than most.
Huston in the 1950s wanted Bogart and Clark Gable for the leads, though sadly, Bogart died of cancer before the project could get off the ground. A decade later, Huston dusted off his script, adapted from Kipling, and went after Paul Newman and Robert Redford for his stars. Newman told him, "John, much as I'd love to do this, you want Connery and Caine for this one." Newman was spot-on. 

Here is a perfect union of casting and material in a glorious adventure film that explores recurring themes in Huston's work: greed, machismo, obsession. You can see this in The Maltese Falcon, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, and Moby Dick, but Huston took these themes to their logical, epic conclusion in this tale of two 19th century British soldiers, rogues really, who set out for the mythical land of Kafiristan in search of fortune and glory. Inevitably, dark clouds of fate follow arrogant kings with a god complex. 

Makes a terrific double-feature with Gunga Din (1939), another Kipling tale that Hollywood got right. Trivia: the Kafiristani woman Connery falls in love with was played by Shakira Baksh, also known as Mrs. Michael Caine, who married her two years before this film was made after declaring Shakira the most beautiful woman he had ever seen. Their union endures to this day.
Cinema Uprising copyright © 2018 by Steve Evans. All rights reserved.