Clint Eastwood

I’m sorry but I’m not much of a movie fan and I just wanted to know what most people on this site think about his acting ability. Do people here believe he is one of the greatest actors of all time? Jsut your opinion if u think he’s great or not as far as acting. Thanks

He’s a movie star who can act.

He’s at this point far more interested in directing thatn acting — for the very logical reason that there aren’t many parts for a man his age.

As an actor, I think he’s good but not great, but I do think he can be absolutely hilarious when he wants to. As a presence, he’s one of the absolute greatest.

The man definitely plays a great badass. I like all of the work he did with Leone and Siegel (especially “Escape From Alcatraz” and “The Beguiled”), as well as “Thunderbolt and Lightfoot.” Not much of his work as a director has stuck with me, except for “Unforgiven” which I think is great.

I’d say he’s more iconic than anything else. I never saw him as a particularly distinguished actor, but he’s definately staked himself a firm place in American cinema. Some of his roles are great, but that’s probabally just because I’ve seen “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” and “A First Full of Dollars” and “Pale Rider” a hundred times.

Eastwood’s acting ability — virtually nonexistent.

I agree with David. Even with all the iconic roles of ‘60s and ’70s, I hardly think of Eastwood as an actor anymore, though I love his John Huston . . .er, John Wilson in White Hunter, Black Heart, and the displaced but graceful old men he’s been doing since Unforgiven are charming.

He’s one of those actors with a strong screen presence. His actual acting abilities aren’t very refined, but he sure was great playing the tough guy character, lending it that look of the man who’s been through a lot. He’s much, much better as a director.

What Eastwood did for two generations has never been replicated. That we want to refer to it as “star quality” or “iconography” or “screen presence” only proves what a great actor he is. We don’t even want to call it acting…so we feel the need to call it something else. The same with Cary Grant.

“That we want to refer to it as “star quality” or “iconography” or “screen presence” only proves what a great actor he is.”

Eastwood is a wooden actor who has even fooled Jerry Johnson and other so-called critics / programmers or whatever they proclaim they are.

He’s just a dude with a gun…or in other cases, with a woman. Whatever….

Eastwood is a wooden actor who has even fooled Jerry Johnson and other so-called critics / programmers or whatever they proclaim they are.

The accusations of “woodenness” is so old fashioned…a construction of the theater that focuses only on line delivery. Cinema does not rely on line delivery. That’s why a director like Rossellini could dub everything.

He’s just a dude with a gun…or in other cases, with a woman. Whatever….

Maybe you don’t know Eastwood because what he did with a woman never came close to what he did with a gun.

“Presence” is one of those things that you can’t teach—a person either has it or they don’t. That some actors can convey so much with so little is something to be celebrated.

Eastwood’s not a favorite of mine, but his presence in films like Josey Wales and Unforgiven drives the film and offers a lot more than scenery chewing.

Screen acting should not look like acting, but most people, even other actors are attracted to showy, theatrical performances that loudly announce that they are Acting. This is why the overt actors like Philip Seymour Hoffman win all the prizes and kudos, and the actors who keep their technique invisible, like Eastwood and Cary Grant, are ignored or dismissed. If you are conscious of their acting, they are not very good.

It depends on the role and the film. Those rules don’t apply universally.

There’s a great difference between the invisible technique of brilliant artists like Cary Grant, or Spencer Tracy, or James Stewart or even someone like James Garner or Harry Dean Stanton, or any of the great actors of the screen, and the sad sameness of Clint Eastwood’s embarassing somnambulistic attempts at acting. Eastwood is the Keanu Reeves of his era.

Beware. Veneration of Clint Eastwood was one of the first and clearest signs that the U.S. was on a downward spiral.

he is a likable actor (which is often better than being good)

I like the tough removed characters he played in the Leone westerns and I think he has done a good job at directing films like Unforgiven, The Bridges of Madison County and the Letters From Iwo Jima. I thought Iwo Jima was pretty good, considering the fact that he was directing a film spoken in another language. I also thought he was good as Dirty Harry too. Yeah, I think I agree with some people on here that he has a sort of unique style to how he goes about playing a role.

“Cinema does not rely on line delivery.”

I can name you 50 PERFECT actors from my country and you’d still believe Eastwood is a “legend”.

