Did I miss something
Also, I’m impressed if you read just under 2,000 words in 2 1/2 minutes.
What can I say? I’m a fast skimmer. :) The film more debunks/critiques/complicates/parodies your white savior argument rather than serves as an example of it.
Given the way that Eastwood portrays the upper middle class white suburban family of Watl’s, I’d argue that the film is more about class than race.
The reviewer on that link seems to have forgotten about “Letters from Iowa Jima” which had a Japanese cast with their original Japanese language. Funny how that was left out of their criticism of Clint’s apparent “racism”
i agree this is a matter of perspective. do i believe mann or eastwood suddenly lost it? well, its happened before if so, and not even rarely at that. and to way better filmmakers than them.
have they made amazing film after amazing film? maybe this is an important point where we differ. i probably dont rate either director as highly as you do, so i dont give them the benefit of the doubt that you do. granted i havent seen nearly enough eastwood films. for mann, the only film of his that i ever really enjoyed was “heat”. he’s hardly “amazing film after amazing film” in my opinion.
back to “gran torino”. so my method is a bit different than yours. i dont give a relative benefit of doubt. i’m all about destructive criticism. a filmmaker is guilty until proven innocent for me, and he gets no favoritism. id rather be an executioner than an apologist. like richard gilman says, i “dont patronize or act generously toward artistic accomplishment – you identify it.” i feel “gran torino” is a patronizing film, and not an artistic accomplishment.
>a filmmaker is guilty until proven innocent for me, and he gets no favoritism. id rather be an executioner than an apologist.
LOL of the day, @The Auteurs. Does a film-critical executioner wear foam armor and masks, like GWAR? Just askin’…
Bobby, I don’t quite understand your argument. You say the film is an advertisement for Ford because of the title and the obvious prominence of the car in the film. By that logic, it’s also an advertisement for Detroit automakers. I think that’s a fundamental misreading of the film. To say the obvious, the car hasn’t been made for thirty something years so what’s it trying to sell exactly? A dying company? It presents Ford muscle cars – and Ford and US automakers in general as well as union workers who made a living in their factories – as a dying breed (like the film’s protagonist, like his neighborhood, like his state of Michigan, like the industry he worked in, etc.).
Yes, it’s an elegy of the past that no longer exists (but at the same time the film hints that it never really did – I don’t think it’s nostalgic). Same goes with the so-called heroism of the protagonist (whose heroism in Korea, mind you, is also mixed up with guilt and remorse). Does the film present Walt as a good person? Or as a good father? No on both counts. Does it present him as someone whose actions should be emulated? Not at all.
The whole film is a great exorcism of white male resentment and to call the film racist is as meaningless and simple-minded as calling Mad Men sexist or Borat anti-semitic.
“The reviewer on that link seems to have forgotten about ‘Letters from Iowa Jima’ which had a Japanese cast with their original Japanese language. Funny how that was left out of their criticism of Clint’s apparent ‘racism.’”
I wasn’t reviewing Letters and there’s no mention of racism with regards to Gran Torino, only about its condescension and patronizing attitude. And just because Eastwood made a movie with the actors speaking their original language, it has no bearing on his approach to the material apart from that (I haven’t seen Letters). The same point about authenticity can be made about Gran Torino, seeing as it intends to be an exploration of the Hmong culture.
The main point I was making in the article is about the strange way Clint has spent the last 20 years apologizing for his success in the first 30.
“Art Happens, and shit happens too…”
Maybe for you the art is shit too…, could be.
If you don’t like, doesn’t mean it’s shit… The art we don’t like, is due to the weakness of our capacity, not the art itself.
It’s best not to try to convince the others, the art happens, ok? and shit happens too, especially the ass of some people, transpire more than others, and so what?
Eastwood happens. Eastwood makes good movies. Period. I can forgive True Crime and several others, but hell, even Bergman made a mediocre movie or two.
i’m saying its no coincidence the ford brand plays such a high profile in the film. same dynamic as pabst blue ribbon. its advertising. why is that a misreading? there nothing deep about it. its a simple economic fact. hollywood product placement. its not even subtle, as it oftentimes can be.
ford isnt presented as a dying breed. its presented as immortal, and quintessentially american. the final glamorous, triumphant shot of the young generation driving in the old, renewed ford is great propaganda. coincidence that the film appeared at the same time ford execs were in front of congress begging for government money?
sound cynical? its easy to be when the capitalist hollywood machine and its cronies are on such open display.
does the film present walt as a good person? yes. he becomes a father figure and support system for the young boy, and also gives his life for him. i dont have a problem with that though. is he presented as a good father figure? to the young boy, yes, if not to his own son. no problem with that.
my problem is with the aesthetics of the film, and what those aesthetics are ultimately in service of. but to be fair, i dont think its a poisonous film. just borderline worthless. it belongs on the scrap heap. maybe thats how they should have ended the film instead, with the car junked. otherwise, its not an elegy.
