Growls and Swells

GROWLS AND ‘SWELLS’: A CLINT EASTWOOD ANALYSIS (PART 19)

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 Eastwood’s films throughout do indeed possess thematically outdated methods even if the overall intent is relevancy.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?

GROWLS AND ‘SWELLS’: A CLINT EASTWOOD ANALYSIS (PART 18)

LAST CHAPTER: The Remorse of the Man From Malpaso

“Did Pa used to kill folks?”
-Penny Munny, daughter of known thief and killer William Munny.

In the 25 years since the American release of the Dollars Trilogy, Clint Eastwood managed to carve out a career that spanned many genres and levels of quality. He experimented and tinkered as much as many person in his position could without tarnishing an image that could easily be seen as a hindrance in expanding the mind and heart. Despite the aggressive and machismo tone his work possessed, there was never a lack of reckoning or self awareness. Still… he must’ve been wanting to send a much clearer message.

So when he finally picked up a script from David Webb Peoples that had been sitting in his possession since the 80’s un-read, he saw a better chance to do so than others that had presented themselves before.

The result of picking up that script was UNFORGIVEN. It is perhaps the most known of Clint’s work outside of the Leone work, the Dirty Harry films, and….. his work with Clyde. It operates as the ultimate mark in Clint’s thematic style, a style that he continues to work with to this day: a world of regret and reckoning. Nearly every film Clint has directed since UNFORGIVEN has tackled this topic and has led him to some of the most interesting and even baffling directing choices one could expect from just some tough guy leading man. What makes UNFORGIVEN the most prevalent is that it is a bold and unabashed attempt to dismantle a legacy he has in cinema.

Let’s get that rating out of the way first.

UNFORGIVEN
4 OUTTA 4 WAYS TO SPLIT THE REWARD.

We open on a short description of the known thief and murderer, William Munny (Eastwood), and how his late wife had reformed him from vice and sin. Living alone with his children on a pig farm that is barely making ends meet, a young man aware of Munny’s reputation asks him to accompany him on a mission of vengeance and reward. The job in question deals with gunning down two men who had slashed a prostitutes face at a saloon in the town of Big Whiskey. Reluctantly, Munny ventures off to claim the life and reward with the additional help of his old partner Ned Logan (Morgan Freeman), where all three will reckon their views on violence as they face off against the myth of the West and the violently flawed arm of the law that is Little Bill Daggett (Gene Hackman). The story of UNFORGIVEN has a lot to unpack not just for Eastwood and his mythos, but the way we view the Western as a whole. The term Revisionist and Post Modern is thrown around as a label. Personally, I offer it up as simple and savage Realism (though frankly, all labels are appropriate and dependent on preference).

Clint, through his direction and People’s script, offers a true reckoning for men who were our unabashed heroes. It puts them (and the audience) in the uncomfortable position on facing our blood lust and its consequences. Nearly every moment of the film contains an intelligent and emotionally mature crack at answering questions many never bothered to ask of the genre. How does a man who leads a life like Blondie, Manco, or Joe live with their frequency in taking lives for personal gain? More importantly, are they even able to find peace? And even if they do, what is the price of keeping that peace? The story possess a dual sword of Eastwood’s character being free from alcohol since his wife saved him on the whole, which gives his performance an extra thematic heft that more than delivers despite being on the nose. It’s probably the point, as Eastwood clearly wants to make sure his audience is understanding that this isn’t a fun romp.

A major note in this whole affair is the absolute destruction of mythos. While it is strewn throughout, it is virtually at it’s most fascinating when Eastwood is off-screen and our attention is drawn to Hackman’s Little Bill and his encounter with English Bob (Richard Harris). Harris’ braggart gunslinger rolls into a town where he is forced to reckon with his own gloating to a biographer that has been dictating his story of ‘heroism’. It is swiftly and brutally kicked in mercilessly by Little Bill, and Eastwood’s staging of that brutal beating is a man clearly expressing his contempt for these ideal myths that ignore the essential truths. Yes, there are many other ways to read this entire film, and that scene in particular from societal perspective, but from a purely cinematic perspective it is a direct statement on what happens when myth goes too far without actual understanding. It’s a premise that has been further examined in various ways since UNFORGIVEN, most eloquently since by Joel and Ethan Coen’s more current body of work (No Country For Old Men, True Grit, The Ballad Of Buster Scruggs).

