BUSTING

US, 1973, 92 minutes, Colour.
Elliot Gould, Robert Blake, Allen Garfield, Antonio Fargas, Michael Lerner.
Directed by Peter Hyams.

A trend tends to become a fashion and then it becomes commonplace and overdone, which is what has happened by now to the police genre so popular in the early 70's. This film, from its title, is clearly such another film, its synopsis tends to run to formula: twosome, relentless pursuit of criminals, a look at the city's low and lowest life, corruption in high places, persecution of the heroes. This was one of the better examples and one of the most rugged, but it got lost in the crowd. Its success depends on its rather relentless keep on moving style and the personalities of its twosome, Elliot Gould and Robert Blake.

1. Was this a successful police saga? How successful within the genre of police action thrillers? Why? How well made was it in terms of acting and style, location photography, musical background?

2. What audience response does a film like this presuppose? As regard action thrillers, as regards honesty versus corruption, as regards heroes trying to do their best?

3. Comment on the presentation of the Los Angeles world. The opening with Jackie and her visit to the dentist, her apartment and being busted? The details of the precinct, the police there, the interactions of the police amongst themselves? The atmosphere of crime and its control in Los Angeles, Rizzo and his house, family henchmen, crimes? The ugly world of Los Angeles, the bars, the strip joints, the park and lavatory duties, etc.? How important was this for the film and the creation of atmosphere for response? Did this seem a real world? The importance of a shoot-out in a supermarket? Audience identification with this?

4. Were the heroes heroic in themselves? Were they easy to identify with? What were the main qualities of Michael Kenelly? The main virtues of Farrell? What kind of life did they have for themselves? How much was their life subjected to their career and job? The nature of their honesty and sense of justice? Why were they so earnest? Could their tactics always be approved of? Audience response to the brutality of their being bashed? Did this make their relentlessness intelligible? Why did they work well together? How important was the picturing of this teamwork?

5. Did the character of Rizzo give an understanding into the mind of the modern criminal? His hypocrisy, protection by the police? His home life, his work, and the ugliness of the joints he ran, his pressures on people? If the law could not touch him, who had the right and duty to stop him? Private citizens or police? Why?

6. How did the film work on audience sympathy for police as men, in a hard job with opposition, corruption in the force, the imposing of justice and law?

7. How cunning was Rizzo in his hospital tactic? What else could the two men do? The insolence of Rizzo saying that he would get only a short sentence? The frustration for the police? What emphasis did this give to the end of the film and audience response?

8. How much value is there in this portrayal of police life and work and American crime? As entertainment? As a social document? As insight into American Society?