Gran Torino (Clint Eastwood, 2008)
January 7th, 2009 | 27 Comments »
Gran Torino (2008) | dir. Clint Eastwood | 116 min | USA
Three reasons that Gran Torino is more than just another movie about some white person “saving” people of color:
1. It rejects the idea of a “post-racial” society.
While Hollywood tripe like Finding Forrester, Freedom Writers and the like either minimize, or try to resolve, racial tension, Gran Torino confronts them head-on. Those who tout political “correctness” over honesty (however brash) might decry Walt Kowalski’s (Eastwood) blatant racism. The last white person in his run-down midwestern neighborhood, he bitterly throws out every slur imaginable, and I can’t front – it was unsettling to hear. However, an interesting juxtaposition is made between Walt and his supposedly more “liberal” son, who protests his father’s bigotry but lives a decidedly more sheltered, suburban existence in contrast to his father’s working-class life as a Korean War veteran. Without excusing Walt’s distasteful views on race, Eastwood explores where such bitterness may have come from, exposing it as something that is bigger than just him (unlike Mike Douglas in Fallling Down). With a class consciousness absent from similiar film templates, Gran Torino asks the question: who is the real racist – the working-class white dude who tosses slurs around but actually interacts – sometimes friendly, sometimes bitterly – with these communities? Or the bourgeois white dude who has learned not to use these words but never has into interact with communities of color? Perhaps both are racist, but at least one is honest about it.
2. Stereotypes are present, but given context, and sometimes challenged
Asian Americans seem to only play geeks or gangsters in American mainstream film. It’s a valid complaint, but no amount of protest will do away with the fact that alot of us really are geeks or gangsters (how about a film about folks who are both?). Gran Torino can be rightfully faulted for its stereotyping, which is expected for a Hollywood flick, but Eastwood’s framing and Nick Schenk’s screenplay at least blur the lines between stereotypes and, most of all, contextualize them. In one scene, geeky Thao (Bee Vang) is punked by a Mexican gang with a pistol when his thuggish cousins bail him out brandishing a semi-automatic. Then they try to recruit him – one of them saying, “I was just like you, getting punked all the time. Now nobody fucks with me.” In another scene, Thao’s sister Sue calls out some aggressive suitors for having an Asian fetish and makes sure Walt pronounces “Hmong” correctly. Some will fault some of the Hmong characters’ acting, but I thought it was dope that acutal Hmong people were cast instead of some close-enough-looking Asian thespian. Plus, when’s the last time you heard Hmong gangster rap in a film soundtrack?
3. Clint Eastwood – actor and director
Drawing on a career’s worth of notorious film roles, Eastwood’s Walt is at once familiar and foreign. He’s a retired, sickly (humanized?) Dirty Harry – gun-toting, threatening, proud with a scowl and always in mid-monologue. But not without a sense of humor, which sometimes comes across unintentionally. Or, perhaps, very much intended but cleverly so. In fact, there is an underlying dark humor to the role that offsets the very, very serious subject matter and strips Walt of any of that putrid “White Noble”-ness that we see in too many well-meaning (read: missionary) whites, on or off screen. His bitterness, his hatred, his few moments of revelation – all carry real emotional weight. He is not a particularly religious man, though questions of spirituality and sacrifice figure greatly in the underlying storyline. Yes, he ends up attempting to do good for his poor, colored neighbors but it becomes very clear that, in the end, they’re the ones who saved him.
