My wife and I, for no particular reason, watched “Lethal Weapon 3” a couple nights ago. I grew up on these movies, watched them constantly on VHS, loved them. I knew they weren’t Great Cinema. They were fun buddy-cop action movies that portrayed a very male-fantasy version of the LAPD. I hadn’t watched them in a long time.
Here’s a few thoughts on the movie after seeing it now, in 2020, almost 25 years after it was in theaters:
It would never get made today. In fact, it would probably never get past the studio executive’s initial read, and would most likely get the screenwriters blacklisted for promoting police brutality and egregious racial stereotypes. Throw in misogyny and homophobia, too, although those were probably givens for the genre at the time.
I’m exaggerating somewhat but not much.
Overall, the film hasn’t lost its ability to entertain, which was its primary goal. Unfortunately (or fortunately), we are living in a different time. We have either become more enlightened or too politically correct: take your pick, really. All I know is that there is a scene that is (uncomfortably for a 2020 viewer) played for laughs in which Mel Gibson “jokingly” tries to shoot a jaywalker while Danny Glover holds him back and lets the (probably shitting-his-pants terrified) jaywalker go.
There is a truly disturbing scene (not played for laughs, thankfully) in which Glover’s character shoots a young black man who is armed and then bursts into tears when he realizes that it is a friend of his teenaged son. Glover’s character is understandably distraught and is consoled by Gibson’s character, who tells him, “It was a clean shoot.”
Glover’s acting is heartfelt and moving in this scene, and, for the most part, the scene---and subsequent scenes that attempt to deal with his post-traumatic stress over the incident---works well. These scenes are actually strangely mature and therefore out-of-place in a cartoonish shoot-’em-up.
The disturbing and uncomfortable part of the film is something that is disturbing and uncomfortable about most films of its ilk: a gratuitous deification of male violence. There is also the almost sexualized representation of guns and gun violence. Clearly guns are stand-ins for the phallus, as evident in the one sex scene in the movie, between Gibson and Rene Russo, in which foreplay consists of their characters showing off their various gunshot wounds with ever-increasing horniness.
I still love the “Lethal Weapon” movies as mindless entertainment, but they are not the same movies that I watched in my early 20s. Well, okay, actually they are the same movies. I, however, am not the same guy watching them. Sensibilities change. I am far more sensitive and aware of the ridiculousness and politically incorrect nature of these films. I may still love these movies, but I now recognize the essential toxicity and harmfulness of them.
****
All of this is a very long lead-in to Michael Connelly’s “The Closers”, his eleventh novel in his series featuring LAPD detective Harry Bosch.
“Lethal Weapon 3” and “The Closers” are as different as night and day. While they are both stories about the LAPD, both involve gun violence, and both touch upon racial tensions, they are worlds apart when it comes to how each deals with these issues.
In “The Closers”, Bosch is returning to the LAPD after a brief (but unsuccessful) attempt at retirement. He has been assigned to Open-Unsolved, the LAPD’s cold-case section. His first case is an unsolved murder of a teenaged girl in 1988.
Seventeen years after the fact, Bosch attempts to piece together the facts of the case left in the jumbled murder book, after one of the original detectives in the case committed suicide and the other has been promoted. Bosch uncovers shoddy police work, but it may have been helped by a police department in the throes of controversy.
The original investigation was happening during the turbulent late-80s and early-90s in Los Angeles, a time of violence in the streets by both gangs and police officers. It ultimately culminated in the infamous Rodney King beating, trial, and subsequent LA riots. All of this ultimately displayed to the world the institutionalized racism in the LAPD.
Bosch’s re-opening of the case with fresh eyes points out a glaring myopia, or, worse, a purposeful blindness to possible leads in the case that were never followed up or even entertained to begin with.
It is interesting to note that “The Closers” contains nary a car chase, shoot-out, or giant explosion. Unlike Riggs and Murtaugh, Bosch gets the job done without having to shoot multiple suspects. In fact, he spends a majority of the time in the book reading files, interviewing people over the phone, or going door to door. Strangely enough, I actually found this fascinating and suspenseful.
There is a numbing of the mind and sensory desensitization to watching scenes of gratuitous violence over and over again. This has actually been studied and proven. When you start feeling bored watching people shoot each other for 45 minutes, that’s not a healthy sign.
The brutality and violence that we are witnessing practically on a daily basis perpetrated by cops in this country may be directly related to the amount of times these cops have watched the “Lethal Weapon” movies. I’m being somewhat facetious, of course, but it does beg the question as to what motivates these trigger-happy cops who shoot black men seven times in the back or strangle a black victim to death with his knee, all while being videotaped as if what they are doing is completely normal.
This normalization of this type of violence is what is truly terrifying, and it is what rational-minded people in this country want to see rooted out of our nation’s police forces. We are not against cops. We are against brutal bad cops who seem to think that the answer to any problem is a gun.
This is what makes “The Closers” a great novel. It is a realistic depiction of good police work, one that attempts to find the humanity in both the victims and the perpetrators.