The last, and possibly most important, is how Munny comes to terms with who he is. The finale of UNFORGIVEN is very much a man who becomes unhinged from the thing that kept him on the straight and narrow. For all the good he thought he could do by staying away from drink and vice in order to carry out one simple killing, he very much is aware that when he chose to ride to the job that he chose to break his moral high ground. He not only gives into drink by the time he goes back for a final stand off with Little Bill, he has changed completely. He has ceased to be kind and timid in speech, unleashes a slew of cursing, and is not above from playing games with the people on the other end of his gun. Does he realize he will never truly reform? Are the stories about him the definition of him as an actual person? Is his existence solely based on the hearsay and recollections of others? By the time he has blown away Little Bill and rode off from the town of Big Whiskey in the rain and mud, we are only hoping that it can’t be all true. That he is all bad. That he must feel pain for what he does.

The films post script is a final ambiguity while addressing the late wife of William Munny. It reads:

Some years later, Mrs. Ansonia Feathers made the arduous journey to Hodgeman County, Kansas to visit the last resting place of her only daughter. William Munny had long since disappeared with the children… some said to San Francisco where it was rumored he prospered in dry goods. And there was nothing on the marker to explain to Mrs. Feathers why her only daughter had married a known thief and murderer, a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition.

In the end, UNFORGIVEN never asks you to refuse and throw away these Western archetypes, instead it does ask us to not confuse heroism with virtue.

A more apt way to tie the ribbon on Clints archetype (and this series as a whole) is an exchange between Munny and the about to be deceased Little Bill.

Little Bill: I’ll see you in hell, William Munny.

Munny cocks the Spencer Rifle pointed at Little Bill

William Munny (nodding his head slightly): …. Yeah.

———–

Next Time: Where are we now and where can we possibly go from here.

GROWLS AND ‘SWELLS’: A CLINT EASTWOOD ANALYSIS (PART 17)

EPISODE 17: The Bromance At Cinecittà

It is said somewhere in the far west, in the mid 1960’s, a modestly successful television actor found out in a newspaper he was a sensation overseas in Italy. The praise of an eager Italian audience was for a job the actor took while on hiatus for his television show. That summer at the industrious (if not supremely respected) Cinecittà Studios, a small yet intense Western was made that would change the television stars life and the Western genre for decades to come.

Undoubtedly, the actor looked at the news and uttered in a gruff manner, “Swell!”

——

We can speculate to the end of time what may have happened if Clint Eastwood hadn’t decided to take a chance in going to Italy to star in a series of Westerns by a then unknown Sergio Leone. Would his stint on Rawhide led to anything bigger? Perhaps. Would the Western genre still have changed dramatically with A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS if original choice Charles Bronson had accepted the role of Joe? Perhaps (although I genuinely have a hard time thinking of that notion without a burst of laughter). Undeniably, we have to always look at this as one of those oft told instances of timing and luck. That serendipity on which Hollywood and film making lore thrives upon to retain it’s place in the worlds history books. For many, nothing beats a triumphant story of something coming out of nowhere and changing the game for the better. The turbulent but productive working relationship between Leone and Eastwood created tones and notions to the Western genre that we continue to witness today.

The films of THE DOLLARS TRILOGY are bold experiments in limit pushing, released at a moment in history that relied too heavily on outdated heroics and antiquated limits. When the films all arrived into American cinemas months apart from each other in 1967, they were met critically with the conditioning of antiquated taste. Among the expletives thrown around by the critics of that era was the term “Spaghetti Western”, as if to dismiss this European attempt at what was considered a genre that shouldn’t be touched by hands outside the U.S. They detested, among many things, the brutality of its hero and the brutality he conducts.

Clint’s portrayal of “The Man With No Name” (an utter misnomer, as he has a name in each one of the films despite donning the same wardrobe) sparked a flame of true and raw Western attitude. His cowboy status is actually of a con man gunslinger who still stands for something. An Anti Hero if there ever was one, his characterization added much needed depth as discussed in previous articles. In the Dollars Trilogy specifically though, it is unhinged. Few moments with him in these films show emotional vulnerability, and the majority lends heavily to Leones brutal and (realistically accurate) view of the attitudes and mentalities of the West.

