Director: Charles Burnett
Writer: Charles Burnett
Summary: Stan (Henry Sanders) must balance providing for his family with the emotional toll of his job in a slaughterhouse.
Killer of Sheep is a tricky film to watch and an even trickier film to review. On the one hand, it provides an intimate and (seemingly) authentic look at daily life in an urban, African American ghetto in the mid 1970s. As a middleclass white Canadian who came of age in the 1990s, that is not a slice of life I am particularly familiar with. Few filmmakers, before or since, have tackled this subject and as a result Killer of Sheep has immense cultural value.
But on the other hand, from a technical standpoint the film is somewhat lacking. And from an entertainment standpoint it is even more lacking. Of course, that raises the question of whether or not a movie trying to honestly depict life in a ghetto needs to be conventionally entertaining, but I will discuss more about that later. For now I want to discuss some of the technical limitations of the movie.
This movie cost less than $10,000 to make (adjusted for inflation, about $40,000 in today’s dollars). That is beyond low budget and well into the microbudget range of filmmaking. In fact, from what I have read, Killer of Sheep is actually Charles Burnett’s thesis film at UCLA. Given this information, we shouldn’t be too hard on the film, from a technical standpoint, but there are still some aspects that make it a difficult viewing experience. My biggest complaint has to be the sound design. There were times when two characters would be having a conversation and I could barely hear the dialogue and then, randomly, some of the lines would come through with what felt like thunderous volume. The overall effect was that I often found it difficult to concentrate and follow exactly what was going on. Visually, the film is fairly rudimentary, but I don’t really consider this to be a problem as it suits the nature of the film and gives it an almost documentary feel, similar to films like The Battle of Algiers. I found the scenes of the children playing in the dirt of abandoned lots particularly moving as it seemed like the camera crew just stumbled upon them and filmed them roughhousing and playing make-believe with whatever detritus they came across.
Because it is such an intimate look at one man’s life the entire film really rests on the back of the characters and the actors playing them, and this is where the movie excels. The characters are all believable and it is easy to empathize with Stan’s struggles to bring in money for his family, his pride, and the grind of going to work at an abattoir every day. There are a few interesting scenes where a couple guys who appear to be old friends of his want him to help them out in their illegal affairs (I think – these were some of the worst scenes for sound). Being an honest, hardworking man, he turns them down, but what I found most interesting was that these characters dressed and behaved the most like what you would expect in the blaxploitation films that were so prevalent at the time. Granted, they were very toned down compared to something like Shaft or Superfly, but it helped ground the movie in an area adjacent to the cartoonish world we are familiar with in film.
Now all of that about the cultural importance of this movie is great, but when it comes down to it, I just did not find the movie that entertaining – there just wasn’t any drama. I’m not saying that it should have had gunfights or car chases, but the movie is designed almost as a series of glimpses into the life of the neighbourhood, as seen through Stan’s eyes. This results in a film that has the much lauded cultural interest, but no real narrative to captivate the viewer and carry them through Stan’s world. There was no real climax, or even character growth, the story just kind of ends with his life continuing on as normal. And maybe that is an accurate reflection of reality, but it is not good storytelling and what is filmmaking if not storytelling? I don’t think that writing a movie with drama necessarily means that you have to sacrifice authenticity. Look at City of God. That is a fantastic story set in the slums of Rio and it grabs the viewer and holds them right to the very end while still giving an accurate view of life in those slums. Granted, that movie does have gunfights and chases because they are appropriate to the setting, but in Postales you have the story of a child who lives in the slums of Cuzco, Peru and makes a living by selling postcards. This is contrasted with his older brother who makes a living sleeping with tourists and then robbing them. Meanwhile, the family is being forced out of their shack so that an American can build a new hotel. This is a great example of a quiet, character based narrative that still gives an authentic view of a side of life we don’t usually think about when brushing off the little kids trying to sell us knickknacks while we gawk at their sacred sites.
Personally, I think that Killer of Sheep persists today only because so few movies have been made that have a really honest portrayal of something so important to North American history. If someone had come along and made a gripping tale that was also an authentic portrayal of the impoverished black community in the ‘70s Killer of Sheep would have been lost to the ages with little fuss. But that was not the case, and this is the record we have. So with that, I will recommend Killer of Sheep on a historical/cultural basis, but if you are looking for something more entertaining you will have to look somewhere else.
B-
