Cool Hand Luke Symbolism

Introduction The movie Cool Hand Luke has been analyzed, reviewed, and evaluated by critics from every perspective possible. The manner in which the film is perceived varies drastically depending on the author; some pieces written about this film are rather literal and discuss it as it appears. However, there are many analyses that consider the symbolism and religious innuendos, but these are often misunderstood or overlooked completely. Cool Hand Luke is rich in symbolism, so it is no surprise that Roger Ebert had to watch the movie a couple of times before understanding the references. The figurative meaning of films may take years to interpret and understand; this is demonstrated through Roger Ebert’s reviews on Cool Hand Luke from 1967 …show more content…
This can be attributed to the fact that the figurative meanings of some films are difficult to catch onto right away. The author of the works considers the events that occurred in the movie to be as they are, and have no deeper meaning beyond the film; a review that follows this means of analysis was written by Roger Ebert on December 3, 1967. Ebert refers to Luke as “a hero who becomes an anti-hero because he despises the slobs who worship him” and then calls the prison a “Southern chain gang”. He comments on the fact that Luke must be brave if he disrespects the prison staff and even has the courage to escape. Ebert portrays Luke as always smiling and is a cool hand because of his stunts; one of his stunts being fifty eggs to eat which Ebert expresses is a bet for money. The 1967 review states that the gang leader is “a slack-jawed hillbilly” and that he lives through Luke when he escapes the prison. The author then says that once Luke is captured and returned to the prison, he almost goes crazy from his severe punishments; he eventually begs for the staff to forgive him and the prisoners had no idea that Luke had a breaking point. In the same review, Ebert says that the prisoners stop seeing Luke as a hero at this point and that Luke’s personality vanished. For Luke’s final escape, the review presents that the gang leader was dragged along and at Luke’s …show more content…
If it is taken into account that Ebert’s second article was written on July 10, 2008 one can infer that during his time away from reviewing this film, he caught on to several of the religious symbols he previously ignored; this in turn changed his opinion of the film overall. He refers to Luke as “a willing martyr, a man so obsessed with the wrongness of the world that he invites death to prove himself correct.” Ebert introduced the rest of the characters as simply as possible; fifty prisoners in a work gang, a fierce captain, a mysterious boss, and the leader of the gang. The author then points out individual motives for actions of the characters. When Luke fights the leader of the gang and endlessly perseveres, Ebert considers that this is out of pride. The prisoners are expected to do loads of work to keep them busy while Luke teaches them ways to get their jobs done earlier; Ebert attributes this to his morals. The leader of the gang ends up becoming one of Luke’s friends, and the author says this is a result of the fight and Luke’s unwillingness to give up. At this point in the 2008 review, Ebert starts to allude to the religious aspect of the film. He says the scene in which Luke consumes fifty eggs disgusts him now, which leads him into saying that he ate fifty eggs, one for each prisoner.