Charles Burnett’sKiller of Sheepis a criminally under-seen piece of independent American cinema that spent the majority of its life completely inaccessible to moviegoers.Killer of Sheephas unfortunately suffered a fate similar to other overlooked independent films likeHala,Knives and Skin, orLuce. And yet, it’s a film whose reputation precedes it, with its accolades piling up taller than any picture with its decades-long unavailability could possibly expect. Frequently topping lists of the most important works of independent cinema, the movie was placed among the best American films ever made by aBBC poll of critics and filmmakers, and it’s easy to see why. Beyond its well-deserved praise, the movie is a masterclass in the possibilities of filmmaking that remains just as potent as it was upon its initial release.
Shot on a shoestring budget of $10,000,Killer of Sheepis a testament to how much can be accomplished with minimal costs. Without a large budget to bulk up its production, Burnett’s film relies on the fundamentals of filmmaking, and it utilizes them to express something wholly poignant. In terms of production costs, it helps that Burnett handled nearly every aspect of the production himself, writing, directing, producing, and editing the film while also serving as its cinematographer. Burnett’s mastering of all trades aligns with the DIY-ethos of independent auteur filmmaking.
RELATED:The Best Indie Movies on Netflix Right Now
Unfortunately for movie lovers, the film didn’t receive a wide release due to Burnett’s inability to license the music rights for the film. They were eventually purchased in 2007 for $150,000 in order for the film to finally receive a release to wider audiences. The high cost of the musical licensing makes sense, since many of the needle drops feature superstars of the music world, withLouis Armstrong,Dinah Washington, andEarth, Wind, and Fireplaying alongside classical composersSergei RachmaninoffandGeorge Gershwin. Burnett’s diverse selection of tunes works to help convey the movie’s wide pallet of emotions. It also serves as a bridge between the “high” and “low” cultures, just as the film itself works to combine classical filmmaking techniques with contemporary themes.
Even though attempting a traditional plot synopsis is futile, it can be vaguely summarized that the movie follows Stan (Henry Gayle Sanders), a slaughterhouse worker and father to two children, and his wife (Angela Burnett) as they live their everyday life in a low-income Los Angeles neighborhood. When not working on household tasks and planning to fix his unreliable car, Stan earns his wage by slaughtering sheep and stringing up their dead bodies for processing. It’s a gruesome, thankless job that few would choose had they a better option. He has little choice in the matter, and at the end of the day he has little to show for his hard work. Around him, his neighbors work on finding ways to make a quick buck, even occasionally attempting to recruit him into their business. Invariably, he turns them down. He’s too honest of a person, even if his honesty keeps him stuck exactly where he is.
Somewhere near the middle ofKiller of Sheep, two of Stan’s acquaintances approach him for help with a revenge killing that would help earn him some cash. Many films would use this beat as an opportunity to progress the plot or steer it in a different direction, butKiller of Sheepresists. It’s a plot point that doesn’t return. This isn’t that type of movie. It isn’t about the dramatic, life-altering events that some may choose in an attempt to escape the futility of their efforts—it’s about the efforts themselves, and it’s about everything in between. Burnett’s decision to strip the film of traditional plot beats predates the laid-back, aimless narratives ofJim JarmuschandRichard Linklater. Though things remain captivating for the trim runtime of 83 minutes, there really isn’t much that ever happens. Its characters simply exist, working to get by and living in the meanwhile. Burnett serves up a slice of life where every day, typical occurrences are the focus. Those expecting instances of particular drama will be left insatiate. Instead, the audience is presented with a series of low-key vignettes whose meaning lies deep beneath the surface.
