The Gauntlet : Why didn't anybody….

just shoot out the tires on the bus? They hit everything else, why not the tires?

The same thought occured to me. I know it is a movie, and the loophole was neccesary to tell the story, but I wish they hadn't used a loophole that's big enough to drive a bus through.

"Do you know what a lawman is, Crowe? He is a killer of men" Jared Maddox in "Lawman"

To repeat myself:

I'm not sure why so many people complain about a lack of "realism" in The Gauntlet when many of the action sequences are clearly orchestrated for symbolic, thematic, and aesthetic value, as opposed to pure realism. First, part of the sequence's point is to offer a symbolic spectacle (running "the gauntlet"), with cops firing on both sides of the oddly forlorn bus. Second, if the police officers killed each other, that would defeat the film's thematic purpose, in which the cops learn a lesson about mind-numbing conformity, mechanized compliance, and nihilistic indulgence. At the end of The Gauntlet, hundreds of cops mill around aimlessly, their consciousness about their own myopia and inhumanity having been newly awakened. They also now realize that corrupt authority (the police commissioner and his top assistant) had duped them into monstrous behavior. Essentially, The Gauntlet is an urban-domestic parable about the soldierly fallacy of the Vietnam War.

Besides, shooting out the tires would be a rather cheap tactic, kind of like shooting someone in the back. Remember, these guys are cops whose own machismo might prevent them from taking the easy way out or using their heads a little. That macho over-indulgence on the part of the police is a theme throughout the film, with cops constantly resorting to grossly excessive force in order to assure their ultimate, self-righteous victory. Throughout the movie, the police don't bother to think, either, instead choosing to blast away wantonly. As The Gauntlet unfolds, Ben Shockley learns a lesson about crude mechanization and brutish behavior, and eventually, so do his fellow officers.

Also consider that the Indians in Stagecoach (John Ford, 1939) never shot the horses of the stagecoach. I don't see anyone complaining about that

IF you PAY ATTENTION you see on the tires are pieces of metal plates as well. To keep them from shooting the tires out.

Actually, if you noticed, the tires were shot out and were flat by the time Eastwood drove the bus through the second police blockade. sure, the cops weren't aiming at any particular place, but with so many bullets, the tires were all hit. Trust me, I saw this movie only 4 hours ago.

Um.. no there are no metal plates on the tires except for the hubcaps.

I always wondered that. Especially the movie "War Wagon" which was essentially an armored carriage pulled by horses. It shows bullets zinging of the armor plating of the wagon, but nobody thinks to shoot the horses.

You get hung for stealing a horse back then, just imagine what would happen if you shot and killed one. Lol

*beep* you

Good point about the Vietnam allegory. I hadn't thought of that.

Also, very little of this movie is "realistic." You could equally ask: Why didn't they go after Ben and Gus in the desert, where no one would see and/or care and there would be no need to clear the streets of "innocent bystanders"? How did Ben outfit that whole bus with pig iron (from where?) in, like, 5 minutes? Why didn't any of the bus passengers and bus driver fight back, just calmly let them go on their way? I know, he had a gun, but they were all just standing around, why didn't Ben lock them up somewhere? (One lady even cheered them on!!! THAT was real realistic - not! But funny .. which was the point.)

As my Mom used to say: "It's not supposed to be REAL, it's a MOVIE."

I read in a biography of CE that where The Gauntlet was filmed the city would not allow them to shoot out the tires because the rims would damage the streets.

What the hell are you talking about? What seemed like hundreds of "cops" were shooting thousands of rounds at a bus. The only explanation for why they didn't blow out the tires (or hit the gas tank, at some point; or tip over the bus; or ram the vehicle with an armored truck; or anything else that would have actually stopped the bus) is that the movie's plot couldn't let them.

I believe some of the tires were shot out but the officers were trying to kill Shockley and his witness, not just stop the bus. They were aiming at the driver. Besides, driving as slow as he was on a city street he probably could have kept driving for a decent distance anyway. There are two tires in most places (except the front)so he could have kept driving.

The tires did get shot out, when the bus was at the steps of the court building

So why didn't anyone shoot the tires out when they first seen the bus. I'm not buying any of the explanations here so far Cops trying to make a statement buy shooting up a bus? And the pieces of metal didn't cover the whole tire. Either way it was lame and a plot hole. I've never seen Stagecoach, however, it would make sense that the natives would want the horses since they were a premium at the time.

---

I've never seen Stagecoach, however, it would make sense that the natives would want the horses since they were a premium at the time.

---

At the cost of losing men and letting the trespassing settlers go?

Again, it makes more sense to read The Gauntlet's ending in symbolic, aesthetic terms rather than "realism."

Good call on the artwork.

Yeah, that artwork is fantastic!

IIRC, there is one brief scene where two cops are discussing why they are supposed to be shooting at one of their own. I took this to be the setup for the armor on the bus being blasted but not the tires. The cops follow orders and shoot, the bus, but just not well enough to kill Clint or stop the bus. I didn't really see this as a problem, given the obvious "question authority" theme of the movie.

