The Warriors (1979)

Discussion of programming on TCM.
Post Reply
Mr. Arkadin
Posts: 2645
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:00 pm

The Warriors (1979)

Post by Mr. Arkadin »

Image

In 1979, I accompanied my family to our local movie theater. Would we like to see the newest Disney offering or perhaps Star Wars again? I had other ideas. Seeing an unusual poster as we came in, I dragged my mother back in front of the Now Playing sign and told her The Warriors was the film I wanted to see. Shock was the first emotion that registered on her face, then anger, as she yanked me away to see The Muppet Movie (which had just as much violence), my feet hardly touching the ground.

Some might say she did me a favor. On the surface there seems little to recommend this violent film (showing on TCM in the early morning hours of Jan 2) about a Coney Island street gang who find themselves isolated in the Bronx and have to make their way home through enemy territory. Bad acting abounds, edits are poor in some places, and you get the feeling Barry De Vorzon scored the whole film in a single night with a synthesizer and a couple of tabs of acid. Finally, has there ever been any gang that wore baseball uniforms and clown makeup? Although these would be detriments in another movie, they somehow create a unique picture, which has since become a cult classic.

Image

When Cyrus, president of New York’s largest gang The Gramercy Riffs calls for a meeting, gangs send delegates from all over the city: “We’re going in there like everybody else—nine guys and no weapons.” Cyrus plans to create one large gang to control the streets and tax the crime syndicate, but is assassinated by a rival gang leader who places blame on the Warriors, a little known gang from rundown Coney Island. When Cleon their leader is killed in retaliation, the fracturing gang soon finds itself on the run with a price on their heads.

Saul Yurick, who wrote the original novel in 1965, took Xenophon’s Anabasis out of Greek history and relocated the setting to New York City, using a single street gang to represent the famed “Ten Thousand” Greek mercenaries, and opposing gangs for Persian provinces. Director Walter Hill built on this theme. Many names (Cyrus was the leader in the original Greek account and was indeed killed) such as Cleon, and Ajax the most bloodthirsty of the gang, came from famous Greek figures.

Where the film and book differ is the attitudes and relations of the gang members themselves. Yurick’s gang (The Coney Island Dominators) is a group that is more childish and avoids rival gangs whereas in the film version, violence is the uniting factor of the Warriors, who protect one another and are clearly patterned after the Greek soldier. It’s also interesting to note that while many of the gangs are built around race and ethnicity, The Warriors representatives are equally mixed (3 black, 3 white, 1 Puerto Rican). They are a brotherhood of survival—not skin.

The film’s greatest strength is the actual location shooting in New York. From the beautiful opening shots of the Coney Island Wonder Wheel to the subway stations and dead end streets, New York City has rarely looked so lonely. Under this backdrop of disrepair we see few bystanders. Gangs and police are the only inhabitants, each fighting for control of their turf or district.

Hill does an amazing job of mixing reality with surrealism here. The garish clown-faced Furies gang, chasing the Warriors through Central Park is one of the most unnerving moments in the film. The opening montage shows all the gangs, converging on the city, cleverly inter-cutting with the Warriors subway ride. The bathroom brawl with the Night Owls is very stylized with quick cuts and slow motion that look like ballet at ninety miles an hour. We also have an unseen DJ who gives a running voice-over commentary, much like 1950’s crime films. Finally, the large gang meeting scene is completely stolen by Roger Hill as Cyrus who is electric in his few minutes of screen time. His charismatic performance is in many ways the high point of this film.

Image

This brings us to The Warriors major weakness—acting. While many of these players would later move on to better roles, much of the performances here are uneven at best. Thomas G. Waites who played Fox demanded that his name be taken off the credits. Good thing. His body language and delivery of lines are laughable and eagerly awaited by hardcore fans. There is much humor in this film—most of it unintentional. Escape From New York (1981) played with similar themes, but John Carpenter had great actors to work with, whereas the actors here were virtual unknowns. Look for a pre Too Close For Comfort Deborah Van Valkenburgh spitting out profanities like peach pits. You’ll also see Mercedes Ruehl as an undercover policewoman. No—she didn’t win that Oscar for this role. David Patrick Kelly would make a career out of playing twisted characters, and James Remar (Ajax) would later guest as Richard Wright on Sex and the City. Sentimentality and romance, which never fit the script, further dilute the movie. Many films add a romantic theme trying to get a broader cross section of fans—it doesn’t work here.

