Film: Death Wish (1974)
Stars: Charles Bronson, Vincent Gardenia, William Redfield, Hope Lange
Director: Michael Winner
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars
Each month, as part of our 2026 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the men & women who created the Boom!-Pow!-Bang! action films that would come to dominate the Blockbuster Era of cinema. This month, our focus is on Charles Bronson: click here to learn more about Mr. Bronson (and why I picked him), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.
Charles Bronson's career and star persona would've certainly been different were it not for today's movie. At the age of 52, most character actors are transitioning out of the limelight or more stunt-heavy spots, and instead becoming the sage for a younger, more famous actor (or playing the father to a younger, more famous actress). It's rare, though, that you are going to become a true movie star in your 50's, but that's what Bronson did. At this point, it's worth noting (as we've seen the past few weeks) that Charles Bronson was a relatively decent & successful box office draw, specifically in Europe, but he wasn't as big of a deal in the United States. Death Wish would change that, though. The movie, in 1974, would become a cultural phenomenon, making an extraordinary amount of money, and staying in the box office for weeks on-end. To give you a perspective of how long the legs were for this movie, it became the #1 movie in America on its twentieth week at the box office, and would end the year as the #9 movie of 1974, putting Bronson in the same leading man category as people like Al Pacino, Burt Reynolds, & Charlton Heston.
(Spoilers Ahead) The politics and cultural resonance of Death Wish, though, is controversial, and that involves getting into the plot. The film is about Paul Kersey (Bronson), who is very in love with his beautiful wife Joanna (Lange), with whom he has one adult daughter. One day, a group of hooligans (including a very young Jeff Goldblum) break into the Kersey's home, murdering Joanna and raping his daughter. Paul, a relatively mild-mannered architect, cannot handle that the two women he loves will not receive justice, and so he decides to take the law into his own hands. He goes out, trains himself with a gun, and then starts to purposefully get mugged in the streets of New York by petty criminals who threaten his life. He then turns around, and starts to murder them, all technically in self-defense, but clearly with the intention of killing them each time he goes out. During this time, the city of New York starts to celebrate him, even as Inspector Frank Ochoa (Gardenia) tries to capture Paul, which he does (with the help of a very young Christopher Guest), but has to set him free because Paul, as the "vigilante" has become a folk hero.
The politics of Death Wish are not subtle, and it's worth noting a history lesson here. The New York of the 1970's was dramatically different than it is today, and that's also true of America at large. Violent crime rates spiked notably in the 1970's, and that increase would hold until the early 1990's when they would drop precipitously (despite what you may see on Fox News, America is considerably safer now than in the latter-half of the 20th Century). This would, oddly enough, coincide with when Bronson would be a proper leading man, and might explain the divergence in opinion on Death Wish. The movie sparked hot debate at the time-virtually every film critic of the era, from Roger Ebert to Vincent Canby to Charles Champlin to Gene Siskel all made a point of arguing that it was kind of reprehensible, essentially arguing that violence is the only way to stop other violence, and that it's not important to understand what is causing this rise in crime-just that we destroy it, even if it means trampling on people's civil liberties & right-to-justice in the process. Even the author of the novel that inspired the movie, Brian Garfield, would try to distance himself from the picture.
Watching the film, it's hard not to agree with these critics. Bronson's character is not super complicated, and while he plays him as a bit of a fish-out-of-water, he doesn't have the same everyman appeal that, say, Bruce Willis would have a few years later in Die Hard in a similar motif. The film's then-aggressive violence is rather tame by modern standards (save for the brutal break-in scene), and Winner's confidence with editing & cinematography (and Bronson's undeniable presence) make it very watchable-it's easy to see why this was a hit, but it's completely fair to say that the film glorifies the violence it indulges in, and offers little in the way of political commentary other than endorsing the behavior of Bronson's Paul. Hell, even by the end the police officer is supporting this sort of brutality. On its technical merits, it's a 3-star movie (it's too good for me to go lower), but it also borders into dangerous in its messaging. It's so sleek and so well-paced that it's clearly condoning this type of violence, and so I think the film's complicated legacy is justified (and it's hard to celebrate it's glorification & countless sequels). And as we'll talk about next week in our final Saturday with Charles Bronson, it would change the trajectory of the actor's career, definitely for the more lucrative, but also making him a far less daring performer compared to the man who once starred in genuine classics like The Great Escape and Once Upon a Time in the West.

No comments:
Post a Comment