Your Film Professor

Remakes/Reboots/Sequels That Need to Happen: Billy Jack (1971/73, Tom Laughlin)

Bernard pours flour on a young girl who Billy Jack says they call “God’s Little Gift to Sunshine”; he does this despicable act as a kind of mocking thing (the server won’t serve Native Americans because they are not “white”) but this moment speaks to a disturbing deeper implication, that throughout history white ideology has annihilated and/or assimilated Others (in American history, especially Native Americans); of course, in terms of “annihilation,” that means literally turning America “white”; in terms of assimilation, a “white supremacist” (Eurocentric/western) ideology has forced or coerced or indoctrinated Others (people of color, non-Eurocentric or western cultures) to adopt “white” (Christian/Protestant, capitalistic, consumerist, etc.) ideology.

I’ve read that a remake of Billy Jack (1971/73, Tom Laughlin) has been in the works for a long time, first as a Keanu Reeves project and then as a Mark Wahlberg project, but nothing so far has been born from either of these quarters. And that is surprising, considering that Billy Jack has franchise written all over it, if it is done right. That is, if the remake is turned into just another generic, shallow action pic, then it will be stillborn as most action films are these day. If it incorporates all of the timely elements that are going on today, the still oppressive attacks on Native American rights (e.g., the Standing Rock movement though that is just the most recent prominent one) and the attacks on Other vulnerable peoples (African Americans, Latinos, Muslims, LGBTQ people, women, etc.) – and very much make the counterculture element of the original Billy Jack part of its program – in other words, if it makes the film more than just an action film but rather a philosophical-political-action film, then this film remake could be an important, enduring work.

Now, let me just say that watching Billy Jack today (as I just did) is somewhat painful: The improv skits the students put on are not very funny (at least not for me they weren’t!) and feel awkwardly drawn out (and there are too many of them!); and the sudden shifts between lightheartedness and very dark are far from seamless, often jarring. (For example, I hate that moment when Bernard is astonished that Martin is shooting back at them, verbalized in a way that almost seems amusing, but then when we get a later cut back to what happened, Martin has been brutally murdered, a jarring rupture of at least my expectations of what was going to happen, what I thought the film was setting me up for, a harmless conclusion of this unnecessary conflict.) Perhaps most painful is how the film purports to emphasize Native American culture but then largely relegates Native American culture and philosophy to the margins, not to mention that white actors fill up most of the prominent roles in the film.

However, despite the film’s weaknesses, I would argue that the film still has something that makes it special, especially in terms of the film’s focus on Otherness, where its real power lies. Yes, its marginalization of Native American culture in the film (really just played as part of Billy’s narrative, as a way to make him mythical or even otherworldly I think) would seem to negate its seeming primary Otherness element; however, I would argue that the film also uses Native American culture as a way of cohering a “hippie” (bohemian) Otherness defined by an Earth centered spirituality and via just a general break from the dominant social order, replaced by an alternative (counterculture) sensibility that includes a real “freedom” to explore one’s identity according to nature and not according to a dominant social order ideology (e.g., white supremacy, Christianity/Protestantism, capitalism, patriarchy, hypermasculinity, etc.). Add in that the deeper Otherness focus is centered around still radical ways of being for us even today, including pacifism, creativity, multiculturalism, acceptance of differentness, egalitarianism, and gender equality. And that becomes the locus for where a remake could be amazing.

Despite lauding the film’s many progressive elements, a lot of critics (Leonard Maltin, Roger Ebert, et all) suggested that the film suffered because of its seeming major contradiction, a film that purported to be about anti-violence and anti-war and yet used the character Billy Jack as a means to an end, violently taking on the local corrupt big wig and his son in the film. However, in my view, I think Tom Laughlin used the action genre as a way to get his deeper altruistic message in front of audiences. Moreover, the character of Billy Jack himself was, for me anyway, a thoroughly compelling character, a character whose background suggests violence (he is a former Green Beret who fought in Vietnam) but who dearly wants to embrace the counterculture way of pacifism and a spirituality infused by his love of nature (in the striking opening sequence, we see Billy save wild mustangs from being killed by local power broker Stuart Posnar/Bert Freed, who wants to sell the mustangs to a company that makes dog food) and a way of life where altruism is a core way of being. In the most dramatic scenes we can visually see Billy’s raging internal battle, between his rising rage and his desire to contain that rage, still that rage, not possible in a world that cruelly and unjustly degrades and oppresses Others. Further, the film itself explores this dichotomy between pacifism/harmony of self and violence/alienation of self with the duality of the pacifist Jean (Delores Taylor) and her peace and harmony counterculture school and Billy Jack himself, the former stressing the desire for what humanity can be — a utopian society defined by pacifism, egalitarianism, altruism, and creativity — and the latter (e.g., Billy Jack) representing the present understanding of how a violent, predatory, mercenary world just won’t allow such a state of being, truly, the existential bind for many of us.

In short, a remake should emphasize all that this film explores but doesn’t fully realize — breaking down the self/Other dynamic (perhaps updating the Other to include present day prominent vulnerable Others) — but also going further in exploring the utopian potential of humanity. That is, to my mind, the film could be incredibly radical — and thus I would argue strike a nerve for today’s alienated society — by actually going for it and eschewing a “Eurocentric” (Western) ideology for a Native American/counterculture way of being. Such an alternative sensibility would include an Earth centered (versus human or God centered) way of being where everything we do centers around doing what is best for the planet and humanity, not a capitalistic way of being where the priority is on an unsustainable drive for profit, growth and expansion; an anti-violence/anti-war sensibility; and all of those other progressive ingredients for such a utopian sensibility, e.g., sustainability, environmentalism, egalitarianism, creativity/social justice art, altruism, gender equality, multiculturalism, and a classless, non-monetary system.

And one last thing: For goodness sake give the star role to a Native American actor and let a Native American director direct the film.