I saw the Bikeriders today and my reaction to the movie was a bit different than Grim’s. As Grim pointed out, the movie is based on Danny Lyon’s photobook, The Bikeriders and you have to understand it in that context. The movie provides a pretty fair dramatization of the book.
The movie tells the story of the founding, and dark metamorphosis,
of the Vandals Motorcycle Club, a fictional representation of the Outlaws
Motorcycle Club that was the focus of the book. The movie tells the story through
the experiences of Johnny (the club president), Benny (Johnny’s right-hand man),
and Kathy (Benny's wife). These characters were actually in Danny Lyon’s book
and provided some of the recollections he included. Consequently, I didn’t find
it odd that the Kathy character narrated some, by no means all, of the plot. That
is not inconsistent with the book.
Kathy is the perfect character to provide the narration she
does at different times throughout the movie. While she is closely associated
with the club, she is not a member. She is not an outsider but neither is she
an insider. She shares the values and aspirations of mainstream society (a
stable family life and respectability) while simultaneously being immersed in
the biker culture (riding and hard partying) due to her marriage to Benny. Consequently, her character provides a both a
contrast to, and a bridge between, biker culture and mainstream American
society.
In many ways, the male lead of the movie is actually Johnny, played by Tom Hardy. At least he was my favorite character. He represents the original biker culture and ethos while providing the order, discipline, and leadership necessary to forge a group of outcasts into a functioning organization. His story illustrates the fall of the original, post WWII, 1% motorcycle club culture and its replacement with the much darker variant that emerged in the 60’s. Anyone interested in learning about the original motorcycle club culture should read The Original Wild Ones: Tales of the Boozefighters Motorcycle Club
I don’t agree with Grim’s assessment of the Benny character
played by Austin Butler. His character doesn’t lack agency, in fact, his
refusal to surrender it is the central theme of his story. Benny represents the
contradiction at the heart of motorcycle club life. On one hand he seeks the total
freedom the motorcycle club sells itself as representing. On the other hand,
the club is making increased demands on him that will strip that freedom away.
Johnny wants Benny to take over leadership of the club but Benny refuses because
doing so will replace his freedom with responsibility. Kathy wants him to leave
the club as it becomes more violent and drug influenced but he also rejects her
demands because doing so would also surrender his freedom.
Grim said that “In the movie the ending of that story is
very sad, even though (or partly because) the lovebirds escape to a 'happy'
life without motorcycles, brotherhood, honor or valor.” I didn’t see it that
way. Benny didn’t leave the club until after the club abandons brotherhood,
honor, and valor. Once the club became a
criminal organization that had no issue with killing its own members it ceased
to be the club Benny joined and Johnny founded. When the club chose a new darker path that Benny
was unwilling to follow, honor demanded that he leave.
Grim claims the script writer denied the characters agency due
to the choices they made. Once again, I disagree. The story told through the
characters of Johnny, Benny, and Kathy track the experience of Danny Lyon as recounted
in his book. He actually became a patched member of the Outlaws Motorcycle Club
but eventually left the club due to the very dark and violent direction the
club eventually followed. As I said at the beginning of this review, you have
to understand the movie in the context of the book upon which it is based.
I do agree with Grim’s statement that the movie is a “Strong
drama, and a good study of an earlier set of generations.” I highly recommend
the movie.
4 comments:
I think that’s unduly kind to the character of Benny especially; he ‘always talked about leaving,’ and in fact did abandon both his wife and his club when they needed him most. He stayed away until the issue was decided, then came back to cry over how it worked out. Then he abandoned motorcycle riding too.
I don’t see him as having shown any class, to deploy a phrase that Funny Sonny used. He has no loyalty, neither to his club nor his president nor his friend nor his wife.
I do agree that Tom Hardy played the real lead. The Benny character is just to give younger viewers someone to identify with, not a serious character that is actually important to the plot.
You are correct, Benny did abandon his wife for a year when he took off on his nomad period. As the movie points out, that was a practice not uncommon in the motorcycle club culture of the time. However, I don't think it is quite accurate to say he abandoned his club. The leadership struggle that changed the club emerged during his absence and was not the cause of his leaving. He simply went off on the biker equivalent of a sabbatical.
I also don't think it's accurate to say Benny has no loyalty. He flys half-cocked into a fight with another club to defend Johnny. Unlike other members,he refuses to take his colors off when riding by himself even though doing so represents a great risk, a risk realized when he is attacked in the bar. He only leaves the club after his friend Johnny is murdered in the leadership challenge and the old club culture is wiped away. I understood that as an act of loyalty to the club he originally joined as opposed to the criminal organization it became.
I also think that is the key to understanding why he stopped riding motorcycles. With the death of his friend and the passing away of the original motorcycle club culture, riding bikes no longer held any charm for him or was too painful a reminder of all he lost.
His character is certainly flawed and he makes some very poor decisions but I didn't see him in as negative a light as you did.
Of course it's fine that two people should interpret a work of art differently. You raise some good points that are worth consideration. If anyone else sees the movie, we have a good beginning for a discussion.
The trailer presented this movie as if it would show the culture as much more violent than the movie really does. You'd have expected a gangster movie, but it's really not that. Only at the end, when the old culture falls apart, does anything like that emerge.
Post a Comment