EPILOGUE: JUST ONE MORE…
3 years, 10 months, and 8 days ago…. that’s when this silliness started.
The plan to sift through all (at the time of commencing) 57 of Clint’s films from the moment he truly broke out with Leone was never meant to take this long. The length could be attributed to the practical explanation of personal reasons, and it certainly isn’t not a factor. Yet there is a more relevant reason. During the time spent with revisiting the iconic figure’s achievements, yours truly has been trying hard to contemplate how much this series would even do towards understanding the films of Clint. There is the undeniable notion that he is a filmmaker truly stuck in his ways, for better and for worse. It is something, as a fan, that I never really wrestled with until writing this series. Eastwood’s films throughout do indeed possess thematically outdated methods even if the overall intent is relevancy. That combined with the outpouring of brilliant and intelligent approaches to film making in the proceeding 3 years, films like Eastwood’s do force even an ardent fan to raise an eyebrow.
There has always been the observation in this series that Eastwood’d art has done a better job than most at possessing an overall balance in terms of relevance and which side it aligns with. That somehow it shows the whole and not one side or the other. Since writing the series however, 3 new films from Eastwood have been released, and while they do their best to balance, the result may not always be so clean. It is unclear who holds that bag: Clint for not observing the material carefully or intentionally choosing what he does, others be damned. In a way it is admirable, a man of his age and station throwing caution to the wind before he departs. But I personally find it troublesome. Many filmmakers in their twilight years did either daring work or settled into their audiences comfort zone. Eastwood, in this day and age, possesses a very specific general audience and my fear is that he is too comfortable with them in a way he wouldn’t be 15 years ago.
With that, lets have a look at his three most recent films. All three are based on true stories and all three have something intriguing to look at. At the same time, it may show a place where a diligent and hardworking director may be working too hard. I’ll let you be the judge as we look at a miracle on the water, a travelogue of heroism, and the fall of a generation.
SULLY
3.5 outta 4 People Bracing For Impact Thanks to Pesky Birds
The Miracle on The Hudson was an interesting subject to tackle. The big question going through minds was how to take this brief but memorable news piece into a feature film. What Eastwood and writer Todd Komarnicki did was decidedly inventive. The film cleverly follows Captain Sullenberger (Tom Hanks) as he deals with the bureaucratic fall out of his landing of a commercial airliner safely in the Hudson River after the engines were disabled. The film not only shows the landing, it repeats it… a lot. And thankfully for good reason, as the consistent recollection acts as a tool for Sully coming to grips with his new found fame and whether or not he is responsible by NTSB Ruling. It handles PTSD in an interesting way that is thanks to the editing and Eastwood’s ability behind the camera to create tension for a moment in history we already know the outcome of. He gives the film a proper balance on intimacy along with scope. Much like a local news story or a small item in the paper, it captures severity with a tight knit feel. By the end, you walk out triumphant, in a way that few of Eastwood’s latest outings have left you.
THE 15:17 TO PARIS
1 outta 4 Tours Of Europe
Sigh…. there is no way to write this without feeling like an utter ass. The fact that the real life heroes who stopped a terrorist attack on a train heading for Paris portrayed themselves in the film is both admirable and part of the problem. The real life men are heroes in every sense of the word, but throughout the whole film I was taken out by their admirable attempt at portraying themselves. It might be because, strangely, it never feels authentic. I don’t think it is their fault… this ones on Eastwood. Eastwood’s film is attempting to do two things. One is trying to lend authenticity to the piece with the actual heroes in place of actors, which has never proven consistent decent results for the reason that… well… they are not actors who dig deep into each scene. The authenticity only feels like a casual recollection and not a purge into the truth of their inner struggles and journeys prior to stooping the attack. The second is Eastwoods attempt at Cinema Verite, or a documentary feel and arc to provide a sense of realism. It is fascinating watch Eastwood attempt the realistic approach, but it falls into the trap of not having actors who truly engage in the scene and not having much sense of direction. I will give the film this though: in the grand scheme of Eastwood’s storied career it is the most interesting to ponder from a technical and behind the scenes perspective.
THE MULE
3 OUTTA 4 Burner Phones
THE MULE feels like it should be the culmination of something legendary in cinema. It also feels like a retread of something we saw 10 years ago in GRAN TORINO. Eastwood coming back to acting (along with directing) in this film feels like a disappointment only in the sense that it is entirely possible that at this point you feel fatigue from his persona. Interestingly though, his portrayal of a 90 year old horticulturist who becomes a mule for a Mexican drug cartel is incredibly subdued. Is that the acting or is it real life. Maybe it’s both. The films biggest problem is landing on a platform it can explain. Much like Gran Torino, it deals with an older generation failing to adapt and understand the present. And much like Torino, it uses similar devices to get its points across. But they feel muddled and unsure of how to speak. Is Eastwood satirizing Boomers and their language, or is his archaic attitude meant as a positive affirmation? In TORINO, the lines are much clearer. In THE MULE, there’s an identity crisis that is either intentional or overlooked by the writer and the director. Outside of that dilemma, the films melancholic approach to regret and reckoning is as present as it ever is in Eastwood’s films, with some very tense and thrilling moments between the lulls. In addition, out of all the work Eastood has done behind the camera in recent years, this film feels both visually and stylistically like a film he would have shot in the 70’s. There’s a nostalgic and episodic feel that was fascinating to watch unfold. Once it’s all said and done and Eastwood’s character meets his fate, you leave the film wondering (and possibly hoping) this is the last time. The character in many ways seems to reckon with Eastwoods archetype, and if this is where it ends, there are worse ways for it to end then this.
—–
With that, we are caught up with a hardworking person who never seems to stop. I feel relieved.
Part of me feels that my admiration for Clint, while not dwindling or gone, has changed to a more clearer understanding of how I and the rest of the world view his work. While I wont hesitate to sit down and watch one of his films again, I may indeed be more careful to pick and choose.
In the end, it feels like anyone who has read this will not walk away satisfied. You may not like how much I praised him, you may not like how much I criticized and called him into question, or you may not like me (which is totally fair).
To paraphrase a line in THE MULE:
“For whatever it’s worth… I’m sorry for all this”
FIN?