lower you expectations and stop typecasting

wow. you would think that someone who tries to be a movie reviewer would have to know at least a few basic things about life.

living with high expectations and expecting everything and everyone to continue to be as you've always perceived them is a surefire recipe for becoming a bitter old crone or curmudgeon. much like the lead character, that is what is the main problem with the above review.

i went into this film with no particular expectations and, by the end of it, was impressed. the reviewer, apparently, went in with expectations for it to be exactly like all her favorite eastwood movies from over the years and thus set herself up, yet again, for disappointment

there wasn't a shred of self-pity in this one. more than anything, it was a story of a atonement. an issue with which the reviewer seemingly has had no direct experience.

i "hope" the reviewer, in 2009, will learn to "change" all unrealistic expectations, take people at face value as individuals, and cease to be locked into outmoded ways of experiencing all that is around her.

"yes we can"

atonement

Eastwood's been "atoning" for twenty years. And now he too certainly has the cred to party with obamanation.

Quick note on Eastwood's warbling history

Dorothy--Check out (or don't) Clint's 1982 Honky-Tonk Man, in which he plays a saloon singer and croons quite a bit. He even charted with a Merle Haggard duet, as I recall.

And let me just say that 2009 has already become a year of wonders-- just days in, Dorothy Woodend has been referred to as a "right-wing wacko."

The End Times are near.

A 'new' America?

The fact that it's been well reviewed makes me scratch my head a bit, but can probably be chalked up to the fact that everyone loves Clint Eastwood.

Dorothy Woodend, whose reviews I always look forward to, seems not to have seen the same film I did.

The story, of course, is archetypal and it is filled with allusions to Eastwood's other work as an actor, director and film producer. Perhaps just the kind of thing one might expect in what he has said will be his final 'acting' role in a long career.

Whether it is the 'stiffness' in Clint's lean frame that is behind his apparent retirement as an actor or that he simply prefers to devote the rest of his still ample talents to 'other' endeavors is a moot point. ‘Gran Torino’ would be a worthy epitaph to a long and interesting and increasingly complex acting career.

The story, the supporting characters, the setting and the timing are as interesting as the compromised American ‘hero’ at its heart: Eastwood’s allusions to his Dirty Harry character and to the near-silent avenger of ‘Unforgiven’, the damaged, ravaged and finally needy detective of ‘Blood Work’, and, of course, the silent cigar-chewing ‘stranger’ of the Sergio Leone spaghetti westerns are unmistakable to any film student of the last 40 years. Not to mention more than one other example of his ‘singing’ in a couple of other contexts.

But this, Dorothy, is inexplicable: “Their time of retribution has finally come, but now they want us to feel sorry for them. This undercurrent of self-pity in the movie is more than simply irritating, it is intolerable.”

And, for all my respect of your reviewing generally, those lines seem to me to be completely wrong. The only discernable self pity in the film comes from Kowalski’s sons and his grandchildren.

As for Walt, I don’t think there’s even a hint of it from his quarter. Regret, loneliness, alienation and puzzlement at how his ‘American Dream’ could have gone so badly off the rails; yep, there’s more than enough of that. But self-pity, no, not a bit of it.

Eastwood’s Walt may be embittered, angry, racist, but the story he tells is not one of pity and he accepts his fate…either from the cancer that’s eating him from the inside out, or from the bullets of the gang-bangers…with courage and stoicism.

And he does it, in the end, by not succumbing to the old gunslinger’s code of justice. He goes out in a hail of bullets as a sacrifice for the future of a new America and a new ideal of what it means to be a man in a crumbling city and a new century.

I think he’ll get the best actor nomination and I expect he’ll win it.

Courageous, stoic old men--God, kill me now!

Spoiled youth, old men with character--That's the societal take on generations which usually leads to a "shaping up" a generation of youth for national self-sacrifice. That's the kind of thinking that usually works to romance wars, makes it difficult to criticize wars.

Well, if that's where it's at these days, it'd be nice if this time round just the old farts took the plunge--give the spoilt children a chance to present themselves as they see themselves, give the young hipsters a chance to tell their side of things.

Asking the wrong question.

The question "So, what is the film trying to tell us exactly?" is the problem. Why does the plot have to follow predictable lines? Life generally makes little sense when it comes right down to it. Other wise good would always triumph over evil. We know that rarely happens except in fantasy.

I wonder, Patrick

I wonder Patrick if you've actually SEEN the film.

You really ought to.

Because Eastwood's character does exactly what you seem to suggest he ought to - he gets out of the way - and gives a young man, searching for a chance, an opportunity to live the ‘American’ life he 'wants' to live - against rather tough odds.

