The image I see when the word biker comes to mind is of a long-haired heavyset man with a tattoo of helmeted bulldog riding his Harley on a lonely road, not Marlon Brando. Watching the 1954 biker film The Wild One however, I do begin to see where the material characteristics of the culture such as leather and mainstream views emerge. The Wild One set up the classic formula for the future biker films of the next two decades, it also was the introduction of another invader, not some monster, alien or Communist to mainstream family centered society: the nation's rising countercultures. I was surprised to find out that the early biker counterculture consisted of World War II veterans, yet not surprised to find that mainstream society viewed them as a menace. These were men that were expected to do a "patriotic duty" and I think this duty was extended to their personal lives and was defined as starting families and getting jobs, all together settling down. Bikers however wandered the open road, with no family commitments. They defied these values which during this time was regarded with fear. Another factor was that the national media used their influence over the national public to transform minor incidents involving bikers into the evidence of their danger to "innocent citizens", Hollywood included. According to Martin Rubin's biker counterculture even adopted the image. What's funny to me is that the 'menace' of the biker gang in The Wild One seemed only to playful if somewhat rowdy behavior, but then again this was a time where any 'strange behavior' was a threat. At first the movie seemed to predictably take on this perspective that this biker gang was harming poor helpless small town citizens, but this changed as some of the townspeople took action. I think this was just a way of enhancing the image of Brando's character Johnny as the lonely gang leader who's different from townspeople and gang alike. The townspeople later in the film predictably target Johnny as the cause of the gang's behavior and in the aftermath of the chaos, he is accused of killing an elderly bartender. Poor Misunderstood Johnny. What there is to understand though, I haven't a clue. Brando's character has this lack of emotion and ambiguity that makes him hard to understand and sympathize with. I think this mainly comes from him being in this grey alienated area of not acting like his fellow bikers nor following the social code of the citizens. Rubin states that this isolated gang leader was popular in the next two decades' biker films, although other leader characters also were used such as those that turned against their gang or were dangerously dedicated. In all of these cases, he makes it sound like that although there was this grey area between the sides of small town citizens, the gang was almost always the enemy. And why not? Other movies of past decades also have this habit; even if the leader/antihero can be somewhat good, what makes them "anti" is always the enemy.
One of the responses to the film I've heard from others is "Johnny is emotionless-why is that"? I think one need look no further than both the statue he clings to and the female responses to him. In the beginning, Johnny steals a statue from a bike race. When he tries giving it to his female interest Cathy she rejects it because she learns its not something he won, its part of the "lie" she later identifies him as being. Other than being an amusing phallic symbol this statue represents Johnny's image as this biker gang leader, something he claims to be but in truth isn't. The same goes for Johnny's motorcycle. One female acquaintance tearfully recounts riding with Johnny; "Do you remember?" she asks. When Johnny "rescues" Cathy from his fellow riders they go on a ride, something she's never experienced. After getting off the bike Cathy almost looks tousled like she's been doing something other than just riding a motorcycle with Johnny. When he passionately kisses her, she is limp saying "I'm too tired" and when her own advances towards him are rebuffed she clings to his motorcycle. Both of these women seem to love the image of Johnny, they'd much rather ride and be with his motorcycle than him. Maybe that's what makes him so frustrated, everyone sees his image not him. Is this one of the messages the film and later the genre trying to sends; this biker counterculture is merely an image hiding one's own moral uncertainty? Or is it just a way of making the proantagonist look appealing to the audience?
Bikers weren't the only counterculture for long, Beats and later hippies emerged as youth movements that similar to bikers, revolted against mainstream social expectations. The Wild One demonstrates this with Brando's jive talk, which just seems out of place. Rubin states that the biker and countercultures melded both in the biker films of the time and in reality, yet these unifications weren't always friendly. Rubin describes the meeting between Hell's Angels and Merry Pranksters as a peaceful drug-laden experience, and goes on to state that bikers began to frequent Haight-Ashbury. There was a definite difference between these countercultures in viewpoints, behavior and attitudes which caused them to clash. Bikers unlike hippies possessed conservative views that were akin to those of mainstream social views. According to Rubin, movies reflected this with bikers engaging in hippie like behavior while continuing violent small town plunder. This trend suggests to me that the media somewhat lumped youth countercultures into one movement that threatened the calm and conformity of suburban/small town America, yet made bikers the face of the cinematic threat. In this sense then, Johnny's grey area identity foreshadows of the biker culture. Like Johnny, the biker counterculture didn't belong in mainstream society, but neither did they fit with the dominant hippie counterculture.
