18 months ago I began researching my book “Clint Eastwood: Evolution of a Filmmaker” after signing a three book deal with Greenwood Press in the United States. This was it, my life-long goal, writing books on film and getting paid to do it. Eastwood was my choice, a director I greatly admire, but who I found along the way is not exactly admired by all. In fact there are some who are openly hostile towards Eastwood and his films, as we have found in recent days.
What I admire, beyond the sheer artistry and the deceptive simplicity of his films, is the manner in which he forged his directing career, using his stardom to get the films he wanted to make into production. Yes he would agree to a fourth Dirty Harry IF the studio agreed to fund “White Hunter Black Heart,” his thinly disguised study of John Huston and the shooting of “The African Queen.” Et cetera.
Studying Eastwood’s films, I watched an artist growing, always taking new chances, fearless of a challenge, and with each new film, learning. Even when the film tanked, there was a lesson to be learned. Eastwood himself says the lesson of the terrible “The Rookie” was simply, “Never make a film because you are bored and have nothing to do…ever.” As far back as his first film, “Play Misty for Me,” the talent was most evident as was the courage. Imagine Eastwood, the world’s biggest box office star, known for kicking ass as Harry Callahan, pitching to the Universal brass his love story “Breezy” with William Holden and Kay Lenz.
Even I remember the shock of seeing “Bird” knowing it was directed by Eastwood and being stunned by the style of the film, the brilliance of the lead performance and the powerful story being told.
But moving beyond his past accomplishments, which I’ve covered at length in this space before, I have to say I have been looking forward to both of Eastwood’s films this year, and have little doubt he will find himself in the Oscar race again.
“Changeling,” I believe, is a masterpiece, with Eastwood patiently telling this haunting and searing tale with careful strokes, drawing a superb performance from Angelina Jolie, who moves through the film like a hurricane gaining force. I think the film is brilliant, but understand that it will not be for everyone. What film is?
As for “Gran Torino”, the trailer looks terrific, (which means nothing) but I quite liked the script, and if Eastwood gives it his lean, mean treatment, he will no doubt be nominated as an actor.
He remains among the great directors of all time, certainly among the top three currently working in modern film. His respect for actors is legendary, allowing them to show up and expecting them to do their job, the same respect he gives to his production crew who move from film to film with him, like a well-oiled machine.
For the “haters,” I say this: ask yourself the next time you feel like knocking Eastwood, or slagging the man and his work, why actors revere him and line up to work with him. Why they often commit without even having seen a screenplay but are there because, as Ed Harris told me, “it’s Clint.”
Knock him, slag him, write terrible things about him, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but never think of him as being anything less than an artist because if nothing else, he has earned that. And long after the ink has dried on the attacks on the man, long after we are dead and gone, his films and legacy will still be here. You do not gain the respect and clear admiration within the business this man has just by aging — it must be earned.
Comments
20 responses to “On Eastwood: for the haters”
You mention Eastwood is one of the top three directors working right now. I would be interested in hearing your top five/ten.
Oh, and congrats on the book deal. :)
Why should I ask myself why actors like him? Probably because his movies win them Oscars and they wrap on time. I don’t care. My opinions are formulated by what I think and what I think alone.
“As for “Gran Torinoâ€, the trailer looks terrific”
yeahhhhh, noooooo.
Even the most die-hard of Eastwood fans seem able to acknowledge how absolutely awful that trailer was.
“He remains among the great directors of all time, certainly among the top three currently working in modern film”
hyperbole alert.
I agree with you about Eastwood being one of the top 3 directors working right now alongside Spielberg and Scorsese.
I wouldn’t have said that 5 years ago, but since then, he’s directed Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima, all great movies with Baby and Jima I consider to be masterpieces.
I’ve watched the trailer for Gran Torino a couple of times and it’s got the makings for another classic Eastwood film.
Are there really that many “haters?” It seems like you’re making a straw-man argument – I think most people grant that he’s one of the more talented filmmakers of his day, even if they aren’t fanatics of his work. I guess we hang out in different (online) circles.
Among the top three currently working in modern film? I don’t see how he bests Spielberg, Ang Lee, Scorsese, Burton, Mann, P.T. Anderson, the Coens, Peter Jackson, Lynch, Linklater, Tarantino, etc. Different strokes and such.
It’s a perfect topic and perfect timing on your part, an older artist alive and working and capable of surprising. It’s a great opportunity to be thoughtful and think about art, and change over time, etc. while still talking about someone’s current work.
One of the many things I find interesting about Eastwood now is looking at his earlier work and seeing (reading in?) hints of later themes. Good luck on finishing and editing – maybe it’s an inspiration to have a subject who works so quickly and decisively?
FYI, the “haters” line was an editorial addition by myself. But I felt it in keeping with John’s thesis and doubt he’ll argue its inclusion. Though he might want to take umbrage with some of the comments here…
…I’ll sit back and observe. My opinion of Eastwood’s work is well-documented by now.
I have liked many of his films “Unforgiven is a masterpiece and Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby also sit on my dvd shelf. I just ws not that impressed with what has been said about Changeling and the trailer didn’t help. I do beleive he is talented but like every director they can’t make a masterpiece everytime. I wish more of that argument would come up.
I respect Eastwood. He’s done some good to great films but in my opinion he’s nowhere near “the top three currently working in modern film” . Not even in the top three of american filmmakers.
I can think of other directors that are even more respected by actors than he is and that have crafted a far more interesting body of work than his. But I guess this is all so subjective.