Today of course, “Spaghetti Western” as a term is more positively synonymous with the necessary evolution of genre that had been rotting in television for the better part of a decade prior to the Bromance at Cinecittà that ushered in more possibilities for Westerns and cinema as a whole. It’s the legacy that Eastwood will carry even beyond his mortal years, and one I imagine he shares more than gladly with Lone in his head and heart.

The Trilogy itself, shows progression and development along the way. Each film is a step forward that adds more heft and weight as they move along. And it is more than interesting to watch that unfold back to back to back.

So lets experience the evolution of a genre in one big burst as we see the exploits of Joe, Manco, and Blondie.

(Note: all the films are 4 stars, as each possess their own strengths that make them great individually, so we will forego the silly arbitrary rating system for this article).

A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS

Essentially a Western set remake of Kurosawa’s YOJIMBO, A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS tells the story of Joe (Clint), also known as ‘The Stranger’ riding into the town of San Miguel and plays both sides of a bitter rivalry between two factions vying for control in the town. Along the way, Joe’s double dealing takes a toll that must be rectified with vengeance come films end. The film is truly the baby step in the whole affair, starting with a fairly simple Western premise that leans heavily on the grungy and greedy side of humanity with Eastwood looking out for himself. When the film does turn to traditional characters turns, they are not without ambiguity and a brutal beating. This film virtually kicks the door open for these antiheroes, and Eastwood kicks the door down pretty beautifully. His presence sells it. It’s the thing he has in his back pocket ever and always. Any other actor put into this role at that time would have been laughable. The stoic poise that carries undeniably rage is present throughout his scenes and combined with Leone’s gift with the Close Up, you watch an Icon be birthed in your very presence. You see in that very film how you can give a man like him the career he’s had for how long he’s had it.

FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE

If A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS was a baby step, FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE is a bigger step towards and into adulthood. Eastwood plays Manco, a brutal bounty hunter with no penchant for how he gets the job done. Manco is on the trail of El Indio (Gian Maria Volonté), a ruthless criminal with an equally ruthless gang. Coincidentally, El Indio has another bounty hunter on his trail in the form of Col. Douglas Mortimer (an amazing Lee Van Cleef), who may have more than just a reward weighing on his mind and heart. Mortimer and Manco eventually team up and pursue the bounty together with the result being an all out fight to victory both material and personal. FEW DOLLARS MORE not only ups the ante on the violence and the broader abilities of storytelling, it adds wonderful character dynamics. It is more noticeable in Van Cleef, who’s character holds back in a much more aware way than Clint’s character can. Yet within those few vulnerable moments where Clint’s dynamic is given an extra coating of empathy and contemplation, you see that antihero get an extra dose that makes this second outing more than just the middle of an influential trilogy. It wouldn’t be unfair to say this film may be the most interesting because it balances simplicity and complexity rather well in the most surprising way.

THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY

As many times before in this series, we are walking into the “Cave of Classic’s” (No, I dont like that term either, but here we are ladies and gentlemen). THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY is of the most, if not the most, iconic film in Estwood’s career. Where the first two film is the trilogy have more than strong footing, the final film in the Dollars trilogy has entered the public language in a way few films manage too from it’s breathtaking visuals, superb cast, and iconic score by Ennio Morricone (who also scored the first two). The story follows Blondie (Eastwood), Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef), and Tuco (the genius Eli Wallach). Three selfish men of dastardly deeds who are all in search of a stash of gold buried in the Sad Hill Cemetery. What follows is a search for wealth amidst the backdrop of the brutality and devastation of the American Civil War, with our three titular souls reckoning with their roles in a world that has gone mad. In the film, the transformation of the new, brutal, and honest western is virtually complete. It’s secret new ingredient is thematic heft, giving the Blondie character a moment to tap into his personal opinions and beliefs while still keeping the image he holds in the first two. A particular scene involving a fallen Union soldier and Eastwood handing him a bottle of half drunk liquor as a message of comfort following a bloody conflict is more depth and range than half the Western characters that came before him would do in one movie. Added to that is a sense of humor, albeit dark and riddled with vicious intent. It’s a mode of humor that Clint would use later in his persona, and one he contributes to the greater chunk of more modern Westerns. It is an unquestionable masterpiece of film, and one that has not grown tiresome in the slightest.