On a more amusing note, Rubin mentions the cult/camp references made to biker films after their popularity ended. One he didn't mention which stood out to me was Tom Savini's character in the original Dawn of the Dead. As you will see in the clip I'm posting, this is the wrong time for this character and his gang to threaten consumerism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To answer the question whether or not people see Johnny's image and not him as a person, I don't know about the time the movie was created for but in the present it definately was not created as search for audience affection or interest. I believe it is more directed towards the fact that the biker image is more of a mask to hide the moral uncertainty. As you pointed out Johnny is more like playing the part of the gang leader. If you go back and look he actually is not the one who stole the trophy his right hand man did and gave it to him as a keep-sake you could say. He is merely the face of the "biker gang". However, by his distant and lack of emotion and ambiguity as you put it he sets himself apart from both the townspeople and his fellow bikers. He is a loner and offset by himself and is seeking solace in his love interest Cathy. To whom, he treats with respect up until of course he forces himself apon her after their bike ride. He doesn't let the biker boys taunt her or reck the bar after she asks him for help. In seeking attention from her he shows his not neccesarily truest colors but more then when he is with his gang. I think you brought up an interesting point in regards to his character and less then stand out performance. Was it intentional and truly apart of his character? Or, was he just a poor actor and the role really didn't fit the actor?
ReplyDeleteI also want to point out how we discussed in class this was a form setting movie. Like we said this movie paved way for how "bikers" and rebelious teenagers were meant to dress. How ingenious is this? This movie was a brilliant consumerism plot. Think about it, how many white hats were purchased after this film made its debut. The rocking anthem, I would wager that leather and motorcycle sales increased a substantial amount. From hard core bikers to the wannabes everyone who thought "differently" then the rest of conformed America went out and bought this same get up just to be like Hell's Angels and Marlon Brando in The Wild One.
I do also want to bring up a discussion point. The reading claims that many movies portrayed bikers in a certain "bad ass" light and with this I would agree...However, the reading also claims that in many of those same films often dealt in crossed cultural signals. Some things like body-painting and pacifist slogans are normally associated with hippies however, you see it in biker films as well. Would you agree? If so, why do directors feel the need to confuse various cultures by intermixing the various traditions of each counterculture? Wouldn't you think that this would raise some issues?
In answering your performance question, I think it is just probably the nature of his acting and maybe how Brando interpreted the role. I'm saying this primarily because in other movies I've seen with him he has similar mannerisms and behavior. I think when he was asked to play tough guys in the movies he assumed this kind of stoic, ambiguous, mysterious role because thats who he thought of as tough. I could be reading too much into that though. As far as the mixing of countercultures, I definitely see it. If you go back to the reading the writer explains that those mainly seeing these films were not part of the hippie or biker counterculture, although as far as values go they would probably empathize with the bikers. These audience members were working class/redneck/small town kids. The directors if they knew who this audience mainly was maybe assumed they wouldn't really know the difference or care. It may raise some issues if you showed it to members of the countercultures I guess.
ReplyDeleteI also found it interesting that Johnny seemed nearly emotionless. However when it comes to the trophy and giving it to the girl, I see that as a very emotional section.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I feel that the trophy being stolen and given to Johnny represented his "badassery." When he gave it to Cathy, she told him that a guy only gives something like that to a girl he really likes and has known for a long time. I think Johnny at least thought he really liked Cathy and took her rejection of it as a feeling of rejection. (still representing his badassery) When it get's stolen from him, he needed to get it back because he already pictured it as Cathy's and he needed to be good enough to give it to her. When she advances on him, I think he gets nervous because he's afraid of his feelings.
That's why I find the trophy the emotional center of the piece, as well as his "affair" with Cathy.
My feelings to the question about why film makers mixed counter cultures together is because to the Average American, these counter cultures seem to meld together. I feel they were simply catering to the average person, rather than those of the smaller counterculture.
Really good outline/summary/review/discussion, Alexandra. I also like the ensuing discussion you're all having about Brando's acting style, which does seem a bit perhaps impenetrable 50 years later. Your questions and observations are really good, Tiffany. I think what he's going for, or was read at at the time, was emotionally arrested, lost, potentially lovable and incredibly charismatic and sexy sociopath---a sort of extreme masculinity that, unmoored from the constraints of ordinary society, doesn't really know what to do with itself--which kind of works given that that's what early biker culture actually was, and as compellingly handsome as Brando was. It's a characterization that maybe doesn't work now. The closest we even get to that type now is maybe Christian Bale's Batman.
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify, the reading wasn't about other countercultures in the movie, it was about how the movie essentially spawned a biker counterculture that was sociologically and ideologically extremely different from the hippie counterculture that arose a little later, but sometimes also interacted with it in improbable ways, but in ways that are important to consider when we look back at the 60s. I'll talk more about this later when we actually get to the 60s, and clarify it a bit.
I like Allans feelings on the thought that johnny seemed to have very little emotion on what was going on around him. He was a very closed off character. However i did notice a few looks from him that showed a little less content for his life especially toward the end of the film when he was getting beat and the man was killed.
ReplyDeleteI feel Alex brings up a good point when talks about the fact that motorcycle gangs were the only out of the norm during this time period. We later saw drug gang, hippies and much more promiscuity that this movie really starts to bring a light to.