Eastwood's last role disappoints
Scott Viau
Issue date: 1/22/09 Section: Entertainment
When a new Clint Eastwood film comes to theaters, the natural response for most is excitement, which is exactly how one might feel after seeing the great trailer for "Gran Torino." 2008 was not Eastwood's year, though. After lukewarm reviews for his previous movie, "Changeling," one would expect "Torino" to be Eastwood's next grand film, but that would be a gross overstatement.War veteran Walt Kowalski (Eastwood) has recently lost his wife. Wanting nothing more than to be alone and mourn her, he receives an unwanted surprise when a Hmong family moves into the house next door. He views them with complete disdain and wants nothing to do with them. As they go about their lives he watches and spouts racist comments to himself. When Thao Lor (Bee Vang), son of the next door family, is pressured to join a local gang, he is told to steal Walt's prized possession, his Gran Torino. The initiation doesn't go well, as Walt catches him in the process. Thao's actions only confirm Walt's initial racist feelings about his neighbors. Sue Lor (Ahney Her) feels there is more to Walt than his rough exterior lets on, and sets out to befriend him. Walt's newfound friendships are soon threatened by the neighborhood gang. When this happens Walt decides to make a stand and repent for his years of hate.
Those going into this film expecting a piece of high art by one of America's greatest actors and filmmakers will be in for a sore disappointment. "Torino" is nothing more than "Dirty Harry" meets "Crash," which might sound good, but it's anything but. After speaking almost entirely in racial slurs we're supposed to suddenly feel sympathy for this blatant bigot as he comes to realize that Hmongs aren't as bad as he thought they were. What we get is a schmaltzy piece of unintentionally hilarious rubbish. By the end of the film he still hasn't realized that his foreign neighbors probably don't appreciate racial epithets being hurled at them.
While dialogue consisting of grunts may have worked for Eastwood in previous films, it comes across as ridiculous and takes one out of the film completely. Eastwood, I'm sorry to say, is not at the top of his game. One might picture an actor whose glory days of Hollywood have passed him by taking this part, but not him. Perhaps Eastwood's age is indeed catching up to him, as he should have seen what a poor storyline this film contains. Making a painfully obvious screen debut is Ahney Her. She attempts to play her character as sweet, precocious and likeable, but comes across as annoying and underwhelming. Her's performance screams amateur. Vang is just as bad and is excruciating to watch. Although Eastwood is surely trying to go for realism by casting unknowns he does nothing to correct their performances.
One can imagine the screenwriter sitting in his apartment thinking he's writing a great, thought-provoking film that will change everyone's preconceived notions of race, but it won't. What the viewer will get is two hours of race-related insults, some of which are undoubtedly meant to be funny, but they're thrown around so much that we begin laughing at it, not with. The whole plot is trite and tried. A bit of forgiveness may be in order for the relatively inexperienced writer, but Eastwood should have at least required extensive rewrites.
Eastwood has been reported as saying that "Gran Torino" will be his last film in front of the camera, which is sad on many levels. The most depressing of which is that he leaves us with a whimper instead of a roar. This film will ultimately leave a bitter taste in the viewer's mouth and will go down in history as the film that could have been.
Film Review is Sub-Par
Zak Hammond
Issue Date: 1/29/09 Section: Letters to the EditorI must honestly say that I never usually feel the responsibility to respond to a newspaper’s film review, but in this instance I think that I have no other choice. Upon reading the Jan 22 review of Gran Torino by Scott Viau, I felt a near-moral conviction to speak out against what was, for all intents and purposes, a shallow and ignorant review of a film that any reasonable viewer will say is, at least, decent. The purpose of this letter is not to argue taste or personal preference, as Viau clearly has in his article, but to try to shed light on the film that he almost certainly didn’t know how to watch.
