It doesn’t seem like that long ago that we were discussing “Unforgiven” and I regret that we didn’t have this blog to debate the merits of “Space Cowboys,” but perhaps we can cover “Mystic River” and this new one in the same set of posts.
I truly want to dislike Clint Eastwood. He’s like Robert Redford’s darker, reactionary twin spending way too much time exploring/confirming theories of masculinity and running out of steam by the time he fills in the women’s roles around the edges of his screenplays. But he’s also a compelling filmmaker and one of the few who thoughtfully explores American myths.
I really liked this film and fell for every one of the manipulative plot twists. But just as I can’t quite forgive him for Marcia Gay Harden’s unredeemable weakness and Laura Linney’s out-of-nowhere Lady Macbeth-ness in “Mystic River”, I think he demonstrated profound laziness in creating some of this film’s supporting characters.
Amy
haven’t seen this yet. but on eastwood in general i think his most redeeming feature is that he is a very good director of actors (or he gets very good actors and lets them do their thing). i liked “mystic river” but mostly for the performances. the marcia gay harden character’s weakness felt believable to me but not laura linney’s, as you say, lady macbeth shtick (at least not as the character was set up). as for all the big things that movie was “about” i’m not entirely sure what they were.
I haven’t seen Baby, either–and probably won’t. I heard how it ends, with Swank becoming disabled and then wanting to be put down. (Did I just give it away? Eeevil!) And that tired fucking approach to disability drives me batty. (Don’t get me going on “I Am Sam” or “Beautiful Nutjob” or all the other shitty Hollywood takes on disability.)
But I think Eastwood is, as Arnab says, pretty good with actors. I also agree absolutely with Amy’s assessment of his investment in and examination of mythology. And he’s contemplative, willing to let the narrative rhythms emerge, more interested in classical shots and striking (if muted) composition than in editing.
All that said, he’s a throwback to Anthony Mann or (maybe) John Sturges. He is NOT a throwback to John Ford, or Howard Hawks. In other words, he’s a solid B-movie maker, whose fondness for older pacing and form strike too many as powerful, deeply-felt, resonant… when they are, instead, generically precise.
Or, put another way, when my grandfather tells a long, digressive, well-paced shaggy dog story, I don’t mistake him for Melville. There’s something to be said for Eastwood’s competence, but his profundity is hit or miss, depending on other factors (a solid script, mainly).
Oh, and Mystic River: far better book than film. The women in the book are not shortchanged in the same way, and their character development makes sense.
Those of you who find auteurist debate mind-numbing should look away NOW! Fan-geek commentary ahead:
Mike Reynolds writes: “All that said, he’s a throwback to Anthony Mann or (maybe) John Sturges. He is NOT a throwback to John Ford, or Howard Hawks. In other words, he’s a solid B-movie maker, whose fondness for older pacing and form strike too many as powerful, deeply-felt, resonant… when they are, instead, generically precise.”
Why why why, Mike, would you put Anthony Mann into the same category as John Sturges? The Man from Laramie, The Naked Spur and Bend of the River are lyrical, modest and thoughtful; The Magnificent Seven and Gunfight at the O.K. Corral are rather bloated and conventional, except for some of the casting. Yes, they are entertaining but John Sturges should lick Anthony Mann’s boots! Mann makes an illuminating genre movie, Sturges smothers things with genre. [please insert a comparison, of a parallel-structure, of your own, in which Anthony Mann’s overall superiority to John Sturges is indicated]. Mann even gives some life to the 1950s epic El Cid. at least Sturges knows enough to get dynamic actors to provide the force he can’t provide himself.
End of Fan-geek commentary.
One film makes me raise Sturges a bit more: Bad Day at Black Rock. Mann may get lyrical, but Sturges gets close to the pared-down visceral thrum of violence under the surface of genre. (You really feel like bad things happen.)
I wouldn’t dismiss either of these guys–they’re great in their own way. (So is Robert Wise.) But they’re still poets working within the form…not necessarily opening it up (Hitchcock? the aforementioned Ford and Hawks, at their best) or making it implode (Leone).
finally watched million dollar baby. i thought it was okay–but i admit the possibility that i would have liked it much more if i’d seen it in a theater when it came out, and when i didn’t know much about it. on the small screen the plot’s foreshadowings were that much more obvious. neither sunhee or i could figure out what the point of the hillbilly loser boxer (i think his name was danger) was.
it did make me want to eat some lemon meringue pie though.