I have just finished watching Death Wish (1974) for the first time. Yes, that one, the one with Charles Bronson, the one that is associated so inseparably with propagating vigilantism and brutal violence. Why I selected this movie to watch tonight is something of a mystery to me. I suppose in part I wanted to see if its reputation was warranted, and if so, I wanted to see just how bad a movie it is. But also in part I had a suspicion that there might be something more to this movie. It turns out I was right. While DW has its share of stark violence at the hands of a regular civilian whose family has been victimized, i.e. vigilantism--in response to which the audiences in 70s crime-ridden urban hellscapes like Los Angeles and NYC apparently cheered--it clearly makes the case that vigilantism is a dangerous scenario. In fact, rather than advocating a position of vigilantism, the movie shows how untenable a position it is, without going so far as to be didactic about this point in the least; really it seems to have had quite the opposite effect, with most audiences perceiving the movie as overwhelmingly supporting vigilantism via its violent showdowns in which Bronson's character Paul Kersey repeatedly offs lowlife criminals.
In one of the most interesting scenes of the movie, the chief of police has a meeting with the DA and commissioner in which the latter make clear the nature of the complicated position they, as enforcers of law and order, are in. On the one hand, they can't blatantly arrest and prosecute Kersey, the vigilante, because it would make him a martyr, thereby inspiring backlash against the police and more vigilantism. On the other hand, they can't let Kersey go on his merry way blithely mowing down muggers--even though they are criminals shot in the act of committing a crime--as vigilantism is not the same as enforcing the law. Kersey's goal is not to uphold the law and protect the citizenry. Instead, he is out to bait lowlifes into trying to mug him, at which point he can enact a Western-style showdown and kill them in a shootout. He is clearly descending into dangerous psychopathic behavior and is showcasing the double-edged sword of revenge. So, their compromise is to scare him, to send him a message, so that he will stop. Their solution is nonsensical and makes clear that the police, while invested in returning society to the status quo, are too anemic to do so. At this point I think it becomes clear that neither the status quo, nor vigilantism, is the answer to the modern crime-infested cityscape, and what we have in the film is simply one man's antiquated choice to take it upon himself to do some crime fighting as if 1970s NYC was the same as Tombstone circa 1880.
With the understanding that DW is not advocating any kind of meaningful solution to the problem, it's possible to see a sort of Swiftian satirical structure at work. The "solution" of vigilantism is shown as one man's ill-thought out attempt at combating both a dangerous urban environment and what he perceives as an increasingly weak, cowardly populace. He baits criminals into muggings and then shoots them, nearly getting himself killed in the process. He also follows an antiquated code from a long-forgotten era with wildly different rules and norms. What is amazing to me is that this social satire seemed to have gone unnoticed, in spite of such scenes as the one in which Kersey approvingly watches a local news broadcast that is reporting stories of citizens fighting back. The stories include that of an elderly woman who has gained confidence by using a hat pin to fight off a mugger, and that of a crew of construction workers who chase and rough up an apparent mugger spotted from the building site. The man is reported to have a broken jaw, 2 broken arms, and cracked ribs, to which the foreman says, "Gee, I guess he must have fallen down." This scene offers a satire of the idea that vigilantism is a viable solution to a crime-infested metropolis, illustrating that both rampant crime and rampant vigilantism are not so far removed. To further the illustration, the news broadcast reenacts the events during the interviews; particularly striking is the mob of construction workers chasing the mugger, catching him, and beating the hell out of him.
In an interview, Brian Garfield, the author of the novel Death Wish, on which the film was based, explains that his novel makes quite clear the message that vigilantism is a false solution:
The point of the novel Death Wish is that vigilantism is an attractive fantasy but it only makes things worse in reality. By the end of the novel, the character (Paul) is gunning down unarmed teenagers because he doesn’t like their looks. The story is about an ordinary guy who descends into madness. Oddly enough Mayes’ script honored that thought, and the only significant change in it during shooting was the wordless ending, but that ending changed the story entirely. (Bronson cocking his empty hand like a gun and grinning wickedly at young hoodlums in the Chicago airport.)
I'm glad the film opted not to take Paul Kersey further down the path of madness, as it's quite obvious that this would have been going too far to make the point. Kersey's cocking his empty hand like a gun is a very powerful final image, one that is entirely consistent with the satirical message of the film. Screenwriter Mayes appears to have improved on his source material, at least in making it more subtle. Instead of offering a lecture or sermon, the film offers a well-balanced social satire that was unfortunately too subtle to be clearly recognized, obscured at the time by its stark violence and marketing schemes that pandered to people seeking a voyeuristic experience of bloodlust and revenge. All of that just further supports the strength of the satire--like people convinced by a yes men presentation or by a modest proposal, the audience exploded rapturously at each of Kersey's revenge slayings.
