Dirty Harry – Social and Christological Commentary

I have it on good authority that commentaries are like wine – they get better with age. That is why I have delayed in posting my comments regarding this week’s movie until today.

Dirty Harry as Social Commentary:

To begin with, I think we can all agree that every film, even the ones we don’t like, are a reflection of or a commentary on the society that the film depicts. This raises the question, “What is Don Siegel (Director) saying or reflecting about American culture in 1971 with his seminal cop film, Dirty Harry, starring Clint Eastwood as Inspector Harry Callahan?”

I would argue that Siegel is depicting the general reaction of the American populace to the recent changes in the American legal system where people perceived that “rights” of criminals were becoming more important than the “rights” of their victims.

In its 1964 ruling in the Escobedo v Illinois case (1960 conviction for accessory to murder), the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that a suspect had the right “to an attorney during police interrogation.”

In its 1966 ruling in the Miranda v Arizona case (1963 conviction for kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “criminal suspects must be informed of their right against self-incrimination and their right to consult with an attorney prior to questioning by police.”

We see this social commentary played out in the movie in several scenes. It is alluded to in the first scene between Inspector Callahan and the Mayor when the Mayor says, “I don’t want anymore troubled like you had last year in the Filmore District. Do you understand? That’s my policy” and Callahan responds that “When an adult male is chasing a woman with the intent to commit rape I shoot the bastard that’s my policy.” And then Callahan goes on to describe how he established “intent” in that situation.

The clearest exposition of this social commentary occurs in the Kazar Stadium scene between Inspector Callahan and the sociopathic serial killer, Scorpio (Andrew Robinson). After chasing Scorpio down, Callahan shoots him in the leg, even though he is not fleeing and has his hands up. Then Callahan begins to torture Scorpio to find out where the girl is and he is screaming, “I want a lawyer. I have a right to a lawyer. I have rights.” We see the societal point of view when Callahan is the District Attorney’s Office arguing with the DA and the Judge/Law Professor when he was told that Scorpio would “walk” because his rights were violated, Callahan responds with something like, “What about the rights of ?? (the girl that was kidnapped)? Who is worried about her rights?” And when Scorpio hijacks the school bus, kidnaps the children and holds them for ransom, Callahan takes matters into his own hands when the powers that be are going to given into Scorpio’s demands.

And this film kicks off a series of vigilante films that reflect a similar societal view that it is okay to take matters into your own hands when the justice system does not do its job. I would argue that this is the underlying principle behind such films like: Magnum Force (1973), Death Wish (1974), Taxi Driver (1976), Mad Max (1979), and Star Chamber (1983) to mention just a few.

Dirty Harry as Christological Commentary:

To begin with, I would argue that Siegel purposefully portrays Inspector Harry Callahan as a Christ Figure in a way that depicts him as an Agent of Divine Wrath/Judgment. And Siegel portrays Scorpio as a Devil/Satan figure who is the object of Divine Wrath/Judgment. While I will provide the support for this statement below, I think it is fairly clear from the short list of vigilante films above that Siegel could have communicated the same social commentary without making any Christologic connections at all, yet he did.

While the film does not explicitly meet the criteria that Prof. Lewis provided to determine whether or not a film was a Christ film, it does meet several of the criteria in indirectly on three levels: primary, secondary, and tertiary.

I would argue that the primary level of evidence for the Christologic nature of this film in several ways. First, Scorpio promises that he will kill a “Catholic priest or a nigger” if they don’t pay him $100,000. Then, he attempts to kill the gay African American in front a church. Then there is the direct interaction between Callahan and Scorpio in front of St. Peter and St. Paul’s Catholic Church where Harry is under the “Jesus Saves” neon sign and Scorpio is trying to kill Callahan. Then there is the incident at the foot of the cross in Mount Davidson park where Scorpio is beating the tar out of Harry by kicking him in the side (i.e., “killing” him) and then Callahan passes out (i.e., “dies”) and then wakes up (i.e., is “resurrected”). And then, Harry overcomes Scorpio by stabbing him in the leg.

I would argue that the secondary level of evidence for the Christologic nature of this film is the “miraculous” nature of stopping the bank robbery single handedly even though he is outmanned and outgunned. The Christologic nature of this film is also evidenced when Harry saves the jumper from death.

I would argue that the tertiary level of evidence for the Christologic nature of this film is two-fold. First, there is the use of “Jesus” in the film at the very beginning when Harry sees the note from Scorpio and when Scorpio sees Harry on the railroad trestle at the beginning of the final sequence. Given the context of these utterances, I would argue that they are curses violating the 2nd Commandment, but I could also see how they could be interpreted as a double-entendre as a referent to Callahan as a Christ figure. Second, I would argue that Callahan’s nickname of “Dirty Harry” as defined by Callahan and Chico is the Siegel’s commentary of Christ’s work on the cross. In the scene with the jumper, Callahan tells Chico, “Now you know why they call me Dirty Harry, I do every dirty job that comes along.” In the scene when Harry goes to deliver the ransom money by himself, Chico says, “Now I know why they call him "Dirty" Harry- he gets the shit end of the stick every time.”

It is fairly clear that Siegel intentionally portrays Inspector Callahan as a Christ figure in Dirty Harry, but it is a different Christ figure than is previously portrayed in film because the culture has change. In Ben Hur (1959), Christ is portrayed as the teacher of peace reflecting the post-WWII state of mind in America. In Jesus Christ Superstar (Broadway musical – late 60s, film 1973), Christ is portrayed as obedient pawn in God’s plan reflecting the cultural view of “the man”. And Dirty Harry is a reflection of Siegel’s view of the cultural shift that has taken place in America as the pendulum shifts to the other side of the spectrum.

While it wouldn’t be evident to a non-Christian, I would argue that Siegel builds Dirty Harry around the protoevangelium in Gen. 3:15, Christ’s work on the cross and His ascension. I present for your consideration Gen. 3:15 “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” and the scene at the foot of the cross in Mount Davidson park where Scorpio “kills” Harry and Harry severely wounds Scorpio. And further, consider when Harry throws his badge into the pond after killing Scorpio as the Christ figure’s “ascension” into heaven when his work is complete. While Christ overcame sin, death and the devil with His death on the cross and the Father accepts His atoning sacrifice by raising Him from the dead, Christ’s ascension (Eph. 1:20-23) marks the point when Satan is cast out of heaven forever (Rev. 12:7-12).

Let me know what you think.

Louis Boldt