——-

And when all is said and done, Clint left Cinecittà and the Spaghetti Western behind following his time with Leone. It is well known that the two clashed consistently and that Eastwood was ready to move on.

Sergio Leone reaped enormous benefits and frustrations from the collaboration, but was taken too soon in 1989. Around that time, Clint must have been reflecting on that and so much more. Because what he gave us three years later must have been his love letter to the Italian director who changed his life forever…. and we shall chat about it next time.

GROWLS AND ‘SWELLS’: A CLINT EASTWOOD ANALYSIS (PART 16)

EPISODE 16: SADDLE UP, PT.2

Hope you had a good rest there, pardner. Let’s pack up camp and get movin on down the prairie.

In our last installment, we were able to see Clint in a variety of situations regarding his iconic cowboy status. Stunningly, while the characteristics remain more or less the same on a base level, Clint was indeed able to maneuver between sub genres within the Western setting in a way that can only recall the studio contract players of yesteryear. Having started in the 1950’s, Clint was able to receive training from the traditional set and then gradually over the decades expand into more thoughtful territory. It may be what has kept him popular for so long. While not the acting of traditional masters and legends of the craft, Clints consistency is nonetheless admirable. That admiration can definitely be seen in the three films to be discussed today.

Covering three different decades at nearly ten years apart, these films show how his approach to the Western evolved from aesthetic to thematic. So lets mosey on in to town and take a gander at some local hanging’s, anti-war odyssey’s, and spiritual apparitions.

HANG ‘EM HIGH
3 OUTTA 4 PAT HINGLE’S

Mistaken for a man wanted for murder and cattle rustling, Jed Cooper (Eastwood) is strung up and left for dead, only to be saved in the nick of time. Thus propelling the audience of HANG ‘EM HIGH into a interesting world of vengeance. With the help of Judge Fenton (Pat Hingle), Cooper seeks out to capture alive the men who wronged him. Spoiler: none really survive. Yet the traditional revenge motif is clouded intriguingly by the themes of the old west that the film chooses to explore, of only for brief moments. One of the most thrilling is a simple conversation between Fenton and Cooper over the necessity to hang two people who assisted Clint in capturing a known murderer. Within the argument is a sense of actual thematic conflict beyond the “wronged man” arena, but sadly it moves away to quickly to actually be discussed. The same can be said for the people who actually wronged Clint, who have a few brief moments of actual regret and one particular scene of extrapolating their dilemma. Hence, while a much standard and of the time piece, HANG ‘EM HIGH shows the promise of compelling material for future films to explore.

THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES
3.5 OUTTA 4 MIRACLE ELIXERS

THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES has been touted as one of Clints greatest ventures into the western genre for fair reasons. A sprawling epic journey of a Confederate mercenary in a post- Civil War U.S. seeking retreat from a world filled with horror and personal tragedy that does still have enough in it so many years later. The films outlook on history is extremely embellished and assumed from a very certain point of view, let does have an eternally fascinating outlook on anti-war sentiments combined with the traditional Western tropes. Clints direction is one of the films two greatest assets, as he becomes contemplative with the genre for the first time (but certainly not the last). The road is hard in WALES and the characters suffer intensely before any possible reprieve is achieved, and Clint makes you go through every mile of it without loss of detail. The other stand out is the incredible turn by Cheif Dan George as Lone Watie, a Native American who joins Wales on his journey. Its a role that is interesting to watch, given the tone and attitude of the story, and stands out as easily the films best acting performance. Ultimately, THE OUTLAW JOESY WALES still stands as a prime example of what the best westerns can do, even if it has aged in regards to many of its attitudes.