Eastwood’s mature, understated style is both a draw and repellant to moviegoers expecting either more flash or theatre. The interactions are nuanced, the politics (of race and religion) are at once laid bare and hidden, and some scenes will jar the shit out of you. Overall, its a film that will challenge the way you think about race at a time when everyone, whether you’re “anti-racist,” “post-racist” or straight up racist, thinks they got it all figured out.
wow. this sounds even better than i thought.
when i saw the preview and clints yelling “GET OFF MY LAWN” i was like- Clint knows what he’s doing.
geo i cant tell you how impressive your film reviewing is dude. could be a nice side hustle g.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:17 pmgreat write up, really made me think about the movie again. Your blog is quickly becoming my fav to read.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:19 pmgreat review.. gonna watch this movie this weekend.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:42 pmand is coffee and snow gonna be available to download anywhere?
wow bro. a great review as always. you’ve made me wanna see this movie now.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:42 pmcosign Lar.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:56 pmThanks, yall. I was actually skeptical as shit going into this one. I wouldn’t say that it deserves all the praise or all the hate it’s getting as much as it simply deserves to be watched. Plus, word is that it might be Clint’s last.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:02 pmhaha, I came here to leave a comment on some other post to ask you to review this movie. I just saw the trailer and was equal parts intrigued and skeptical. think I’m gonna have to check it out. plus, clint looks hella badass
January 8th, 2009 at 6:21 pmnice looking page, man. and your review is the final straw–it’s a must see now. I knew my review, written without seeing the film, was more an indictment of the commercial/set-up. and I also knew that I can never pass up a geek/gangster flick.
keep it up.
January 9th, 2009 at 3:03 amSo of course I cant disagree or agree with you because I have yet to see the movie, but this review made me want to watch it and consider it.
I cant stomach any movie that is of the likes of “Crash”.
Have you done a review or seen Changeling? I heard from Rahwa its a dope as flick and Im not that fond of Angelina Jolie, although I have to admit shes kinda hott lol. Her husband is hotter tho. I didn’t know that was a Eastwood film as well.
January 9th, 2009 at 1:03 pmkirbaybay:
Crash sucks. It’s a neo-con movie wearing a liberal suit.
Gran Torino is more like a liberal movie in a neo-con suit.
And I dug Changeling, for the most part. Here’s my review:
January 9th, 2009 at 1:09 pmhttp://prometheusbrown.com/blog/2008/11/changeling-clint-eastwood-2008/
pure/roker:
the promo for Gran Torino definitely tried to cast it as another one of those movies. and I’m hoping the people who like those movies will bite the bait and get jarred out of their little multi-culti comfort zones with this one.
January 9th, 2009 at 1:12 pmi really liked this review. do you ever guest for racialicious? i think this post would be awesome for that site.
“Yes, he ends up attempting to do good for his poor, colored neighbors but it becomes very clear that, in the end, they’re the ones who saved him.”
i like this idea. i was worried that this film would be just another white man saves the day.
January 10th, 2009 at 12:21 am“no amount of protest will do away with the fact that alot of us really are geeks or gangsters (how about a film about folks who are both?)”
I think that’s what “Better Luck Tomorrow” was trying to do, at least to a certain extend. Anyways, everyone knows that Data from the Goonies was the OG Asian geek/gangster. Pinchers of Peril FTW!
January 10th, 2009 at 2:21 amLooks like I’m in the minority on this one.
I like much of the work Eastwood has done both in front of and behind the camera, and this one is one of his worst outings in recent memory.
I too have read that it’s his acting swan song; I certainly hope not. It’s more of a whimper than a bang. And I don’t quite understand the “best actor” noms lists he’s been appearing on. This wasn’t that kind of performance. It looked and felt more like Dirty Harry in retirement – the same “squinty” eyes and raspy voice. Nothing new nor special there.
The tragic ending just wasn’t earned, as I see it, given how the previous 2 hours progressed.
And it felt all-too familiar – the white (usually male) protagonist with the Jesus-complex.
If this film was directed by some other filmmaker, presented exactly as it is, I wonder if it would receive the same kind of praise and admiration. I think Eastwood’s mere presence maybe gives the film a poignancy in the eyes of the critics that I really don’t think it deserves.
Not that it’s a bad film. It’s not. I credit him for giving big screen time to Hmong people (I was encouraged to find out more after I saw the film); but this work, for lack of a better term, is beneath him, and I was disappointed!
