I just watched CHL again on TCM all the way through after many years. I first saw it when it came out, and the film struck me to my core, rang very true.
As one of THAT generation, it appealed to the style I was adopting of the day where we brilliant talented and individualistic youth were being held down and back by an oppressive authority.
I've always enjoyed the film for the characters, the entertainment, the lines, and the humor and minor witticisms and wisdoms, and of course the acting of George Kennedy and Strother Martin.
Interesting watching again now at age 61 and watching carefully (as opposed to snippets appearing on TV now and again, "oh this is the first escape scene"..
This time I'm watching the other characters closely, these were all solid actors and were given roles, not just place holders. There was a scene where one of the trusties is lording over Luke, giving him a hard time about how he'd never seen such a loser in 16 years (or something like that). There was no response, not even a facial tic that allowed the audience to fill in the punch line, 16 years? He's a loser?
The great thing about the film is that, well of course, these guys are in prison, they're all losers, but these actors made them human, a bit overacted sometimes admittedly. The Dennis Hopper character is strange, and remains so, Waite never does get stronger, Dragline is dragline.
So I enjoyed this film even more thinking about how the film is not about Luke, but of our admiration for him, misplaced or no. We see that everybody in camp is affected strongly by Luke, either by worshipping him or hating him.
The intentional parallels to Christ - even down to betrayal by an apostle, agony in the garden, and ultimate sacrifice I think is not an end to itself, but a signal about who we choose in our heads to follow, to hate, or love.
Luke was the chosen one in a way, his mom loved him best, but his was not the kingdom on earth, that was given to his brother. The various allusions to this stuff would be painful if not for Dragline's last ironic line: "he's a natural born world shaker". The earth shook when Christ was crucified certainly, Luke ended up a story in a rural southern prison in a chain gang. Not even his family cared, Arletta was dead and his brother wanted nothing to do with him.
In the last scene, Luke's death became legendary, even while Dragline's sentence was likely extended by some time for the escape attempt, he seems to believe his life has been made better by knowing Luke, making the prison
more bearable. Yet it's still a prison. Who wins? The rebel? The authority still retains authority.
The movie has aged beautifully for me as it has layers I'd not seen, and believe me I've seen many that I enjoyed as a teen or in my young 20s I can't
now stomach.
Luke was not a leader, he made poor, very emotional decisions. He had a strong moral compass, knew right from wrong, and was willing to pay consequences for his wrongs. I get the sense that the same attitude that got him killed, beaten, broken in prison probably helped him save lives and act heroically in the war.
One can imagine that he led a platoon through his courageous actions that saved the platoon, got him promoted, then got demoted when he mouthed at a captain.
Yes, I'm laboring the obvious here, but what this leads back around to is my own attitude seeing the film as a youngster in the 60s. What was the prison I believed myself to be part of, was it the authority of government, military, law enforcement, school officials? Or was it the authority of my peers, having to follow the "rules" of those around you, dress w/ long hair, wear this sort of clothing, be against the war...
I don't have the answers, but my brain dump tells me the film is very good at helping me ask the questions.
I'll watch it again, make sure my kids see it with me next time.
reply
share
fentress
11 years ago
That's a very sincere and heartfelt post, and truly insightful especially coming from someone who saw the movie when it was new and can speak to how it has evolved for you over the years.
I'm the OP author. I'm a little younger than you (born in 1961) so I just missed being old enough to see CHL in theaters with anything like an adult sensibility. Since I made the original post (several years ago!) I have viewed the movie again and can honestly say I'm back in the club of folks who consider this a good movie.
I have only one slight objection to the movie. I hear you about Luke's courage and leadership, but he is someone who drifts around the country doing things like destroying parking meters. Not exactly commendable behavior. There is some amount of romanticizing bad boy machismo (entertaining though I find it to be). I hate sounding uptight, but for the record I have to say that.
But again, on the whole I do like the movie, and thanks for that thoughtful post.
reply
share
sul-4
11 years ago
Thanks for the kind words.
I'm not sure that I buy the 'bad boy' thing. According to the conversation with his mother, he seemed to go out and get a regular job, put on a suit and gave it a hard go at it. He had a girlfriend that left him for that "guy in the sports car" (I'd have to look up the dialogue)
He drifts, yes, but doesn't intend harm or sloth. There's a scene early when they're telling him to slow down on the chain gang where he just ignores them. It's why I say he's a leader with no intention to lead, just goes his own way,
and he certainly embraces a task at hand, he's no quitter as the fight scene with dragline illustrated.
Similarly in the conversation with his mom, he tells her he tries to do things on the up and up like her, but that it just doesn't work out.
The aspect not mentioned that I wonder about is possible post traumatic stress after the war. The war was likely Korea, and it would have been likely that a lot of those guys, guys that the author based his character on could well have been disaffected vets.
But, that's another thread I think, and I haven't read the book.
reply
share
jbhutt0
11 years ago
Stories and creations such as American Beauty or Cool Hand Luke (and I did not predict that those who love the latter must also enjoy the former just by accident) are outright dangerous: they promote deviant, utterly alienated behavior and present it as "cool" and more than just acceptable: it is desirable!
Ummmm. Did you miss the part where Luke gets shot?
Art is subjective and you can't really hold yours as the one and only interpretation. The 2+2=8 / 2+2=4 comparison is a weird analogy to make in terms of opinions about a film. What if the creator never intended there to be one sole truth to their work? Aside from that, we haven't really heard from the 2+2=8 person. Maybe they're using a different method for counting. Opinions can potentially have a stronger basis than others, but what happens when 2 opposing opinions each have an equal basis? (insert Joker quote here)
reply
share