Like the Polish, Irish and Italians of earlier generations, new immigrants also have 'choices' to make.

No hipsters in this melodrama. Not a single one.

G West

I'll go see it today and report back.

G West: my take

SPOILER ALERT!

Saw it this afternoon. Here's what I think:

First off, the climax is just as I expected--Eastwood's character does finish things off with a macho display of violence. Yes, he pulls out a lighter rather than a gun, but the delivery is violent, and essentially alone, he meats out his (evidently evil) opponents' destruction. (What would have been unexpected is if Walt listened to his priests' advice, contacted the police, and *they* figured out a way to inhibit the gangs' predations; instead, we get a priest who comes to learn that Walt was right all along).

Also, I wish the film was more aware of an interesting equivalence it sets up: namely, that Walt and the evil gang bangers share violent reactions to trespasses into their territory. But as Dorothy notes, the film is not interested in drawing connections between Walt and gangbangers. They are set up so we have no empathy for them, so that we can hate them. (Those who want to war against druggies, will shape their fantasies in the same way.)

Also, Thau is not set up to take things over. He ends the good boy that really, at heart, nobody takes too seriously--the fate Michael avoided in the Godfather by taking violence into his hands. Walt is to be taken seriously. And so too to some extent the priest, who confronts things head on, himself.

Also, this is a grandparent's film. Right now I live in Toronto's annex--a place populated by liberal 60 year olds, who are forever hoping they might take in as renters those who are quiet, deferent, respecters of elders types, and who are forever complaining about their insufficiently attendant children. In short, they seek out "orientals" for the same reason some older men seek out young women. Wish the film had the sass to point this out.

Also, didn't like the movie portrayed Walt's kids. If in confession he admits to being haunted all his life for not attending to his kids, the film should have showed the kids being the way owing to a lack of something (i.e. attendance) rather than owing to them being "spoiled" (god I hate that word) by too much of something.

In sum, not a film that will encourage older people to come to respect the youngin's these days. More a film for the Don Cherrys of the world (wear a shirt and tie, young man! sacrifice yourself for noble causes!).

All this said, I enjoyed the film. I cared for the people in the film. I liked seeing Clint interact with his neighbours, a lot. I liked a lot of his relationship with the neighbourhood girl (though she did overact at times, and I didn't like how her overt, urgent, hurried sassiness at a certain part of the film really seemed primarily about getting us to like her so much, that we'd want to hate those who did it as much as Walt does). And I liked Walt.

Finally, Dorothy, please consider getting into the fray like Steve is want to do with his reviews. Don't just post and vanish. Stay awhile.

Right or wrong

Since you asked so sweetly. My mother will be mortified to learn I am now a right-wing reactionary, but I suppose that's the kind of response this film invokes. Think about the ham-fistedness of certain scenes (i.e., the reading of Walt's will, or Thao locked in the basement and yodeling like a Alpine miss) and then tell me that each character is anything more than a poorly sketched caricature, standing for the philosophies of the director. By any stretch of the imagination, this is not a good film. Even old Clint himself, despite his charm, is often reduced to mugging (and growling) for the camera. I do not think Oscar material, but then I've been wrong (and right-wing) before.

Caricature

Of course there is caricature in the film Dorothy - here's what I wrote about that:
"The story, of course, is archetypal and it is filled with allusions to Eastwood's other work as an actor, director and film producer. Perhaps just the kind of thing one might expect in what he has said will be his final 'acting' role in a long career."

Of course he mugs and growls...and of course he's not going to call the police...

I still believe it's a good film - though not perfect by any means. And I don't think you can overlook the city, Detroit, in its decrepitude and spent promise, as an important element for an American audience.

And I don’t think Walt is meant to be heroic or charming...he's a racist who can't find a way to communicate - even to tell his son he's dying of cancer - but that doesn't mean he's irredeemable…as the way he approaches the dénouement indicates…the new suit and a straight-razor shave from his ‘Italian’ barber friend – that’s a caricature too. But saving young Thao from himself – teaching, in that last scene in Walt’s basement, that there is no glory in killing – and making, in the end, something useful of himself is a kind of redemption – though not the kind of thing his self-pitying children and grandchildren would approve of.

On the Oscar prediction, I’ll stick with my view about that too.

But I sure don't think disagreeing about this makes you right-wing!

And, Patrick - glad you enjoyed it

I think you're wrong about the Don Cherry analogy - but I understand where you're coming from and I abhor Cherry and his jingoism too.

You'd never have Eastwood's Walt delivering an elegy to his fallen comrades - the way Cherry (a man who never wore the uniform of anything but a hockey team) the way Cherry does.

The scales have fallen from Eastwood's eyes (through his character) not Cherry's.