My opinion: Eastwood is an actor who has acted in films based on how he looks. Well now you know Randy… But why did you want to know anyway?

All I will say right now is that Eastwood is a MUCH better actor than John Wayne

Cary Grant is a great actor? ;-)

HOUSE: exactly. the rules are not universal. there are plenty of showy performances that are absolutely brilliant. using that hard and fast rule to me often leads to an ignorant dismissal of a great performer, esp those that balance the overt and the subtle, like Harvey Keitel, for example, or Deniro at his peak.

Dimitris, name those 50 Golden Greek actors. I’m calling your bluff.

The fact is Clint Eastwood has a very unique way of speaking and carrying himself. It’s pretty much unavoidable there shall be a “sameness” between many of his characters. One could say the same thing about Marilyn Monroe, Errol Flynn, James Stewart…each had their own iconic look and style that could not be disguised, but nobody would say none of them could act.

That said, I believe “Million Dollar Baby” to be one of Clint’s finest efforts as an actor. As a director now aged in his eighties, it’s extremely difficult to find faults with Clint the auteur.

Maybe Clint doesn’t give flashy performances, but when he looks pissed, you really believe he’s pissed. When he attempts to be humorous, he can do so with a dry wit that’s increasingly rare in modern comedy. When Clint appears indignant, you really feel as if someone’s just taken a crap on his front lawn. He’s also capable of conveying a strange vulnerability rare in tough guy actors.

Acting ability aside, Clint is probably in better shape than most of us on this message board—and Clint was born in the year 1930. He also strikes me as a highly intelligent individual who can tell it like it is and seems remarkably well-grounded given his amazing success in cinema. Yes, I confess, I’m a huge fan of Clint Eastwood. I eagerly await his next film.

“I’m calling your bluff.”

I never bluff and I’m not “calling” anything to the likes of you. Unknown remains unknown and you’ll just smirk like “you” do. I also don’t want to hijack this Eastwood appreciation thread.

i think Dimitris is referring to this man, above all else: http://www.cityofathens.gr/files/JUL-28.jpg

I liked Eastwood a lot in the ’70s and went to all of his movies. Less so in the ’80s and ’90s. Great as a movie star in the Leone and Siegel films and a few he directed, like OUTLAW JOSEY WALES, and a few other items like THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT, but not very likeable to me in the redneck films. He was clearly aiming for a different demographic with EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE than he had been with the Dirty Harry films. Some of his later stuff is just unwatchable. The only films of his I really liked in the ’80s and ’90s were HEARTBREAK RIDGE, UNFORGIVEN and IN THE LINE OF FIRE.

I think he has very limited range as an actor and learned how to use that range well, along with his directing ability, to parlay his talents into a long-range career. I give him a lot of credit for shrewdness and intelligence, but that doesn’t mean his films are necessarily worth seeing. I admire him but I don’t love him. I loved John Wayne and Robert Mitchum, but not Eastwood. In terms of directors, I loved Leone and Siegel, but not Eastwood.

(Coincidentally, this morning I passed a guy on the street, on 5th Ave. in front of the Empire State Bldg., who looked just like Don Siegel and even wore the same kind of hat Siegel used to wear. I even said “Don Siegel” out loud as I passed him.)

His acting is, at this point, iconic.

His directed films will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the best ever produced, with three of them — Unforgiven, Mystic River, and Letters From Iwo Jima — as indisputable masterpieces, and The Outlaw Josey Wales not far behind.

i think he’s a great actor and a great director. i think there are a very few people that can do both and i think that eastwood has proven, albeit sometimes in a mediocre way, that he can do both (i really could have done without a perfect world but it probably was just costner).

i look at a film like bridges of madison county and watch gran torino and see two completely different people.

you can’t say that about john wayne. he played the same f’ing character in everything single film and he’s what the americans call iconic, which to me, is ridiculous.

AND I STILL LIKE MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL DAMMIT.

If you can’t bother to use the shift key, how do I know you’ve even bothered to see the movies you talk about?

“AND I STILL LIKE MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL DAMMIT.”

don’t agree but i respect your conviction! it’s kind of like how i felt in teh early 90’s when people would tell me that ‘White Hunter Black Heart’ is ‘dull’ and now it’s quite respected and seen as a crucial transitional work in his oeuvre.