Destined never be in a top 100 (or 500!) films list, The Warriors instead defines cult cinema, by giving entertainment value, memorable lines (many I cannot quote here), and unforgettable characters. This is not a realistic view of gang life. If that’s what you want—see something else. Instead, it’s what these characters represent through Greek myth that is the true thread running through the film. The word “soldier” is used as a noun and a verb several times here. These young men fight to protect what they have and gain what they do not have. Although reviled by society, they are not that different from the corporations and politicians that use paper instead of physicality to achieve their aims. Cyrus’ dream was to bring credibility to their existence and allow them to become players in a city where corruption and greed had created one of the widest divisions between poverty and the affluent. In that light, perhaps theirs is the more honest profession when it comes to making the rent.

Image
Last edited by Mr. Arkadin on January 4th, 2008, 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
klondike

Post by klondike »

I remember traveling 30 miles to a regional cineplex to see The Warriors when it first came out, and actually encountered an uber-Christian gang with picket signs in the theatre parking lot, protesting the film and trying to dissuade moviegoers from seeing it.
One protestor got inspired to directly block my entrance to the theatre, refusing to acknowledge the urgency of my warning to clear off, and thereby received a torn placard, a broken picket-pole and a hearty shove in the chest for his obstinance.
"You're headed straight for Hell!" he called after me, tearfully.
"Wrong;" I replied over my shoulder; "I'm going to the Movies!"
8)
Mr. Arkadin
Posts: 2645
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:00 pm

Post by Mr. Arkadin »

Hi Klondike, I remember lots of theater vandalism when the film came out especially the bathrooms (don't know if this was tied to the fight scene in the john or not). There were also reportedly at least three killings in or around movie houses. I was only ten years old when this film came out, so my firsthand knowlege is a bit sketchy. Surprising how much ire this film raised as the violence factor is actually quite low (The Wild Bunch made 10 years earlier beats it by a mile).

Kudos to not being intimidated by a fire insurance salesman. I've experienced the same problems from them (I think the last time was a Stones concert) and I find the situations actually more humorous and pathetic than anything else. I was never physically touched though, and I respect protesters of all kinds as long as it's civilized and non-violent. While I am a believer in Jesus Christ, those people do not speak for me. Sounds like you got the best of the situation. Were they wimps like the Furies? :wink:

Image
Last edited by Mr. Arkadin on January 4th, 2008, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dewey1960
Posts: 2493
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 7:52 am
Location: Oakland, CA

Post by Dewey1960 »

One of the heaviest, most visually incredible films of the 70s, THE WARRIORS is a personal fave of mine. I first saw it at the Alhambra Theater in San Francisco in 1979 with a bunch of film school friends (the director, Walter Hill, was already a demi-god among film students) and the anticipation of this film was palpable. Twenty or thirty minutes into the film a vicious fight broke out in the audience and the film was stopped and cops came rushing in to quell the violence. Order was soon restored and the film resumed without further incident. But it was this very type of situation that pretty much killed this film at the box office: sudden violence in movie theaters was the kiss of death and this great film suffered for it. Another complication was the release of Phil Kaufman's gang-themed film THE WANDERERS which came out, literally, the same week as THE WARRIORS creating mucho confusion for movie-goers. As a result, both films generated meager grosses. A real shame; both films are quite spectacular in their own individual ways.
Here's the original theatrical trailer for THE WARRIORS:
[youtube][/youtube]
and here's a great scene from THE WANDERERS:
[youtube][/youtube]
Both films are available on DVD and are very highly recommended!!
Mr. Arkadin
Posts: 2645
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:00 pm

Post by Mr. Arkadin »

Cool Dewey. As a tyke (and unable to see the film), I never knew what the fuss was about in the theaters. I was only able to see the film when it came to video in the early 80's.

Here's the bathroom brawl. Notice how Snow breaks 2 (count 'em--2) baseball bats on people:




The Wanderers looks interesting as well. What was the basic outline behind the film?
User avatar
Dewey1960
Posts: 2493
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 7:52 am
Location: Oakland, CA

Post by Dewey1960 »

