Academic

Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry: The Really Important Dialogue?

By propertyprof

I see from the LA Times that there's going to be a box set of Dirty Harry movies.  Although the LA Times thinks it is somewhat surprising, Eastwood is re-embracing the movies.

As the LA Times says, Harry's "darkly whispered one-liners (". . . You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?" "Go ahead, make my day") were long ago drained of any real danger by stand-up comics, politicians and bumper stickers."

Thus, it thinks that "It's easy to imagine Eastwood the auteur treating the character like a bad 1970s fashion choice."  Not easy for me to imagine that.  I think it's easier to imagine that Eastwood would reach back to those movies and legitimize them as art.

I remember the first time I saw my first Dirty Harry movie--it was just after I'd graduated from law school and I was filling in some of my cultural gaps.  So about the same time I was reading Uncle Tom's Cabin, I was watching movies like Dirty Harry and Aliens.  Of course the "make my day" line is classic--and had long since been a common piece of culture.  But what struck me most about the movie at the time was not Eastwood's line, but ones from the San Francisco "establishment."  After Harry gets a confession from a serial killer, he's called into his boss' office.  There to greet him are the the district attorney and a judge who's also a Berkeley law professor!  How's that for a combination of symbols of the left-wing establishment?!  Instead of giving Harry an award, they yell at him.

From our friends at wikipedia, check out this dialogue:

District Attorney: Where the hell does it say [in the Constitution] you've got a right to kick down doors, torture suspects, deny medical attention and legal counsel. Where have you been? Does Escobedo ring a bell? Miranda? I mean, you must have heard of the Fourth Amendment. What I'm saying is, that man had rights.

Callahan: Well, I'm all "broken up" about that man's rights.

District Attorney: You should be. I've got news for you, Callahan. As soon as he's well enough to leave the hospital, he walks. ...

District Attorney: It does not matter what Ballistics can do. This rifle might make a nice souvenir. But it's inadmissible as evidence.

Callahan: And who says that?

District Attorney: It's the law.

Callahan: Well then, the law is crazy!

District Attorney: This is Judge Bannerman of the appellate court. He also holds classes in constitutional law in Berkeley. I've asked him for an opinion, your Honor?

Judge: Well, in my opinion, the search of the suspect's quarters was illegal. Evidence obtained thereby, such as that hunting rifle, for instance, is inadmissible in court. You should have gotten a search warrant. I'm sorry, but it's that simple.

Now, how's that for an indictment of the legal system?  And while it's awfully difficult to match up popular culture with political and legal culture, but I wonder if that indictment was helpful in changing attitudes towards the courts--and, of course, law professors?  (I've already questioned how much the popular image of law professors matches up with what we do; maybe we owe Dirty Harry for shaping the attitude towards law professors.)

Alfred Brophy

Full post as published by The Faculty Lounge on June 01, 2008 (boomark / email).