January 10th, 2009 at 3:27 pmlainey: I actually hit up racialicious but never heard back. thanks, would love to hear what you think about the movie.
mike: yes, more Better Luck Tomorrows would be great!
TO: Sounds like another case of high(er) (you) vs. low(er) (me) expectations again, among other things. For me, it’s good, but not great. My review was more of a response than a review – to the many, many folks out there who decided for themselves that Gran Torino was the most despicable, offensively racist film ever without giving it consideration (which I feel every Clint flick at least deserves – he’s more than earned it).
January 10th, 2009 at 4:25 pmthis game is great.
January 11th, 2009 at 2:06 pmIn a great diptych, I watched Aronofsky’s The Wrestler, and followed it up with Eastwood’s Gran Torino. And although there are messianic elements to both films that cause people to read these films as White-man-Jesus films, the supporting characters didn’t give too much to the film to relegate all of the trappings. What I did appreciate about both films is a strong sense of the shift towards their demise, individually and culturally. Both Walt and the Ram are deconstructed throughout the film not because they’re assigned characterizations are met with a plot-line to isolate their situation absent of a context–both characters enact positions that recognize and comply to their eventual role as carnival curiosity. Recognizing that, and their assertion for self-preservation and dignity make both films a pretty awesome diptych. Additionally, it’s pretty amazing to witness the physicality of each of the individuals — their deterioration is an additional flourish to watching them emotionally implode, or hemorrhage. I’ll save more for the Wrestler when you review it. I agree, that this isn’t the best of Clint’s work (I still dig Mystic River, and Unforgiven), and I absolutely cringed not because of all the epithets, but because of the choices in the script. Some of those lines were poorly delivered, bordering on trite (I think I smacked my head more times in response to the bad writing than the slurs). The Hmong actors were on point, and after recently reading The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down, it’s a bit of a bonus for me to witness traits of cultural and ethnic resilience within Sue and Tao, which could be easily mistaken for complicity. In the end, I still appreciate all that Clint’s done, he remains to be a lasting American auteur, who I think has the best taste AND knowledge in music…
January 12th, 2009 at 7:56 amI really loved this writeup — plus we agree on a lot of things about the movie. =)
About the ending (and I have to allude to it in very vague terms because I don’t want to spoil anything): the idea of the Hmong saving Kowalski (as opposed to the other way around) is something of a standard cinematic trope which has been around since, I don’t know, maybe “The Searchers”.
I think the choice that Kowalski makes at the end isn’t exactly messianic, as RJ writes above in his comment. That is, it’s not Charlton Heston at the end of “The Omega Man” — thought I’d reference another Republican there — it’s a choice he makes that’s motivated by an individual-focused responsibility (to Thao and Sue) rather than taking on all the sins of the world.
p.s. to RJ: I thought parts were trite too, but didn’t you like those two confessional scenes? =)
January 12th, 2009 at 2:26 pmI’ll agree to disagree, I still think messianic with an added element of quixotic, and I think that’s what makes me feel like Kowalski becomes the outsider, the ‘noble savage’ — he martyrs himself to the Hmong community, yet to his own family he’s a bit off his rocker, disconnected as confirmed with the handling over of his beloved (I don’t care about spoiling the film, sorry friends). I haven’t seen Omega man, and I think the comparison to the Searchers might be a slight reach, just because Ethan lives and additional elements of that film.
P.s. to B. – I think the confessional scenes were fun, as they were more than against the grain, Eastwood denied, or rather, spared the audience but I think it got lost in the crowd.
How does everyone feel about the mental health spin to this film? The affects of war, PTSD, and the good-as-gold military-industrial complex affect? Deer Hunter remains to be the solid film to fold in PTSD, and weave it effectively… but that sound design motif of the echoes of war wasn’t enough for me.
January 12th, 2009 at 3:48 pmR.J. L., B. Vergara: thanks for the insights. Still haven’t seen The Wrestler but I’ll be keeping your comparisons in mind, R.J.