Three points that must be addressed in his review are his perception of Walt, the tone of the film, and the “moral” of the story. To say that Walt is a racist bigot is only half right. If the film has shown you anything, it shows that his systemic regurgitation of racial epithets is the result of eighty-plus years on life, living in the same neighborhood, fighting in a war overseas, and working as a “lifer” at the Ford plant. Now, Viau might not have any bitter, old grandparents, but for most people living in America, this is a common feature of our extended families: the stiff-necked nature of our progenitors. Note, however, how Walt extends the same verbal disrespect not only to his enemies, but to his best friends as well. Think of the way that he carried on with his Barber or his contractor friend, or even with his new friends Thao and Sue. We don’t have to empathize with Walt all the time. We only need to see the humanity within him. If Viau honestly thinks that Walt honestly hates each of these individuals and for whatever trumped-up reason they simply take this abuse, then he really is lost in the film. It’s called a term of endearment. It’s called understanding that the foul-mouthed codger with a heart of gold doesn’t know any better. Mr. Viau, how do you expect an eighty year-old war veteran to behave? Give Mr. Eastwood a little credit for pulling off the character with realism and brevity. Which brings me to the second point of the film: its tone.
Viau has referred to the film as a “schmaltzy piece of unintentionally hilarious rubbish,” which by this point in my reply should quickly be rejected. If my analysis of Walt has shown anything, it is that he cannot be taken seriously. We are meant to laugh at him and his constant barrage of racial slurs, because they are so absurd. Mr. Viau, surely you have seen the episode of South Park where they say the “s” word over one hundred fifty times? Didn’t you find it a little ridiculous? That was the point. The words, over time, lose their bite. It’s okay for us to laugh when Walt makes yet another slur, and it’s okay for us to cry when tragedy strikes the Lor family. That’s the point. Gran Torino is a film that has little to do with racism and far more to do with learning how to live as a man, both in the beginning of life and at the end. It is not “‘Dirty Harry’ meets ‘Crash,’” but a film closer in message to Million Dollar Baby.
Walt is a character toward the end of his life who has nothing left to live for, and who is constantly forced by his own family to face the inevitability of death. Anybody in his position would rightly feel bitter to those who are not faced with such an insurmountable existential crisis. As Father Janovich says to Walt, he certainly seems to know more about death than he does life. The central question for Walt, and the film itself, is “How does one live?” The relationship between Walt and Thao explores this human crisis. Thao learns how to be a man, and Walt learns how to be a better man, even in the twilight of his life. I suppose it’s easier, and takes less effort, to extract the “message” that Mr. Viau found in this film. But if the mass critical claim and audience approval proves anything, it’s that the rest of America found something a little more similar to what I’m arguing here.
Since Viau has certainly illustrated his short-sighted view of the film, it is almost pointless, except for a certain desire of masochism, to read the rest of his unprofessional review about the performances, writing, and directing. However, I feel that I must at least address Viau’s claim that Eastwood failed as a director to not only coach his admittedly amateur actors, but also to not demand “extensive rewrites.” To say this is incredibly presumptuous. Viau should have a little faith in Mr. Eastwood, who has been in the film business for over fifty years, and is a Hollywood icon. Needless to say, I would trust Mr. Eastwood’s handle on his own film over Mr. Viau’s any day of the week. I’m not saying that we have to accept what he gives us like dogma, but I do think we should try to “think outside the box.” Mr. Viau, if you don’t like something in a film, perhaps you should consider if it’s your own lack of understanding, rather than the filmmaker’s. Perhaps this simply isn’t Viau’s type of film. Mr. Eastwood, who has always notoriously resented the order of filmgoers obsessed with political correctness, might agree. If that is the case, I suppose there is nothing more to say.
I don’t expect Viau to suddenly agree with me, and I’m sure that he will stick his own opinions. I can respect that. However, in the future I at least ask The North Wind to ensure that their film reviews are written with an open mind and some degree of mental fortitude, as opposed to the type of opinion piece I would expect to read in a high school newspaper. A knowledge of film criticism would also be helpful.
