When Clint Eastwood uttered the now famous lines, “Do you feel lucky? Well, do you, punk?” in the polarizing, landmark 1971 cop drama Dirty Harry, he might as well have been talking to himself, minus punk, as he enters another interesting phase of his storied career.
Gran Torino, which opens this December in limited release and wider in January, has been receiving mostly positive reviews as it makes its premiere rounds with the usual critics. The particular emphasis now is on Eastwood the actor, in his first starring role since 2004’s Million Dollar Baby, and also rumored to be his last thespian effort.
Eastwood’s acclaim owes much to his directorial efforts: Unforgiven (1992) and Million Dollar Baby (2004) won him two Oscar awards for Best Director and Best Picture, and Mystic River (2005) and Letters From Iwo Jima (2006) garnered Best Picture and Director nominations as well. He is reputed never to shout or disrupt his actors when directing, keeps his set relatively calm and focused, and delivers his films under budget and with great speed.
Being a lifelong fan of Eastwood, the actor, has been no easy task for me, personally. The stereotype he virtually created — laconic, lean, mean, mysterious, and anonymous — has been particularly hard to defend against nonsensical accusations (especially from vicious personal friends out to hurt my feelings) painting Eastwood as a lazy actor. I always argue that he acts in terms of gesture and economy of dialogue, but that is another story altogether.
I have mixed feelings about why critics get to see a movie like this before I do, but in large part due to Ben Stiller’s terrific Tropic Thunder, I can accept the logic easier now. The film is obviously up for the Academy’s consideration, and there is always this drawn out process of taking out ads and lobbying for votes. Releasing two pictures this year in the late fall has been the same strategy that Eastwood employed in 2006 (Letters from Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers), the other film being a directorial effort, The Changeling, starring Angelina Jolie.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Nebraska
I don't think the writer (and many other people)understands --that Clint may not be that far away, emotionally and psychologically, from the characters he plays--in providing us these wonderful "Vignettes" of life...
Perhaps he doesn't just care enough for an Oscar--such as to Pimp or Prostitute himself in order to achieve a Petty figurine ??? Maybe the Academy ought to stop trying to figure him out --and just enjoy his work..??
Maybe in telling and unfurling a well-developed story --that process is his goal --rather than the "Back-end" of Fame and awards ?
You would do well in Exploring the Psyche of "Everyman"--as Simple, Pragmatic, real, authentic, inspiring individuals --rather than a series of vain artificial caricatures ---just like his characters actually do.
Like "Everyman", it is apparent that Eastwood --who hopes his body of work will speak for itself--in Eastwood's case, whether it's acting, Directing, Jazz, etc.
His next movie could be about a Garbage Man...and I'd know Eastwood would be making it for the story--not the Glory. The story is the Art Form.
There is "News"....and there is "Noise". Clint knows the difference.
Unless, you have been unfairly kicked in the teeth and persevered against idiots and crooks holding you "down", you will never understand "Everyman"...and what Clint is about.
I would like Forrest Whittaker to be able to develop "Everyman" --from the Black perspective--(and stick Spike Lee back with the artificial Punks "with attitude").
Hopefully movie Producers will back Mr Whittaker. He has a similar gift...as Eastwood.
Nebraska
2 - zingzing
i saw this. and clint isn't going to beat sean penn. it's just not that kind of a movie. there are plenty of serious moments in it, but it's somewhat light-hearted in a lot of ways--especially the ways that the academy considers, i guess. clint's character is too easily likable, even though he still utters loads of racial epithets and acts like a cocky son of a bitch all the time.
that said there are a few scenes that are so kick ass, i would bet the academy might be scared into a nomination. probably not a win though.
3 - Clarence Yu
@Nebraska:
I might not completely understand what Clint stands for, but perhaps nobody will, in a way that no one can really overanalyze to the extent of saying that he can understand someone through in and through out.
I came to understand Eastwood from two perspectives. But what attracted to him first was the same notion of your "Everyman" model. His style of acting. From many things I've inferred from reading everything I could get on about him. I've been following him a while back, but I can't say I've had the privilege of meeting him. The closest I came was at Mission Ranch where he walked in once to check on something, which was too quick as he walked out quickly after he came in.
You can include Ken Watanabe to the list you started with Forest Whitaker. I think Clint's style is very Asian influenced, at least in the economic sense. Whether it's naturally predisposed to him or something he learned along the way in his career, I don't know, but throw that in with his love for Jazz, which is passive music but totally expressing at the same time, and you get an idea...
I would dare to say that he wouldn't mind a statuette. If not for the fame, just for himself...just like Everyman would, for Everyman is also just human.
Thanks
Clarence
4 - Nebraska
Clarence:
Thank you for your comments.
I would agree with your selection of Mr Watanabe, as a very capable actor to carry off "Everyman". Ken has that "look/feel".
While I don't know the precise answer as to your afinity for Clint--I would suggest that Eastwood's "Paucity and economy of movement", may remind you of Asian actors/actresses. He certainly appears to be cerebral, composed, analytical, and pondering--before exploding into a focused and controlled attack on a "largess infused Antagonist". There indeed, is something mystical/ Spiritual about Eastwood's style--especially when viewed from the "Everyman" perspective. It is very reminiscent of Judo.
