The Movie That Made Moral Idiocy Chic

Fifty years ago, the movie that changed the movies premiered. Anybody old enough to remember films before “Bonnie and Clyde” can testify to the jolting power of Arthur Penn’s kinetic blend of bluegrass slapstick, Depression-era nostalgia, and gruesome, stylized violence. But something else was revealed then, something that I, just 14 at the time, was too callow and ignorant to notice behind the movie’s aesthetic sheen—the moral idiocy that has since come to define so much of contemporary American popular culture.

“Bonnie and Clyde” staked a claim to a moral seriousness that supposedly validated the stylistic innovations and elevated the film beyond mere flashy entertainment. Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker, played with fashion-magazine glamour by Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway, are “just folks,” as Dunaway says in the movie, salt-of-the-earth Americans driven to crime by the machinations of the evil banks they rob for some justified payback, Texan Robin Hoods admired by the common-man victims of American capitalism. Yet “the Man,” embodied in the sadistic Texas Ranger Frank Hamer, wouldn’t let them be, hunting them down and slaughtering them in the film’s famous bloody climax, just after Bonnie and Clyde had finally found the soft-focus sexual fulfillment long a cliché of Hollywood romantic sentiment.

“Social Bandits” on Screen
The Marxist folk-tale underlying the movie’s otherwise conventional star-crossed-lovers plot was obvious, and as such the cinematic innovations accounted for the film’s popularity with many critics (The
New York Times’s Bosley Crowther was a noble exception). The movie was, in fact, a popularized version of Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm’s 1959 “social bandit” thesis, a bit of communist agitprop arguing that robbers and thieves were really expressions of the “people’s” legitimate resistance to unjust economic and political structures. This notion helped to glorify and justify the violence against authority that exploded in the 1960s, from the bombing of college labs to the depredations of the Black Panthers, the Oakland street gang that was shrewd enough to exploit the delusions of privileged white kids in order to provide cover for the gang’s crimes.

The corollary to the “social bandit” idea was that those responsible for maintaining social order—particularly the police—were, in reality, the goons of an oppressive establishment, and as such legitimate targets of retributive violence. The “pigs” were now the enemy, at best oafish dupes of “the Man,” at worst sadistic crypto-fascists who delighted in inflicting pain on the “people”—the cultural infrastructure behind the Black Lives Matter movement.

This demonizing of legitimate authority is obvious in “Bonnie and Clyde,” where all the police are depicted as anonymous shock troops of capitalist oppression, genetically deprived hillbilly racists spraying bullets with moronic glee, as in the scene showing the capture of Clyde’s brother Buck. Frank Hamer is particularly creepy, obviously sexually oppressed and filled with vengeful rage over the gang’s playful kidnapping of him (which never actually happened). His sadistic nature is obvious in the film’s slow-motion climax, when he engineers the couple’s death with a fusillade of excessive force, repeatedly raking the bodies with machine-gun fire.

The Real Bonnie and Clyde
And here we come upon the monstrous lie at the heart of the film. The historical Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker were not beautiful Robin Hoods but psychopathic killers—Clyde had jug-ears and a weak chin, Bonnie the mean mouth and ferret eyes of a white-trash skank. Their sexual proclivities, which perhaps included their younger male accomplices, were sordid, not romantic.

And their violence was usually an unprovoked sadistic indulgence, like their killing of two highway patrol officers on Easter Sunday in 1934. Their 12 victims were mostly police officers who, in accord with the laws Barrow and Parker scorned, announced themselves as such before they were gunned down in cold blood. Nor did the gang rob that many banks, their targets just as often being small mom-and-pop stores. As for distributing the money to the “people”—those scenes in the film were actually based on anecdotes about John Dillinger—there is no evidence that these predators ever gave a dime to the victims of the Depression, some of whom the pair robbed.

So, too, with the movie’s despicable portrayal of Frank Hamer, the Texas lawman who doggedly tracked the two and put an end to their murderous career. Hamer’s methods do not meet our modern standards of police work founded on solicitude for criminals and a fetishizing of process. He lived in a tougher world where such luxuries were fatal. In fact, the reason he and his fellow lawmen killed Bonnie and Clyde the way they did was because of Clyde’s long record of resisting arrest and shooting down police officers on sight. In life, Hamer, who once single-handedly faced down a lynch mob trying to murder a black man in his custody, was one of those grim, unpleasant men whose bravery makes it possible for spoiled plutocrats like Warren Beatty and Arthur Penn to make “mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep.”

This distortion of historical truth has come to dominate American popular culture, which has made the leftist libretto its default narrative, one immune to the repeated demonstrations of its falseness and bloody failure. Warren Beatty’s “Reds,” a ludicrous valentine to John Reed, one of Lenin’s most useful of useful idiots, used the same technique of papering over historical lies with cinematic glamour and wide-screen flair. Just about every war movie made is pretty much a lie, depicting brave Americans as psychopathic killers, pathetic idealists, or drug-addled victims drafted into an unjust war to serve the capitalist Evil Empire. In fact, if I ever needed 10 good men, I’d take any 10 Vietnam vets picked at random over any 10 college professors or reporters or movie directors.