And about Gran Torino (I haven’t read the script, just watched the trailer) I still can’t see why he’s being considered as a contender for Best Actor. I’ll have to wait for the movie, but for now anyother contender looks much more interesting than him.
I haven’t been a huge fan of Eastwood’s films. I’ve never liked him as an actor either. Actually, the main problems I’ve had with his movies is the lead performances. They always tend to be so big and over the top. Swank in Million Dollar Baby. Penn in Mystic River. And I really haven’t liked what I’ve seen of Jolie in Changeling. I do think Eastwood is an artist though. I just don’t like his art. O subjectivity!
I just saw ‘Changeling’ tonight, so I was delighted to return home to see a post on the subject (well, sort of) at IC. I’m actually surprised the movie has generated the divisive responses that it has, and I do think it’s because of the divide that often comes between Eastwood’s fans, and his ‘haters’.
Matthew, to hit on your point, I can agree that Clint often brings his lead actors to big, showy performances … like Swank and Penn, and like I’m concerned he might bring himself in ‘Gran Torino’. Couple this with the fact that Jolie herself can often be too big and too showy, and I was genuinely concerned about this performance. But, rest assured, I don’t think it is. There’s moments that it’s there — and by the fault of the script, maybe a scene or two too many … but the focus of this character is her femininity, and with that as the goal, it leaves her more focused and pointed than lead actors of Eastwood’s past.
As for the movie of the whole, I have it in my good, not great camp for the year. I think there’s a story here that could have inspired a great movie, an Oscar-winning movie. But this script doesn’t get there … not with a misplaced ending, and not with a slew of extra scenes that Eastwood himself should have tossed out in the editing process.
The emotive quality that is built up by Jolie and Christine Collins’ story is just a touch too often undercut by the movie’s design for this to be a ‘masterpiece,’ as much as I think it could have been.
Clint is probably my favorite filmmaker at the moment. I love the way he handles his subdued directing and his choices are truly bold. The Iwo Jima duo is the bravest film project of the 00’s. One can’t deny the craft he brings to his projects. And yes, I truly admire the Gran Torino trailer. I’m watching it over breakfast each day now.
I believe Changeling to be a fine film, superb in parts, but Eastwood’s quiet directing makes the film’s impact even greater. Jolie was good in the film, my dad commented that Clintwood managed to make her act for a change. I believe that subject matter is a bit uncomfortable for some and the movie could be a bit leaner, those 140 were long, but I enjoyed them.
I don’t think there are people who hate him. Most of them just think he is way overrated. I am one of those. His best film to me remains ‘The Unforgiven’, while others such as ‘Million Dollar Baby’ and ‘Mystic River’ have not aged well.
congrats on the book deal!
But this ‘top three living filmmakers’ thing is the type of response that ends up falling squarely in the stereotypical critical divide that people talk about with Clint. There’s the ‘hero worship’ and the ‘haters’ –both negative connotations, but that’s purposeful since the truth is somewhere in the middle. i.e. I don’t think anyone would dispute that he’s a good director but when it comes to greatness and one of the best ever… the argument gets a little more strained.
I think if you look at the last 10 years of his career for example –the decade in which he seems to have moved from being regarded as a fine director to All Time Great and you look at the films…
True Crime
Space Cowboys
Blood Work
Mystic River
Million Dollar Baby
Flags of Our Fathers
Letters from Iwo Jima
Changeling
You see a line up that’s nothing to be ashamed of (certainly). But once you start comparing it to the same time period (or the same number of most recent films) within the careers of Ang Lee, P.T. Anderson, The Coen Bros, David Lynch, and Pedro Almodovar (just to cite a few examples) … i don’t see how he doesn’t come up short.
Nathaniel R that was an excellent response and got me thinking about an article on the top directors working in film today and their bodies of work — ten best directors and their work — coming soon my friend — for the record they all come up short in one way or another, but as Scorsese told me, “They can’t all be great films…we are always learning too, always trying to grow as artists…failure is good for us”.
I am not a Clint Eastwood “hater”, I admire the man for the passion with which he seems to accomplish his work. And I do think he is an artist – look at “Million Dollar Baby” or “Letters from Iwo Jima”: those films are simply beautiful to watch.
BUT they are no masterpieces. They aren’t even close to being included in my top 10 films of their respective years. And that’s a completely subjective point of view. However I refuse to see why Eastwood should be considered as one of the three best directors alive, when I think that even the often criticised Woody Allen has made two films within the last ten years that are better than any of Clint Eastwood’s works of the last decade.
Congrat on the deal John, I will keep an eye on it.
The first films directed by Eastwood let me confused about style, but little by little he found a wonderful style you depicted accordingly: artistry and simplicity.
There are stylish directors with grandeur style. And there are those who masters the zen of cinema. Like Eastwood.
He has become to me one of the more rewarding directos of the modern cinema exactly by that same simplicity. Like the great Sidney Lumet.
I admire and revere both of them. Consummated artists I compare to God. You don’t see the performing hand but you know it is there.
[…] recent article on Clint Eastwood drew an excellent response from Nathaniel Rogers (a regular commenter) that led […]
I watched Mystic River again tonight and I still hate it. Perhaps if we ever meet John, we can go tit for tat on it but the issues I have are far too many to list here? The only good thing about the film is Kevin Bacon, who gives an honest performance even when his (useless) sublet is wrapped up in the most asinine, contrived way.
Sorry about that wayward question mark. And I meant “subplot” not “sublet”. I blame Mystic River for killing my brain cells.