True Crime was miles better than Torino even if True Crime was a mediocre film :)
Roscoe exaggerates a bit,to each his/her own i suppose but Eastwood is not to be dismissed…
i might despise Torino but surely his most memorable films will erase the loose threads…and am not talking about Million Dollar memorabilia ;)
Bergman did make a couple mediocre films (most certainly not bad) but Eastwood is NOT like Bergman..
Hou Hsiao Hsien reaches a guy like Bergman,Victor Erice and Chris Marker too…but definitely NOT Eastwood…
“ford isnt presented as a dying breed. its presented as immortal, and quintessentially american. the final glamorous, triumphant shot of the young generation driving in the old, renewed ford is great propaganda. coincidence that the film appeared at the same time ford execs were in front of congress begging for government money?”
That’s an awfully superficial and literal-minded reading of the film, Bobby. If they were going purely for car iconography, it would have made a lot more sense for them to use, for example, a Thunderbird, or, better yet, a Ford Mustang, not only is it a more popular car, it’s something that’s still in production. the Torino, on the other hand, was never very popular (it was consistently outsold by the Chevelle and the Roadrunner), was not a very durable car, and remains relatively unpopular because not all that many survive—so they have a very low resale value. They weren’t very reliable mechanically and the paint was terrible and left the body prone to corrosion. So, if a ‘72 Gran Torino was a choice to represent something “immortal and quintessentially American,” it’s an very eccentric and esoteric choice.
“He doesn’t rely on art house tricks or feigned profundity. He’s willing to let his story and characters do everything for him. You can argue that his stories are poor.”
Nathan, I’d say that the most surrealistically bizarrely overrated of Eastwood’s (UNFORGIVEN, MILLION DOLLAR BABY) are in fact exercises in strained profundity.
And I’m going to have to say that praising Eastwood for carrying the torch of Ford and Griffith is frankly absurd. Compare UNFORGIVEN with STAGECOACH and the difference between Eastwood’s minimal competence and Ford’s mastery will (or should) be readily apparent, even to as apparently rabid an Eastwood devotee as you seem to be. Quite simply, Eastwood has never produced a film within this Hollywood Style you seem to be talking about that can be taken as being anywhere near the best of Ford, Wyler, Hitchcock, Wilder, Lubtisch, Hawks, or Sturges. Sorry, man, but BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY just ain’t at the same level as NOTORIOUS.
I’ll go ahead and labor the point. If Eastwood is carrying the torch of Ford and Griffith, so is every hack working on basic cable. There’s nothing to mourn in Eastwood’s retirement/passing, there’s never a shortage of adequate TV movies.
Nathan M. – Ha ha… I don’t even think the film is “art-house” at all. I’m actually put off by the cinematography. The camera moves too much unnecessarily, like a Johnnie To movie. I just enjoy it enough for what it’s worth.
(I wish the forum has a reply function that helps tracking replies specific to my posts, that would be helpful.)
if my reading is superficial and literal-minded its because i find the film to be so as well. besides, its all there up on the screen. whats the subtlety/poetry of the gran torino as a symbol? obviously im missing it.
maybe im crazy, but i find it interesting that im being accused of superficial, literal readings of a film called “gran torino”.
perhaps using that particular model was eccentric and esoteric. but isnt that what you guys are praising eastwood for anyway?
but, you just hit on a good point. if the film couldnt get worse, i never thought of the possibility of it being titled “mustang” or “thunderbird”. or even “chevelle”. thank god “roadrunner” was never a serious possibility (hopefully).
maybe im crazy, but i find it interesting that im being accused of superficial, literal readings of a film called “gran torino”.
Bobby, someone could basically construct your “it’s corporate propaganda” reading of the film without even watching the film. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but sometimes it isn’t.
whats the subtlety/poetry of the gran torino as a symbol?
It’s always clumsy to try to paraphrase symbolism, but:
it’s the legacy of men like Walt, replete with all its virtues, but also it’s flaws, failings, fragility, ambiguities, anachronisms and contradictions.
Bobby, I agree that Eastwood is often very literal-minded but I think he’s far more nuanced than you give him credit for. Earlier I accused you of misreading the film but you’re right – it’s not as much a misreading so much as a differing interpretation. But I think people often take their pre-existing knowledge about Eastwood – namely, that he’s a Republican – and use it to judge his films unfairly. I find that politically his films are far more ambiguous than he’s often credited with (sort of like John Ford).