PALE RIDER
3.5 OUTTA 4 PEOPLE FINDING GOLD IN THEM HILLS

PALE RIDER is the last western Clint participates in that goes in and out of theatrical existence without fanfare or hurrah or significance. If one were to know that after this there would only be one final statement, I wonder how the reaction might’ve been in advance. As is with Clints career, he just seems to keep moving with very little regard for any sentimentality in favor of reflection (regardless of how warped or aged). RIDER’s tale of The Preacher (Eastwood) defending and emboldening a community of miners from the oppression of a Mining Tycoon wanders around a blend of dreary myth and harsh reality. The former is key, and not just for the simple fact that Clint’s character is a Ghost. The film pushes a narrative of the hand of fate via the prayer of a young girl that leads to the salvation of the struggling miners at the hand of , what the film wants us to see is, harsh lessons. A lot of it works, but the key areas where it doesn’t are represented in picking and choosing areas of faith and struggle to focus the lens on. The cost of this ghosts violence is tethered tightly to the old stamina of “good vs evil”, thus lacking much tangible tension. All that aside, it’s a bold outing that does a better job at its balancing act than you would expect, with great performances from Michael Moriarty and Sydney Penny. Add to that, yet another example is on display here of Clint’s ability to photograph a Western in profound ways.

——–

Now let’s stop off at the Saloon to settle after a long day of trekkin. When we get back to moving forward, we’ll actually go backward to discuss the relationship between Clint and an Italian master of the Spaghetti Western.

GROWLS AND ‘SWELLS’: A CLINT EASTWOOD ANALYSIS (PART 15)

EPISODE 15: SADDLE UP

A shot of the prairie landscape with a lonely rider intruding on the serene space is the best way to start this. For it will ultimately be the way we recollect the memory of Eastwood for better or for worse. And one does have to wonder if that recollection is too closely held to heart as this lionized genres impact continues in different shapes and forms.

In a film career that spans 62 years at minimum, Clint’s image is solidly planted in the mythos of the old west and the stories they behold within. Its an image that in many ways disrupts tradition for this genre and has defined its approach up to and probably beyond the present. The Western is the oldest form of storytelling film has realistically. This came out of practicality in the early days of Hollywood, where the then widely undisturbed landscape of California was suitable and cheap for Westerns to dominate the film output over any multitude of genres that required more complicated sets and controlled environments. As it progressed through the earliest parts of the 20th Century, the Western stamp was firmly defined by traditional heroics that now seem either cheesy or completely outdated. If there was a world where Clints Westerns were not around; we’d probably still have grown beyond the Ford/Wayne image, but it would have taken time. The Ford/Wayne image of the west defined lines of good and bad with a strict line down the middle, not too mention relied heavily on severely outdated notions of gender roles and race relations. It’s an image that sadly still persists in the memory of some as the definitive Western mythos.

It would be a fools errand to suggest that Clint’s Westerns solved the aforementioned issue with the Old Western tropes. The films that are at hand here are very much of a time and place culturally that several things will make you cringe within the current sphere. Undeniably though, what Clints films in the Western genre do accomplish are the breaking of many barriers from aesthetic on down to characterization. Gone are the clean cut, only slightly dirty, noble hero ethics. No, these Westerns are dirty. They inherently ask a loyal fan base to question their love of a genre that had inherently never understood the reality of their backdrop. An unrelenting free for all where everything could and probably would happen. The randomness of life and death, the amoral selfishness, and the lack of control are what define the Western atmosphere. It frankly wasnt until Clints films that we actually saw what the west was (barring some exceptions prior).

So going forward, we are tackling the stories of Clint saddling up to adventures unknown on the lone prairie. The best place to kick it off is with the Westerns he made with Universal. The three films at hand today each show a unique aspect to how Clint, whether as actor or director, handled the west in the late 60’s and early 70’s. Each shows a great desire to break convention, and in their own way they do just that.

So lets get along little doggies, as we discuss a drunk gunslinger, a mercenary with mules, and a vengeful spirit.