I think Walt was definitely meant to be messianic figure, all the way down (SPOILER ALERT) to the way his arms were laid out crucifix-style in his last scene. Which carries its own set of dubious politics, but I agree with RJ that there’s something (alot) more going on beneath the White-savior surface. I dug the confessional scenes – actually, I enjoyed Walt’s interactions with the priest more than the ones with Thao/Sue – it kept the mood of the final act from spiraling downward too much.
I’m not sure what to think about what the film was/wasn’t saying about war/PTSD but the military drumrolls every time Walt held a gun was either fitting parody or cornball drama (I interpreted it as the former).
January 12th, 2009 at 4:11 pmRacialicious.com reposted my review, see comments here.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:12 pmThis was a killer review that completely disspelled all preconceived notions I had about this film. Like you, I completely fucking hated Crash, a film that catered to the typical “guilty white liberal” that was incapable of seeing through the bullshit. The irony that such a compelling(-sounding) film about race/racism could be made by one of the biggest Hollywood republicans out there is not lost on me. It’s just too bad I have to wait for the DVD to catch it (I’m officially done with theaters).
January 15th, 2009 at 6:49 pmdude… thank you for this review! not only is the movie a must see but your review is on point. i was really excited to see this movie because first of all it had eastwood in it and that seemed hella dope. but what got me the most, as dumb as it may seem, is how they used hmong dudes instead of the usual east L.A mexicans or black dudes. i actually thought they were gonna be cambodian seeing that house paint car and all lol. but thanks man, coming from fresno where we gotta HUGE hmong population its nice to see that finally they get some hype and thanks for the dope reviews you always doing. at least someones real.
January 24th, 2009 at 9:01 pmThe model you suggested — about “honest” racism vs. the mask of white liberalism — is still placing too much emphasis on individual subjectivity as the nexus for race relations in a particularized sphere. We have seen plenty of illustrations of white people who inadvertantly disrupt these immigrant communities due to their “honest” un-racist desires for diversity and interaction:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/nyregion/07newcomers.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/us/29portland.html?ex=1212811200&en=4db56a5ba6ac8528&ei=5070&emc=eta1
The matter of “real” vs “unreal” racism is definitely an issue, but both are still masks of the same uniformly racist institution of Capital — which doesn’t have to (nor does it) care about specific social conditions.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:50 amYou wrote:
“Thao’s sister Sue calls out some aggressive suitors….”
How QUICK you are to point out all of the other races in the film…lolol
When it was some thug BLACK guys who were not just “suitors” (as you so sadly referred to them) but attacking her (the arm), kidnapping (keeping her from leaving)and assault (the threat of harm)
you seem to leave that REALITY alone.
You wrote:
“Gran Torino asks the question: who is the real racist – the working-class white dude who tosses slurs around but actually interacts – sometimes friendly, sometimes bitterly – with these communities? Or the bourgeois white dude who has learned not to use these words but never has into interact with communities of color? Perhaps both are racist….”
You SHOULD have written this more honestly….
Such as:
Gran Torino asks the question: who is the real racist – the working-class white dude who tosses slurs around but actually interacts – sometimes friendly, sometimes bitterly – with these communities?… the bourgeois white dude who has learned not to use these words but never has into interact with communities of color? or the Black guy(s) who attack(s) innocent people (The Asian girl and White boy)based on their fetish (asian girl) or dislike of whites?
Perhaps ALL are racist?
Let’s be a little more honest next time Mr. Fox News.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:20 amMom:
What’s your point? That I didn’t single out the group of black guys? Fox News?
Everything is officially Heltah Skeltah
February 9th, 2009 at 10:22 pmExcellent review. I just discovered this site and I’m looking forward to reading more.
One thing I was thinking about in the film is how Walt never formally breaks with his racist politics, but in a very concrete way, he abandons them through the community he builds with his Hmong neighbors that isn’t, as you allude, on some Disney, let’s-all-get-along type shit.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:34 am