The film skillfully shifts back and forth between Stan, his friends, and the children of the neighborhood who have seemingly little to occupy their time. The kids partake in dirt-clod battles and dangerously jump from rooftop to rooftop with no adult supervision in sight. Where are their parents, and why aren’t they watching them? Presumably, they’re all like Stan, too busy working to scrape by to have the time to check on them. It’s difficult not to look at Burnett’s skillful juxtaposition of the old with the young and see a statement being made: it’s far too probable that these kids will grow up with equally little opportunity as their parents. It’s a vicious cycle that can’t be escaped, and Stan’s efforts are only enough to survive.
At one point in the film, one of Stan’s friends comments on him never having money. “I ain’t poor,” Stan retorts, and he continues to make a distinction between him and another man in the neighborhood who eats “nothing but wild greens picked out of a vacant lot”. This exchange shows Burnett’s knack for comedic writing, but it also serves as a crucial point that the film makes. Stan is a man who takes pride in his ability to make an honest living though a regular job, but at the end of the day he isn’t left with much beyond his ability to keep his family fed and alive. The characters seem to be running on a metaphorical treadmill, only able to stay where they are and avoid falling off.
It’s clear that his inability to escape the class struggle gets to him. He struggles to connect emotionally to his wife. She asks him why he never smiles anymore, and he doesn’t seem to have a good answer to her. Yet, as devoted asKiller of Sheepis to its portrayal of an aimless struggle is, it isn’t cynical enough to refrain from portraying moments of joy. Towards the end of the film is a scene in which Stan and his wife dance slowly and passionately to Dinah Washington’s “This Bitter Earth”. Later, Stan has a tender moment of parental intimacy with his young daughter. They’re moments of tremendous beauty tucked amongst much futility and unhappiness. Burnett wants us to understand that these are ordinary people,entirely capable of love, joy, and beauty.
Stan and his family are the narrative focus, but there are plenty of secondary characters who contribute to the life of the film, with a credited cast list of over 70 names. Influenced by the gritty verisimilitude of Italian neorealism movement and the early films ofSatyajit Ray,Killer of Sheeputilizes nonprofessional (or at the very least, mostly unknown) actors. The lack of a recognizable star lends a particular believability to the film. It would be easy to believe that the film is a documentary. The verisimilitude accomplished by the amateur actors assists in the movie’s point of portraying real people living real lives without the melodramatic plot beats of fictional narratives.
Like the Italian neorealists, Burnett uses his film to make a statement about a section of society. Instead of postwar Italy, he looks on with sympathy and humanity on life in an inner-city Los Angeles neighborhood, where many of its residents are only able to skim by but continue to persevere nonetheless. It’s a life of misery and difficulty but also of joy, happiness, beauty, and humor. The film takes place in the ’70s, but it could just as easily take place today. Its intent remains the same. Its message is timeless, and viewers in the modern age are likely to be just as affected. The struggles portrayed inKiller of Sheepcontinue to exist today, and Burnett’s film is as effective as ever.
Killer of Sheepis a film that’s likely to have a lasting influence for years to come.David Gordon Greentook much inspiration for his debutGeorge Washington.Hip-hop artistMos Defused a tinted still from the roof-jumping sequence for his 2009 album “The Ecstatic”. Beyond its influence, though,Killer of Sheepis a work that shows the magnificent potential of what a film can be. Like the greatest artworks, what any bit of it symbolizes is up for interpretation. The slaughtered sheep, the building-leaping, the broken-down car, all of it lends meaning to the film’s greater intent. One can analyze what each of them means, but Burnett leaves it all open-ended enough for viewers to gather their own meaning for each specific symbol. It’s a complex work filled with layers of meaning and symbolism, with plenty to ponder once the credits roll.
One can hope that generations of young filmmakers will seeKiller of Sheepand feel inspired to make something of their own. Charles Burnett proved that it’s possible to do it on a modest budget. The result of his labors is something magnificent: a deceptively simple film with a passionately-beating heart at its core. It shows that sometimes cinema doesn’t need any action, any technological effects, any big-name stars to carry the weight. Sometimes it needs only the bare essentials—and an artist to lead it along—to create something profound.