JOE KIDD
3 OUTTA 4 BAR SANDWICHES

With a script by the legendary Elmore Leonard, JOE KIDD is the closest to to traditional western in regards to it’s approach. In the town of Sinola, former bounty hunter Joe Kidd (Eastwood) is arrested for drunk and disorderly by the Sheriff and about to serve 10 days rather than pay his ten dollar fine. His sentence is interrupted by the disruption of a Mexican Revolutionary named Luis Chama (weirdly played by John Saxon), who becomes the target of the villainous and land hungry Frank Harlan (Robert Duvall). Harlan hires Kidd to dispose of Chama so that his acquisition of Native land will remain undisturbed by legal claim, thus pushing our reluctant gunslinger to a pulpy adventure where all is made right by Kidd refusing to go along with his employers scheme. Joe Kidd is a quick 87 minutes that gets in and out with enough action and tension to satiate, yet it revels in its desire to be anything but a fun ride. It’s glossing over of key thematic potential is almost necessary to it’s function as a good guys vs bad guys story. Clint is fun in the film, clearly having the time of his life sticking it to authority and going his own way, even if there is little depth in the process. It’s a performance that has all the Clint tropes without thematic baggage, and in a way is closer to the icon of Clint rather than the reality. Nevertheless, it’s complete fun watching his character swing into action and his final shootout with Robert Duvall is Pulp Gold.

TWO MULES FOR SISTER SARA
3.5 OUTTA 4 “NUNS”

TWO MULES FOR SISTER SARA is an interesting beast because it dares to balance comedy with tense action in a way that many viewers may think is closest to a Tarantino film than anything else they can recall. Directed by Clint mainstay Don Siegel, Clint plays a mercenary for hire who saves a nun, Sister Sara (Shirley MacClaine) from four undesirables in the desert. He then teams up with Sister Sara to help Mexican Revolutionaries in their struggle against French Soldiers during the French intervention of Mexico, and along the way develop feelings for each other. SISTER SARA’S strength in the film is putting Shirley MacClaine on almost equal footing with Eastwood in terms of grit, ability, and wit. To be honest, it is astounding that they didnt do more films together, as they are almost a match made in heaven, with their squabbling debates on religion and morals providing for some excellent character moments. In a scene where he is instructing MacClaine on how to remove an arrow from his shoulder, we see him get progressively drunk and numb while she attempts to follow steps. It’s a prolonged sequence that is worth every frame. For Clint’s part, it’s a delight to watch the character develop with the help of his co-star, and provides for some memorable moments and one liners. He definitely shows us why we would follow him for so long beyond the silent drifter. In addition, Don Siegels direction is unsurprisingly masterful, with the climatic battle at the French Army camp being an exhilarating and bombastic watch. Plus, if you ever wanted to see Shirley MacClaine eat a rattlesnake and declare it good grub, this is your movie.

HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER
4 OUTTA 4 BUCKETS OF RED PAINT

Clint Eastwood should have made a truly traditional horror film. I think he would have done fantastic with the genre. Previously we discussed PLAY MISTY FOR ME, and how it operates as a supreme slasher film worthy of that distinction. With HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER, Clint makes a Horror Western that operates on a similar level to the art house horror films we gobble up like candy today. A stranger (Eastwood) enters the seemingly timid town of Lago and from that point forward, raises hell. Despite a very disturbing first impression, the townsfolk ask The Stranger for assistance with gunning down three killers who are due to be released from prison and will undoubtedly return to the town. It is truly best, if you havent seen the film, to not go beyond this point plot wise. While the fact of it being a scary ghost story has already been spoiled, the story as it develops and plays out is much more spoiler- filled from and aesthetic and thematic sense. HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER is a brutal and unrelenting film supremely directed by Eastwood who utilizes his standard dark and shadowy imagery to full effect. It’s beats hit hard and by the end you have gone on a dizzying yet endlessly fascinating and effective horror ride. Clints performance as The Stranger, for that matter, is a horror performance that is nearly iconic and should not go unnoticed. The same praise goes to the ensemble cast, particularly the recently passed Verna Bloom and the always amazing Geoffrey Lewis. I would love to do a whole podcast episode on HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER at this point. Revisiting it for this series left me speechless in a way I never acknowledged the first time I saw it years ago.

—-

All right, we’re gonna stop and camp here for the night. Next time we arise and head out on the trail, we shall visit more of Clint’s journeys on the wild frontier.

GROWLS AND ‘SWELLS’: A CLINT EASTWOOD ANALYSIS (PART 14)

Episode 14: The Final “Clint Catch Up” Roundup

Alrighty folks, I’m a massive liar… well, I guess it’s only massive in the scheme of this Filmography Breakdown.