THE WANDERERS (1979) was based on the novel of the same name by Richard Price (the author of the incendiary CLOCKERS, which was turned into the first-rate film by Spike Lee). THE WANDERERS (both novel and film) is an episodic look at a young Bronx street gang called The Wanderers in the pivotal year of 1963. All of them are Italian and they've taken their name from the song made famous by Dion called "The Wanderer." Unlike the gang members in THE WARRIORS, these kids are etched as real flesh and blood characters dealing with reality-based concerns like unwanted pregnancies, domestic abuse and the general uncertainty of the future. The most recognizable people in the cast are Ken Wahl (who plays Ritchie, the leader of The Wanderers), Karen Allen as a mysterious girl from another neighborhood who "wanders" into Ritchie's life and Linda Manz, who was so brilliant in Terrence Malick's DAYS OF HEAVEN the year before. But everyone in the cast is perfect and it's beautifully directed by Phil Kaufman, who mixes the appropriate amount of visual pyrotechnics with deeply felt emotional honesty. The soundtrack is also fantastic; a great blend of early 60s rock and rhythm and blues.

Price's novel is readily available and I would strongly recommend it as well; it's a ferociously written book (somewhat more harsh in tone than the film) and not soon forgotten. Do yourself a favor and read the book and check out this truly wonderful film.

Here's another scene:
[youtube][/youtube]
User avatar
inglis
Posts: 207
Joined: April 24th, 2007, 11:45 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Warriors

Post by inglis »

Hi !
I was surprised to come on and see talk about this movie..I Love this movie .A friend of mine who is long gone now was a big fan of this movie.He talked and talked about it all the time .I ended up watching it with him and I thought it was really good .The different gangs and how they dressed .I loved the music too .I feel kind of silly as I am close to 50 now but back then it was popular movie with my friends and it did ressonate something inside of me ,a good memory of a beloved friend. Can you dig it :lol:
Mr. Arkadin
Posts: 2645
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:00 pm

Post by Mr. Arkadin »

Hey inglis, glad you are also a fan. I posted on this film for a couple of reasons:

1) I personally like the movie. It has loads of flaws, but I'm not one of those kinds of people who likes the term "Guilty Pleasure" which is often termed as an excuse to enjoy a less than perfect film. If I enjoy something--it doesn't have to be flawless or even make sense. It just has to entertain or connect with me on some level.

2) Although SSO mainly discusses the "Classic" film era, I think there's more than enough room to talk about all different kinds of films. I also think this attracts different types of film buffs who might be fans of The Warriors, but have never seen Way Down East (1920) or His Girl Friday (1940). We can all learn something from each other and I love the fact that this forum is filled with informative people who discuss subjects--even ones they don't agree with. Throwing something a bit different into the mix is a great way to learn more about each other as well as film and that's something I'm always open to.
User avatar
inglis
Posts: 207
Joined: April 24th, 2007, 11:45 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Post by inglis »

Mr. Arkadin wrote:Hey inglis, glad you are also a fan. I posted on this film for a couple of reasons:

1) I personally like the movie. It has loads of flaws, but I'm not one of those kinds of people who likes the term "Guilty Pleasure" which is often termed as an excuse to enjoy a less than perfect film. If I enjoy something--it doesn't have to be flawless or even make sense. It just has to entertain or connect with me on some level.

2) Although SSO mainly discusses the "Classic" film era, I think there's more than enough room to talk about all different kinds of films. I also think this attracts different types of film buffs who might be fans of The Warriors, but have never seen Way Down East (1920) or His Girl Friday (1940). We can all learn something from each other and I love the fact that this forum is filled with informative people who discuss subjects--even ones they don't agree with. Throwing something a bit different into the mix is a great way to learn more about each other as well as film and that's something I'm always open to.
Right On !
MikeBSG
Posts: 1777
Joined: April 25th, 2007, 5:43 pm

Post by MikeBSG »

I've never seen "The Warriors," but I used to be fond of Walter Hill to a degree. I think "Hard times" is very good, with fine performances by Coburn and Bronson. I liked parts of "The Long Riders," but it tried to cram too much into one movie. "southern Comfort" was probably my favorite Hill movie, although "48 Hours" was pretty good.

then he made "Streets of Fire" which was just badly thought out. It was "Blade Runner" without the intelligence. I stuck with Hill through "Extreme Prejudice" and "Last Man Standing." The only of Hill's later films that I liked was "Johnny Handsome" which was an offbeat neo-noir, odd (for neo-noir) in being more about a robbery than sexual obsession. I didn't see Hill's 90s Westerns "Geronimo" and "Wild Bill." I guess he did some work for "Deadwood."

Hill tried hard, but he just seemed out of step with his generation, and at his worst just seemed to recycle stuff that other people had done better earlier. I guess he wanted to be a second Raoul Walsh or Bill Wellman.
Post Reply