Sure, Gran Torino is a grand symbol but of what exactly? That’s the question. You say it is a symbol of timeless American patriotism. I think it’s the opposite. In terms of “product placement”, I think the film shills Ford as well as Fight Club shilled Ikea. What’s interesting about Matt’s comment above is that he points to how Gran Torino was never considered even a very good car to begin with. It does, however, represent the passing of an entire era of US history (with its white male privilege and unquestioned economic and political dominance) that is incarnated in Walt – retired union factory worker, war veteran, racist, sexist, political reactionary, gun-toting conservative, obvious embodiment of white male resentment who listens to too much right-wing talk radio. I don’t believe that Eastwood is mourning Walt’s passage although if you believe that Clint = Walt then I guess you can conclude that but that seems ridiculous to me since it gives Eastwood no credit at all.
yes, its interesting that the gran torino was never considered a good car to begin with. but that thematic subtlety is never touched on in the film. the car is pristine, and good enough to be passed on to the next generation. as a symbol, the torino isnt used with irony.
eastwood definitely isnt mourning walts passage. basically, he commits suicide in the film.
maybe eastwood is more nuanced than i give him credit for, but if so, i just dont see it in this film. thats all. but granted, i need to see many more of his films to get a better overall picture of his cinema. “gran torino” makes me walk with trepidation though.
The car is pristine because Walt has kept it pristine. Remember he didn’t just buy the thing, he worked on the line that built them, and he’s preserved it. It’s ambiguous in the same way Walt’s belief system is ambiguous. I haven’t put a stopwatch too it, but I seem to remember Walt’s other ride:
getting at least as much screen time, by the way.
maybe eastwood is more nuanced than i give him credit for, but if so, i just dont see it in this film. thats all. but granted, i need to see many more of his films to get a better overall picture of his cinema. “gran torino” makes me walk with trepidation though.
Have you seen White Hunter, Black Heart? He does something similar in that film with a fictionalized version of John Huston?
that first still reminded me of one of the reasons i laughed at this movie. id love to really see eastwood/walt walk up to some hoodster in detroit and pretend/threaten to pull a gun out on him. talk about bizarro humor! i see the connection now.
I haven’t seen the film, but that won’t stop me from joining the discussion on one point: the title.
It seems to me that GRAN TORINO is a metaphor for Clint Eastwood himself, Old Hollywood, and America in general. The car was produced from 1972-76 and was considered a powerful and “sexy” muscle car in its heyday. Today, it’s an antique at best. Maybe that’s how Clint views himself as a performer, the studio system, and the U.S, of A. Like DeNiro in RAGING BULLY, Clint’s character is an “AGING bullY.”
In the film, Eastwood tries to preserve the car, just as he tries to preserve his racist ways and beliefs, even though the earth has gone around the Sun a dozen times since his prized auto was discontinued. Likewise, not only Eastwood’s acting persona, but also his film style (classical Hollywood Hawks) has seen better days. And the despised Asians may produce better automobiles!
As I gather from the reviews and commentary on this Forum, in the end, the “old dog” learns some “new tricks” about race relations and life in general. That’s not a very profound message (THE SEARCHERS and RED RIVER were better) but “product placement” seems to me to be only ONE reason for the prominence of the car in GRAN TORINO.
Now you’ve completely lost me, Bobby.
If Eastwood were running for President, who do you think his staff should be? List in order from VP, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, etc.
i know. im losing my interest in trying to take the film apart too. see you in the next discussion.
I wish I look like that at 80. But Jodorowsky looks even better! Amazing…
I’m mixed on Gran Torino. I enjoyed the film overall and Eastwood was great, but the supporting cast was pretty bad, particularly the teens and the priest. I think that partly stems from Clint’s “leave the actors be” approach to directing. He apparently likes to move swiftly from set-up to set-up, filming very few takes. That works great for pros like Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman, but with first time actors you get results like Gran Torino.
I don’t think anyone has mentioned The Shootist yet, but Gran Torino is clearly an homage. For anyone who hasn’t seen it, the film centers on John Wayne, an aging badass, preparing for his own death, while befriending a local teen boy without a male role model and teaching him the ways of manliness. It also happened to be directed by Eastwood’s mentor, Don Siegel, and was the Duke’s last role (as Gran Torino may well be for Clint).
In closing, an adjective: Fulleresque.
what does eastwood have in common with fuller?
Adam Lippe
“I’m sorry, Adam, that’s one of the more facile reviews of the film I’ve seen.”
Then how would you describe the condescending tone?