How Charles Burnett’s “Killer of Sheep” Helps Redefine The Black Spectacle

When one thinks of the word, “spectacle,” there are a plethora of films from the 1970s that live up to the title. This particular era was ripe with experimentation, and with the birth of Star Wars in 1977 being among the most popular, it is easy to assume things like booming soundtracks, wild special effects, and snappy dialogue are what make up a truly spectacular film. It is also important to note that this time brought about much controversy as studios began implementing an official rating system and films like Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1973) introduced a new wave of intense, graphic, and at times exploitative material to the general public’s easily accessible hands. It should be no surprise the Blaxploitation movement cropped up at this time, which showcased Black People in a way that certainly created a spectacle from – rather than through – Blackness. Luckily, the L.A. Rebellion brought their own spectacles, but Charles Burnett does a secret third thing and redefines what the spectacle through a black lens can look like to different audiences.

Eric Schaefer’s, Bold! Daring! Shocking! True!, defines spectacle as, “anything presented to fascinate the eye of the spectator… Spectacle invariably exerts an immediate, affective response in the spectator” (Kenna, 206).

Many films from the 70s tried to make themselves larger than life; this often meant showing things that, up until then, had been considered much too explicit for the big screen. Subjects that had previously been too taboo for film were suddenly given not only a spotlight, but a closeup. Sex scenes were raunchier, fight scenes were bloodier, and soundtracks were booming. However, for those who remember the Blaxploitation era, this drive for the extreme did not stop here. Films like Shaft and Sweetback were heralded for their leading roles, giving black people a story in which they go up against the white man and win. Black characters were given sex appeal, snappy one liners, and the final bullet. For many moviegoers, both black and white, these flashy action films were truly spectacular.

“What you find with a lot of these action films…” Says Historian Todd Boyd, “Are figures who come from the lowest rung of society and who use their knowledge of the streets to outsmart any and everybody they come into contact with” (22:24-22:37).

However, this is not to say these films did not have their fair share of backlash. Many criticized the films for leaning into black stereotypes. Black men were often seen as mean and violent outlaws of some kind, with their female counterparts usually portrayed as sexually deviant. It is also important to note that many of these films, while boasting a mostly black cast, often had crews that were mainly white, causing a distinction between subject and artist. The spectacle, in this case, is not the prevailing of blackness, but rather the presence of blackness itself.

Many filmmakers in the L.A. Rebellion sought out to change this by making films in which the spectacle is not blackness, but rather through a black lens. Many of these films carried similar themes as the Blaxploitation pictures – poverty, addiction, crime, abuse, etc. – but these things are often treated as inherent aspects of the narrative rather than a taboo birthed from Blackness. The “spectacle” of these films are unique because they trust that their audiences already understand the reality of these subjects. 

Charles Burnett’s Killer of Sheep takes this a step further by subverting the spectacle completely onto the audience.

“It was a response to those films with a romanticized social-realist plot…” Burnett explains in an interview, “There were historical problems keeping people down that needed to be addressed more than the middle-class view of their needs…” (White and Cox, Slaughterhouse Blues).

Burnett points towards Italian Neorealism as inspiration, a film movement that is famous for its unflinching depiction of reality and deep rooted sympathy for its characters – two themes that are not often associated with each other. The ways that Burnett goes about presenting an unmanipulated reality are done with a great sense of empathy; much of the crew was made up of the kids seen on screen or whoever showed up to help, which is later made obvious with the film’s audio and camera quality. Part of Burnett’s goal in making Killer of Sheep was to “demystify” filmmaking to those in the community, another nod towards his commitment to education over entertainment (White and Cox, Slaughterhouse Blues).

Despite the film’s “shotty” quality, Killer of Sheep is a beautiful ode to the L.A. neighborhood of Watts that claims no business in explaining itself; rather, Burnett built a contemplative piece in the same way the children of the junkyard built a “house” from spare pieces of wood. In doing so, he proves there is no spectacle to be had in the collective suffering of a community, but instead the audience that watches from outside of it.

Killer of Sheep is, at its very core, a film for and by the people of Watts, making it self-contained by nature. Burnett can be quoted in saying that he had no intentions of the film having any kind of theatrical, let alone commercial release. The characters do not actively struggle to leave this bubble, but the narrative certainly suggests it; we see this in the laborious, built-up destruction of the car battery, and later in the breakdown of the car itself when the family attempts to leave for vacation. These events are only treated as setbacks by an outside audience who is searching for resolution. To those it affects, it is simply what is happening in that moment, and no more dramatic than children at play or adults at work.

Killer of Sheep is interesting not because it presents a spectacle for an audience, but because it creates a spectacle from the audience. The violation of an outsiders’ perspective is palpable; it feels almost voyeuristic to consume the casual suffering of someone who doesn’t even seem to realize their own pain. And yet, even this statement feels patronizing. The audience is looking for resolution where there is none. To say the children aren’t aware they are playing amongst literal debris, to say Stan is blind to his family’s unhappiness, is to take away the autonomy Killer of Sheep fights so hard to establish. Instead, Burnett’s film highlights the spectacle of an outsider looking in, of offering solutions to an impression of a community, rather than reality of one.

Works Cited

Lawrence, Novotny., et al. Beyond Blaxploitation. Wayne State University Press, 2016.Burnett, Charles. “'Killer of Sheep' Press Clips.” Killer of Sheep - a Film by Charles Burnett - Reviews, https://www.killerofsheep.com/reviews.html.

Martin, Michael T, and Eileen Julien. “Interview: Charles Burnett—Consummate Cinéaste.” Black Camera, vol. 1, no. 1, 2009, pp. 143–170., https://doi.org/10.2979/blc.2009.1.1.143.

Movshovitz, Howie. “Long-Lost Classic 'Killer of Sheep' Hits Theaters.” NPR, NPR, 29 Mar. 2007, https://www.npr.org/2007/03/29/9213673/long-lost-classic-killer-of-sheep-hits-theaters.

Reelblack, director. YouTube, YouTube, 4 Mar. 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5wxY6iSSL4. Accessed 5 Feb. 2023.

White, Armond, and Alex Cox. “Charles Burnett on Killer of Sheep.” BFI, BFI, 8 Apr. 2022, https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/interviews/slaughterhouse-blues-charles-burnett-killer-sheep.