I believe "The Untouchables" was a gangster movie starring Sean Connery and Kevin Costner.

Perhaps the movie referred to in the article is "The Unforgiven", a western starring Clint Eastwood and Gene Hackman.

I love the originality of this review. It speaks to an honesty that is often not present in depictions of a left-right view of the world, to the hypocrisies that course through both sides. Eastwood is clearly on the side of thoughtful consideration about the complex meaning of being human, and how willing we are to face our contradictions. Contradictions that exist for example, in the religious right's fervent belief in right-to-life while at the same time zealously endorsing the death penalty...and then there's the left...and our pretense of niceness, a kind of self-righteous timidity that tempers our true force and betrays our real values.

Yes of course, the first film of the trilogy was "The Unforgiven."

An excellent film I thought. And your observation about Gary Cooper and Eastwood was very insightful.

And then there's Lynn's insight into the left. A really good one, woman. Really good.

"Acts of contrition"? Of his entire oeuvre, the only one that is more or less clearly self-referential is Bronco Billy, the story of a shoe salesman who dreamt himself a circus cowboy. A less polemical filmmaker than Eastwood could scarcely be imagined. Eastwood is attracted to material of all sorts. He's done science fiction adventure with "Firefox" and "Space Cowboys," romance with "Bridges of Madison Cowboy," kinky thrillers with "Play Misty For Me" and "Tightrope," military action with "Heartbreak Ridge," buddy action with "The Rookie" and the orangutan movies, and of course westerns and cop flicks.

If he's a foremost example of anything, it would be "thrifty businessman," having set up Malpaso largely out of disgust with the budgetary excesses he observed on "Where Eagles Dare." Given the staggering diversity of material put out by his company, the most consistent theme you can point to is that his shoots are famously disciplined and generally well under budget.

As a critic, I understand the temptation to pluck out a consistent trope to the work of a particular director, but in Eastwood you have one of the least cooperative examples of auteurism.

For far more obvious examples of current Hollywood directors who use the consequences of violence to repudiate the white-hat mentality, consider Martin Scorsese (Taxi Driver, Casino, Goodfellas, Gangs of New York), or the underrated Paul Verhoeven (especially Flesh and Blood, Robocop, and Starship Troopers).

Lynn - your remark about the self-defeating timidity of the left is something that's always bugged me. For a musical examination of this theme, check out "Fight Test" by The Flaming Lips.

I don't like to see the right to life mixed with the death penalty.

When someone rapes a girl repeatedly, then tortures her a bit and finally puts a gun in her mouth and shoots her ... i don't have any trouble with the state executing him.

He made his choices and now there are consequences.

Whereas one who can not speak for themselves, one who has done no outrageous act against another, it is these ones the right for lifers speak for. Someone else is deciding whether an innocent one can live or die.

I think they are very distinct groups.

I am waiting for the day when everyone over the age of 72 will be greatly encouraged to end it all with a simple injection. The reasoning will be so simple. After all you are a drain on society. Wouldn't you really like to end it all now? Look at the world population. There are limited resources in this world. Do the right thing. Don't be selfish.

I can see the possibility of that scenario coming and no one being terribly upset with it.

Man who said he could never fly continues in a tailspin descent.

Eastwood's contrition films don't cut it with me having had a sibling shot to death by a fan of mindless violence of the kind Eastwood is famous for celebrating. (I Think I once saw him shoot twenty-eight guys out in the desert somewhere--on film, of course.) Why Fellman's elevated him to philosopher-auteur is beyond me. The guy's a businessman, eh. He made his first fifty mill making stupid films and his second pretending that he's sorry.

I haven't seen it yet...

So I've skipped the article and all the comments (a first for that), and I'd better go to another thread now... hi Coyote!

It is interesting though that Eastwood in these films could have gone for the "Rocky" moment, the one George Bush plays to and counts on - crowds cheering on their feet, music ignites, and the american spirit once again prevails. America the Good triumphs over all that stands in it's way.

In a more radical move he brings the focus down to the simple human element where individual choice and it's more difficult grey areas must battle the grand but simplistic arena where George Bush and the religious right reign.

Anyway, that's The Tyee for you, somehow I've found myself defending Clint Eastwood films and listening to The Flaming Lips. (Thanks Yammer, I found their website, great song.) All the same, I enjoyed Fellman's review and it's orginal take.

that should "original" take

Hi,lynn. Seems we disagreed on this one but I always read your comments because I know you're going to write something interesting. So anyway...I thought I'd mention that "it's" is an abbreviated form of "it is" and "its" signifies possession, as in "its original take" and "its way". This is not to be critical or smartass. (I have a lot of free time) I bet you could pick out errors in my comments, too. Heaven knows, I often do after it's too late.

Lynn - which Rocky? Rocky lost in "Rocky." His victory is that he was able to hang in there with Apollo Creed, winning his respect and his own self-respect. Stallone didn't invent a winner, but a survivor, inspired by Chuck "The Bleeder" Wepner, the boxer known for leading with his face.

Okay, now for my own acts of contrition: Truman, I stand corrected on the "its", my typing is even worse than my punctuation! (notice my correction on my correction). I am not disagreeing with you on the violence of Eastwood's previous movies, only that I do agree with Michael Fellman that he has become an interesting director for his shift of focus towards a closer and more revealing study of the human choices we make as they come up against the stridency of certainty as embodied in ideology and religion.

Aside from that, and just based on nothing more than woman's intuition, the little I've seen of Eastwood in interviews, he seems so totally self-effacing, with an outsider's generosity of spirit, that I think his contrition is genuine. Why can't we change, evolve in another direction after all?...Anyway, I believe him, quite a lovely man, I think.

Yammer: Another mea culpa from me and the day is not even over. You are right, I am wrong. I was really just thinking of that "winning" crowd scene you see a thousand times in american movies, the waving of the flag for the american dream, and somehow Rocky popped into my head and evidently stayed there. I actually liked that movie a lot. You're sure Rocky Balboa lost?:-) It is Balboa isn't it?:-)Never go up against a movie reviewer...

Lynn - Don't apologize! I am a film geek! With a big mouth! Don't be like me!!!

As for "feminist" themes in Eastwood's work, I think we can see them as early as The Beguiled and The Outlaw Josey Wales. He does seem like a cultured and reasonable fellow at times, but then there's his jocular threat to kill Michael Moore, and all of those ex wives. They might think he was a bit of a prick!

Hi lynn. I must lead a very karmic life. After correcting your its and it's I made the same mistake in another thread, and had to correct myself. Anyway, I think you're naive on Eastwood, eh. I think he's a phony.

To Truman Green:

I think that was Bruce Willis.....

From the article:

It's not so much the religious right believes all life should be preserved, as the RR is much in favour of military "solutions". It's just that the RR believes death should be more of a "crapshoot", where one has a chance, however small, of surviving.