We are going to get to the Westerns and the final articles in the series, but in going through the list of Clint’s massive (and I mean, Massive) filmography, there are two films that I neglected to put on other respective entries in the analysis. Human error has been frequent as of late in regards to this 3 years running series of dissection. It’s not unlike the errors in some of Clint’s characters. The best laid plans usually falter, leaving only reflection and regret regardless of tiny victories.

The final two films of “Clint Catch Up” definitely mirror those sentiments, as they show very unique looks at Clints range in acting. The two films on their own could not be further apart if you drive them to different planets in a rocket ship, yet their commonality lies in how whether you are a good guy in the military or a bank robber on the lamb, the specter of regret and frustration lingers.

All right, enough introspection, lets dive into the final “Clint Catch Up” as we watch a Marine learn to use his words and Jeff Bridges in a dress.

HEARTBREAK RIDGE

3 outta 4 Members of Recon Platoon

Heartbreak Ridge, at its most audacious, must be seen within the context of the time it was made and released. Centering on Sgt. Highway (Clint) and his attempts to mold the minds of the young Marines in the Reconnaissance Platoon, the film unfolds in an Old Fashioned “Rising to the Occasion” fashion that does remain an interesting watch. The film’s only real crutch may honestly lie in its final moments, recreating the invasion of Greneda. It is not to say it is an error on a technical level by any means, but it plays out (especially today) as a Pro-Regan hurrah. The finale aside, the film as a whole does a wonderfully tight job of creating characters you want to follow and care about. The Sgt. Highway character is most interesting when he is attempting to reconcile with the wife he neglected (a strong and confident Marsha Mason ) and watching him fumble through the attempts at getting in touch with his “feminine side” (which the way this films figures is severely outmoded thinking). It is a film very much of its time, but expertly made enough to be worth a glance, especially if you have an interest in war films.

THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT
4 outta 4 Cars Stolen

Without THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT, you dont have THE DEER HUNTER or HEAVENS GATE (the latter of which can be amongst yourselves to debate about). Michael Cimon’s feature directorial debut is one that gets oft under looked by the noteworthy entries previously mentioned, primarily because it does not demand attention from you whether you’re a film scholar or a casual movie buff. Set in and around Montana, the film follows Clint as “The Thunderbolt”, a bank robber on the run from a gang that thinks he betrayed them. He encounters Lightfoot (the always astounding Jeff Bridges) and the two set off on a search to find the hidden loot Thunderbolt claims to not have squealed about. What follows is a rather reflective film around male bonds and the decisive divide of the reliable past and the ever evolving present. The film has a cycle to it and takes delight in humiliating its two leads along with Thunderbolts bandit compatriots (George Kennedy and Geoffrey Lewis). Its almost omniscient of the films Clint himself would later direct. The film is low key despite having a steady supply of action and a 20mm Cannon being shot at a bank wall, an incredible feat that is entirely thanks to Ciminos script and direction. Clints performance is more subtle than most of this era, and takes on a mentor mentality that feels more in line from something you really notice come the time of Unforgiven. It’s almost as if he was already drawing out in his mind how he would like to be remembered: Cool and tough but also sad and wise. In addition, you cannot leave this film without loving Jeff Bridges. Even this early, Bridges is full of the charm and lively energy that counts among the reasons we still enjoy seeing him in films today.

—-

Good, it’s finished… no more catch up. Stay tuned Clints western material (Fucking Finally) .

GROWLS AND ‘SWELLS’: A CLINT EASTWOOD ANALYSIS (PART 13)

Episode 13: You Have The Right To Remain a Punk.

Welcome back once again to the Clint Eastwood article jamboree…

‘Jamboree’ may be too strong a proclamation of enthusiasm. As fun as this series has been to tackle over the past 3 years, its definitely a series of ups and downs in tone, emotion, and quality. No one can ever say though that Clints work isn’t consistently entertaining, regardless of the quality. But like all great performers, you take a few blows along the way.