The statuette is not the Grail..the "Grail" is the journey and the inner truth and maintained integrity to that truth..that drives the man.
However, you are correct--we are all Human--with a Primitive need to/ for seeking validation on some level or another.
Some of us, consciously eschew those forms of validation--which demand too great of a price on Inner truth.
Hollywood does not praise that --which does not praise and "render" to Hollywood.
Something quite vaguely near, "Caesar like"..in that last notion.
Maybe the final analysis is that Clint declines to "render"--he prefers to create ??
The goal of "Everyman"..
Thanks for the thought provoking entreaty. I look forward to Gran Torino ...and more of your thoughts.
Nebraska
5 - Clarence Yu
Dear Nebraska,
Thanks for your comments. They are thought provoking, to say the least, and insightful to those who already appreciate and to those who may want to understand Clint's work on a deeper level.
Rip Torn (or was it James Garner) once mentioned in a documentary on Clint that it was his "physical strength" that made him confident and calm. Enables him to work in such a way that allows his mind to continuously "think."
I read somewhere in the biography of Reagan (Dutch) that "actors remember forward, not backward...in the sense that screen actors who are on the go are always looking for that next job, memorizing the next lines of dialogue and therefore have little time to actually remember in specific terms what had transpired during their last "shoot." But after doing this for quite a while, a kind of "crystallization" or realization will happen and the actor starts to remember on a more abstract level.
I think this is what happened to Clint during his "Rawhide" years. Day in day out he was that kind of actor, bored on the set, memorizing dialogue, being in the grind, but that probably proved to be an invaluable lesson for him. When he came out in the Italian westerns, he wanted a change.
This shows up in his later work, the spirit of being patient and calm on the outside but occasionally (but very pre-planned) punctuated with outbursts. In a way, very jazz-like in improvisation. Do your homework very well. In my mind, Clint does it all in his head. So I would agree that he is very cerebral, as you mentioned. There is something always "stewing" at the back of his mind while he is doing something present.
Add this to a crew (Malpaso) that has been with him for years, and they probably almost instinctively know what he's going to think or do next on a film set. In that sense, he can also be called a good organizer and leader, but of course, he wouldn't want to even be labelled as that, much more or less anything else. He once said in a magazine interview somewhere (I forget the magazine)---"Sure, acting is a work of art---but so is plumbing." A sure sign of contrived? humility on his part, but definitely a sign that he does not want to be recognized just yet, until he is gone from us.
Just random thoughts, but I really appreciate your correspondence, Nebraska.
Thanks
Clarence
6 - Nebraska
Clarence:
The article (and quote)is from Esquire.
Here is more below. Not that Esquire has the corner of the Block on Eastwood--but it is illuminating...nonetheless.
*********************
We were doing In the Line of Fire, and John Malkovich was on top of the building, and he has me in a real precarious situation. My character is crazed and he pulls out a gun and sticks it into John's face, and John puts his mouth over the end of the gun. Now, I don't know what kind of crazy symbol that was. We certainly didn't rehearse anything like that. I'm sure he didn't think about it while we were practicing it. It was just there. Like Sir Edmund Hillary talking about why you do anything: Because it's there. That's why you climb Everest. It's like a little moment in time, and as fast as it comes into your brain, you just throw it out and discard it. Do it before you discard it, you know?
It keeps coming back to "We've come this far, let's not ruin it by thinking."
You look at Velázquez in his dark years and you wonder, How the hell did he get that way? I'm sure he didn't say to himself, "I'm in my dark period right now, so I'm going to paint this way." He just did it. That's when real art gets a chance to come into play.
*********************
Art comes about (to Clint) when you try not to force it--or are paralyzed by Psychological Thought...You just do it !
"Everyman" feels that this is a "Pussy Generation". His characters and films --especially "Gran Torino" reflect that.
It arises from a Guttural/Primal motivation of experience --that does not lend itself to easy verbalization--the connection is experiential.
Have a good day.
Bob
7 - Clarence Yu
Hi Bob,
I just read the article a few minutes ago.
"We've come this far---don't ruin it by thinking." is what struck me the most.
The assumption however is that you have the instinct to do it, again, based on years of hacking away at it.
Thanks for sharing
Clarence
8 - Nebraska
Clarence:
Saw it again. Tonite.
I was struck by the sheer number of "tension contrasts" built into these characters.
Age (Old v. Young), religion ( Catholic v. Lutheran), culture (directness v. submissiveness)Location (an American in Asia fighting v. an Asian in America trying not to fight),Spouses (Mrs Kowalski strong Catholic v. Walt-Lapsed Catholic---ironically the Priest really changed the most of anyone) Gender ( Strong willed, but clumsy American daughters,etc v. quiet, but adroit Asian women), Perspective ( American kids grandkids view Walt as doddering v. Asians view Elders and Walt as wise and venerable)
etc.
Don't know why the Contrasts were not seen as much previously--I guess it was Clint's sneer and derogatory language....??
Sorry Clint didn't win the statue. I've also seen Milk--but I think Gran Torino was more intimate and revealing...and Clint was definitely the reason.
Bob