Killer Of Sheep Psychology

550 Words2 Pages

For many years director Charles Burnett’s 1978 debut film Killer of Sheep was considered a lost masterpiece. The film about a slaughter house workers’ melancholy life in Los Angeles' Watts district received critical acclaim upon its initial screenings. Burnett was awarded a Guggenheim Foundation Fellowship, a grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the film was one of the first 50 films entered in the National Film Registry for its historical importance by the Library of Congress in 1990. But the film never saw a public release because Burnett never sought to acquire the rights to the songs in the film’s soundtrack. According to an interview with the New York Times in 2007 Burnett stated this was because “It was never meant to be shown in public,” and so for three decades that was the case. A work of art captured on poor quality 16mm film, lost in obscurity and buried under legal red tape. Then, in the year 2000, the film began its slow resurgence from darkness towards the light of public projectors. That year the UCLA Film and Television Archive began restoring the film to higher quality 35mm print. From there it would take 7 more years, a mom …show more content…

The film exists only to depict the life of its characters, and the real-world cultures they represent. Going beyond the stripped-down elements of Italian neorealism Killer of Sheep is completely lacking in plot and character arc. So, what do we learn as we follow family man and slaughter house worker Stan (Henry G. Sanders) through a series of capricious events that include buying (and immediately breaking) a car engine, being solicited to help commit a murder and slow dancing shirtless with his nameless wife (Kaycee Moore)? It’s that life is capricious, it can be sad, and sometimes blissful. That’s the truth explored in all films touched by the reaches of

Open Document