Fashion vs. Truth
Just as bad, “Bonnie and Clyde” also enshrined the wrapping of this Orwellian reversal of historical truth in the glamour of style—the essence of what Tom Wolfe called “radical chic.” Truth doesn’t matter, as long as you’re in fashion. Politics isn’t about coherent principle and the possible, it’s about stylistic display, sensibility, and politically correct sentiment, a way for the privileged to show how much better they are than everybody else. Worse, this attitude has legitimized a complete disconnect between word and deed, between what one says and how one lives. Privilege and power can now be enjoyed and indulged, as long as one mouths the proper progressive pieties: conspicuous consumption is OK if one agonizes over income inequality, and King Kong-sized carbon footprints accepted if one rails against global warming.

In short, “Bonnie and Clyde” is a milestone in the transformation of American culture from one that reflects the mentality of adults, to one that enshrines the mentality of teenagers; one that celebrated moral intelligence to one that revels in moral idiocy. Unfortunately, an adolescent disregard for reality and an obsession with fashion and feeling are dangerous indulgences in a world filled with ruthless enemies who see our cultural immaturity as the sign of our moral exhaustion and deserved extinction.

About Bruce S. Thornton

Bruce S. Thornton is a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution. His books include "Greek Ways: How the Greeks Created Western Civilization" and "Democracy's Dangers & Discontents: The Tyranny of the Majority from the Greeks to Obama."

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

12 responses to “The Movie That Made Moral Idiocy Chic

  • They were criminal cop killers. They should have been killed. The hollywood treatment strikes again.

    • G-o-ogle is pay-i-ng $97 per hour,with weekly pa-y-outs.You c-a-n also avail this.On tuesday I got a brand new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this la-s-t four weeks..wi-t-h-out any doubt it’s the most-comforta-b-le job I have ever done .. It sou-n-ds unbelievable but you wont forgive yours-e-lf if you don’t check it!sx21c:=>>=>> http://GoogleCashCareerAcademyEasyTechJobsOpportunities/easy/jobs ♥♥♥k♥♥n♥♥♥c♥u♥♥♥b♥u♥♥♥f♥♥n♥♥♥m♥x♥♥♥w♥♥w♥♥e♥♥♥j♥l♥♥g♥♥q♥m♥♥e♥c♥f♥♥♥l♥♥♥i♥♥♥v♥♥a:::::!ke273c:lhuh

  • “Politics isn’t about coherent principle and the possible, it’s about stylistic display, sensibility, and politically correct sentiment, a way for the privileged to show how much better they are than everybody else. Worse, this attitude has legitimized a complete disconnect between word and deed, between what one says and how one lives. Privilege and power can now be enjoyed and indulged, as long as one mouths the proper progressive pieties: conspicuous consumption is OK if one agonizes over income inequality, and King Kong-sized carbon footprints accepted if one rails against global warming.”

    One doesn’t have to change this very much to get to the truth of today’s reality.

    “Politics isn’t about coherent principle and the possible, it’s about stylistic display, sensibility, and ‘politically incorrect’ sentiment, a way for the privileged to show how much more ‘authentic’ they are than everybody else. Worse, this attitude has legitimized a complete disconnect between word and deed, between what one says and how one lives. Privilege and power can now be enjoyed and indulged, as long as one mouths the proper pieties: conspicuous consumption is OK if one agonizes over bad trade deals, and King Kong-sized disregard for the law and Constitution accepted if one rails against Black Lives Matter.”

    Fixed it for you.

    • Actually, no, you twisted it because his comments hit on a sore spot. A comment of this type is exactly like a dishonest defense’s attorney’s hustling rejoinder to address a weak spot in his case. But, THX for telegraphing that this article is well taken.

    • No body asked you to fix anything you idiot. Keep your hands off next time, OK? Now go make enough copies of this article and send it to your “fellow travellers” and “useful idiots” friends of yours.

  • ‘Moral Idiocy’ accurately describes the Democrats.

  • When I watched this movie fifty years ago, I failed to see the underlying message. Thank you, Bruce S. Thornton, for your insight.

  • The genre was huge in the late 60’s and 70’s movies… cops n’ robbers, spying, fighting ” the man ” , system corrupt, tear down good men or institutions or insinuate cynical motives. A lot of good movies were made back then, but it is easy to spot the trends of a lot of them. Seeding discontent and knocking off icons or coloring common held views, ie WWII. Too many of the movies made in those years were specifically made to take advantage of the anti-war movement , ie, MASH, etc. I still remember the Brady Bunch ep where Bobby was a James gang fan… until his Dad told him how they were killers and very bad and then he had his dream and mindset changed. The films you mentioned in the article, were clearly agitprop / propaganda.. esp Reds. I remember seeing it as a teen, in the theater,.. walking out and thinking… huh… that sure seems like we just watched a LONG commercial for Marxism. Heh.

  • Dear Prof. Thornton,

    “Moral idiocy”, “a ludicrous valentine”—splendid, with thanks.

    Best wishes…

  • The elephant in the room that you missed is this – The Hegelian Dialectic or Divide and Conquer or as Mr Hitler spelt it out:

    “Capitalism and Bolshevism are the two sides of the same Jewish coin.”

    – Adolf Hitler

Comments are closed.