Passenger car tires are difficult to shoot out when moving, to say nothing of heavy duty bus tires. Most police use shotguns at close range to blow out tires, and not until the very end did any officer come within close enough range to do just that.

Originally, they were going to film it that way, and have the bare rims churning up the pavementbut the city of Pheonix wouldn't allow it.

I know that that this movie is over 30 years old, but I do not think that this excuses some of the 'plot holes' or credibility problems that struck me when watching it earlier this evening - of which the inability to burst the tyres (that is the UK spelling of the word) is just one. I don't know when those spiky chains that they lay across the road to burst tyres were invented, but there has to be a better method of stopping a bus than pouring 8,000 bullets into it.

Other problems I have with the logic and credibility include the following:-

The guy who pilots the helicopter has a simple job - to fly where the shooter inside it wants to go and not crash into mountains and giant, highly-visible electricity pylons. How he failed to avoid the pylon is beyond me! And the helicopter would have been much faster than the motorbike; when the 'bike was travelling along the highway they could have flown ahead, landed on the road and shot at it as it approached, instead of shooting it it from the air. Plus they could have made the shooter's job a lot easier by flying closer to the 'bike to make it easier for him to hit it.

When the constable in the car gets to the Arizona border the men in the cars waiting for him shoot doazens of bullets into him and his car and they drive off - why? Why did they not let him out of the car and then execute him? Why did they not bother checking that they had the right person - and the woman - in the car before, or at least after, they shot at it?

When Stockley takes the nmotorbike from the bikers, why did the bikers believe him when he told them to go away and did not simply 'jump' him - he was standing in the middle of them so he had his back to some of them? And why did most of the bikers ride off and leave three of their fellow-bikers behind? Were these three all travelling on a single bike? If there were two bikes (presumably the one that Stockley shot) why did the three bikers simply leave that behind?


When they have the shoot-out the steps of City Hall the dozens of armed police simply stand around and watch Blacklock shot Federmeyer, THEN Blacklock shoot Stockley THEN Mally shoot Blacklock - AND THEY DID NOTHING ABOUT IT!!!! They didn't even seem to react or acknowledge that it was happening. Completely unbelievable!

What I did like about the film was the gradual realisation by Stockley of his vulnerability, and how his arrogant attitude towards Mally became more sympathetic and understanding - mostly because everyone else was against her and he was against everybody else too, so by default he was on her side. Mally was the only character in the film with any intelligence - which does not say a great deal for the American police force in the 1970's. Whoever made this film must really have disliked the police!!!

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

Karen St

Happiness isn't happiness without a violin-playing goat.

First of all, Ms. Shockdale (that's the US spelling of the word ), Eastwood plays Shockley, not Stockley.

---

I don't know when those spiky chains that they lay across the road to burst tyres were invented, but there has to be a better method of stopping a bus than pouring 8,000 bullets into it.

---

I can't say when the tire deflation strips (or "Stinger," the most well-known name in the States, a.k.a Hollow-Spike Tyre Deflation System (HOSTYDS) in the UK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spike_strip) came into widespread use, but I believe it to have been somewhat after the setting of The Gauntlet. I find related patents from 1984 and 1994 (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5330285.html), among others.

I was wondering why the engine escaped along with the tires as a logical target. A bus moving at 10mph ought to be stoppable by fully-armed cops just a few yards away. You'd think.

---

And why did most of the bikers ride off and leave three of their fellow-bikers behind? Were these three all travelling on a single bike? If there were two bikes (presumably the one that Stockley shot) why did the three bikers simply leave that behind?

---

The three bikers were on two machines, namely the one Shockley shot, and the one he took. He shooed them off on foot before he drove off on the usable motorcycle. One presumes they might have seen that he was gone and then gone back immediately to survey the damage to the ruined machine, but maybe they only came back later. No reasonable person (guns or no guns) would start pushing a non-working motorcycle across miles of desert if they don't have to. These guys could come back later, say with a pickup truck. (I can also easily picture the other bikers holding up to see what happened to Spike, Big Jake, and Saffron, or whatever their names were.)

I can't explain or defend the rest of the plot holes. I'm not sure the film holds up for me. I never felt comfortable watching Ms. Locke, and while I can handle a certain amount of symbolism and parable in, say, a French film, a Hollywood pic like this presumes a basic level of logic, and it's missing for me here.

- John

because this is one of the most braindead movies of all movie history?

oh, c'mon, it's not really that bad, ya think???? really??

Clint and co could of, and should of, covered the tires with steel plates. Just like they did with the steering wheel and front seat.

Reason A) The cops were ordered to kill those on the bus.

or

Reason B) Cops can't shoot for s**t.

get shot. The cops on either side of the gauntlet on the street were untouched. No bullets ricocheted or went straight through the bus. It was a recipe for disaster from the start and what a waste of ammo.

I thought that same thing.