Richard Brooks' In Cold Blood

In Cold Blood is a great film about a very shocking and disturbing event. It’s a true story about two criminals (Scott Wilson and Robert Blake), who, one night, proceed to rob, and then kill, an entire Kansas family. The two killers are eventually caught, tried, and then sent to death row. Even those two brief sentences I’ve given you are enough to show that the two killers are irredeemable, are guilty of an unspeakable crime --- and yet, In Cold Blood is far from an easy, simple tale.

The reason that this film is difficult is because the killers are the main focus. Something like this would have probably been rare in Hollywood when this movie was made in 1967 -- here’s a movie which doesn’t just show us scenes from the killer’s point of view, but focuses its entire story on them. Considering that these guys commit an utterly wretched crime, this was no small move on the part of the filmmakers, basing their film on Truman Capote’s book of the same name.

Blake’s character has just got out of prison. As a condition of his parole, he isn’t to leave the state -- but he does. He joins Wilson’s character on a job -- Wilson’s cellmate, back when he was in prison, talked about a country family that he once worked for, and says that there is a safe somewhere in the house holding ten thousand dollars. Wilson hires Blake to accompany him because Blake, supposedly, is a “natural born killer” -- the whole plan is to leave no witnesses, and obviously there has to be somebody who will be willing to make sure of that.

They drive four hours to the country home, and arrive there late at night. They do exactly what was intended, and rob, and kill, the family (which includes a teenage son and daughter). The next morning, the bodies are discovered by extended family, and the town police begin their investigation, but by this point the two men are long gone........

..... but with what? With a police force after them, and with forty bucks, and a few pieces of junk. Yes, it turns out that there was no safe, no ten thousand dollars. Nothing. They killed a whole family..... for this?

I’m certain that this film would have scared the audience out of their minds back in 1967. This is not a horror film, but it’s very intense. The home invasion scene is the most chilling -- it is not dramatic, or overdone, but seen with a clear eye, as the two men rough up and tie up the family. It’s played out in such a way that it would be difficult for you not to fear for yourself if you were ever on the receiving end of such a situation.

But the most terrifying thing about this film is that we seem to be asked to feel more sympathy with these killers -- and among the worst sort of killers, at that -- than with the victims. There are really only a few scenes involving the victims -- a few scenes near the beginning, which introduce us to the fact that these are upright, modest and God-fearing people, and, of course, during the home invasion scene, which is not shown to us until close to the end, when Blake’s character reveals to the investigator what really went down that night.

It’s the killers, however, who are the most well-drawn characters, and that is what makes this film troubling. Wilson’s character is an opportunist and a coward -- he clearly could not commit such horrible crimes by himself, but is more than willing to use a clearly troubled man for his own ends, and that is just as horrific. There’s not a single moment where we believe that Wilson’s character gives a damn about the deaths of these people -- he’s more worried about his own skin, and, when the pair are finally caught by the police, spins all of these useless stories in the vain hope that they will get him somewhere, anywhere but the hangman’s noose.

But Blake’s character...... now that’s the most troubling. It is he who is, specifically, the most important person in the film, and he is absolutely a heartless killer, willing to pull the trigger and kill a husband, wife and children. But the movie also shows us glimpses of his past, and that makes us unable to avoid thinking about this guy as much a product of his upbringing and his history, as a guy who deserves to have his neck broken. He’s quite possibly -- no, definitely -- both of those things. The movie cleverly inserts flashes of his childhood -- scenes of him with his parents, who are part of a traveling show, and which includes many violent interludes when his mother would come home drunk, and get beaten by his father. The overall impression of these flashbacks, as well as confessions by Blake’s character, and also, scenes when the chief investigator talks to Blake’s dad, show us that this killer’s past wasn’t exactly a happy one. The movie doesn’t, as far as I can remember, contain characters or dialogue which excuses Blake’s behavior, however. We aren’t asked to say, oh, poor, poor man........

..... yet, there is a point of view, offered by a guy who is probably meant to be Truman Capote, who spent much time with these killers before writing his book. The guy in the film does exactly the same thing here, as he chats with the killers for the purposes of writing articles about them. He makes points to his assistant about how death row works -- how many, many years pass while appeal after appeal is put through, how a death row prisoner is stuck in solitary confinement, with little opportunity to entertain oneself, and so on -- and his final conclusion at the end, when the two men are inevitably going to hang, is that six people were murdered, four innocent, and two guilty. In a sense, that is true -- although, for my money, the killers who were executed by the state would surely want to be, after being stuck in solitary for nearly ten years..........

Funny that I would say that, since I actually don’t accept the death penalty. Not because the people who get killed by the state don’t deserve so -- unless of course they were actually innocent, and then that’s another story. The killers in this movie definitely deserve to have those ropes wrapped around their neck -- they wiped out an entire innocent family! Why wouldn’t they deserve to die?

But that is the thing? Why should somebody have the right to kill anybody else? Why should the state kill people? It’s still a form of murder, isn’t it? And the people who want so much for killers to die are being driven by the same emotion that made those killers kill -- mind you, the specific situations are different, but all of these people still want to kill, don’t they? Hey, we all feel that emotion, but some of us aren’t as stupid enough to follow through on that emotion. Shouldn’t the state be better than that, as well? The film seems to take such a stance -- it’s not that these two aren’t evil men, because they are. It’s just that death row is just as evil in it’s own way. It’s admirable, just the same, that the movie doesn’t harp on this fact, either -- In Cold Blood is just a long, grim trip into sadness, evil, and death..........

In Cold Blood was directed in 1967 by Richard Brooks, and the film is fascinating to watch even purely on its production values. The film is in black-and-white, and appears to be very much of a classical-style film, much like the other black-and-while Hollywood classics of yesteryear. The interesting thing is by this time, black-and-white films, of the sort made in the Golden Age, were literally breathing their very, very last breath. The Oscars had already dumped specific categories for black-and-white films the year before, and color became the accepted standard (after this point, I would say that a black-and-white film was made more as an homage rather than as a natural continuation of anything) -- yet Brooks, an old-school kind of guy who made films such as 1955’s Blackboard Jungle, was able to squeak this film by, just as color was all the rage.

Interestingly enough, this was also the year when the ratings system was introduced, which means that this movie, which looks like a Golden Age film, is also an R-rated film. So just because it looks like a classical film, doesn’t mean it’s clean -- there’s a fair bit of swearing, and a fair bit of violent content. Not nearly as much as there would be decades later of course -- now, this film would just barely get an R (it could almost get a PG-13 if the film weren’t as intense), as opposed to being a strong R. In any case, though, this is definitely not a film for the family.........

Robert Blake and Scott Wilson give great performances, as well. We really are able to connect with these characters, which is why the film is as troubling as it is. Blake, especially, can really get to you -- his character is really pathetic and sad, all at once, and the speech he gives, hours before he is to be hung, where he talks about his father, is possibly the high point of the film.

In Cold Blood is a raw, troubling film, like I say over and over again. It’s not an easy film to watch, and it’s surely controversial, but it’s definitely a classic.