I cannot think of a better way than that to introduce us to todays article, which tackles a body of Clints Cop work that has nothing to do with the iconic Harry Callahan. Some of those films have been tackled but were deemed fit for other categories and articles (also a matter of what I had time and or access to watch at any given moment). The 4 films we will be looking at today are easily the most forgettable (with the possible exception of one), and they tend to be further down the slide bar on a google search of Clints filmography. Nevertheless, these films do show a varied approach that proves at the very least interesting to explore. In the end, no matter how strong the films or its possible fans can be, they lack the dynamic and watchable San Francisco rule breaking renegade.

So go for a ride along with Clint as we tackle an Organ Donor mystery, an Mad Max- esque finale, Clint in the Big Apple, and a moment with groin punches to dummies.

BLOOD WORK
1.5 OUTTA 4 Organs
*Spoilers*

The very late 90’s and very early 2000’s are weird time in Clints filmography, and none is more noticeable than Blood Work. Directed by Clint and with a screenplay by Brian Helgeland, the film follows Clint as a retired FBI agent tracking down serial killer who killed the invividual whose organs were donated to Clint. It’s a premise that certainly makes for an interesting trailer, but lacks any gusto to back up its initial pitch. The film heavily relies on melancholy and regret that tries much to hard to be as gritty as Fincher film. *Spoilers for a 2002 film* When the killer is revealed to be Jeff Daniels, it honestly has the odor of, “We need a John Doe reveal.” The films primary merit is really just spending time with Clints playing a cop going around the red tape or his interactions with Anjelica Huston as his doctor. All of Clints talents behind and in front of the camera are there, but the story and the plodding along do not measure up.

THE GAUNTLET
2.5 OUTTA 4 Buses

Efficiently directed in 1977 by Clint regular, Don Siegel, THE GAUNTLET is most decidedly a Dirty Harry rip off, and part of the reason that is rated as high as it is. The film follows Clint as a balls to the wall blitzed on booze Phoenix cop who is sent to Las Vegas to extradite a prostitute (Played by former flame Sondra Locke) and get her back to Phoenix to testify in a trial. The film falls down a rabbit hole of twists and turns that are fair but certainly convenient the “Everyone is against Clint” structure. The films saving grace and reason for placement in a history book is this insane finale. In it, Clint and Sondra hijack a city bus equipped with armor that looks like it was stolen from a George Miller film. The remained of the film is a fun for its time and still so action packed scene that is great to watch on a technical level alone. Its a testament to Siegels abilities as a director to make even one of his most mediocre outings and entertaining splash.

COOGANS BLUFF
2 outta 4 Fishes outta Water

If you listened to the Henry Jarvis solo episode of Reel Nerds Podcast, you have already heard his funny glib review of Coogans Bluff. Sadly, I will not be as hilarious as Henry in my analysis… or frankly ever in life period. Anyway, COOGANS BLUFF is actually the earliest of Clints outings as a COP, pre- dating Callahan. In a small way, it’s interesting to see what he takes into Harry and what he leaves behind in the Big Apple. The film follows Clint as ANOTHER Arizona officer who has to extradite a criminal. The twist: He’s gotta get him from New York City. It is a clear “Small Town Country Values in Big City Craziness” story that HEAVILY relies on Clints charm and approach to not grow stale in any way. Also directed by Don Siegel, the films novelty wears down slowly but surely and the outter elements step up to the challenge for the most part. Credit is due though for finding what works and doesnt work for Clint playing a cop, as pre-Callahan can indeed be spotted amidst the sea of aged situational humor.

TIGHTROPE
3 OUTTA 4 Dummies Getting Beat The Fuck Up

TIGHTROPE is an fascinating beast in Clints filmography. I’ll get this out of the way: the film does not hold up entirely well. Its foundation of a troubled New Orleans cop investigating sex crimes while tackling his own twisted desires and attempts to understand from a female point of view are most certainly of their time and do not hold up. If you watch the film in context of a 1984 world, its an underrated film in Clints body of work. The film walks it’s namsake fairly well, only dipping into the insane a few times. Eastwood reportedly directed most of the film while letting initial director (and writer) Richard Tuggle retain credit. That being the case, its interesting to see Clint move toward this feminine understanding, even if it holds zero water by todays standards. It is a film that is psychologically fascinating, and as a cop film manages to be a truly compelling and creepy detective story that thankfully ignores the Callahan Mold.

—–

Alrighty folks, the Ride Along is over. Next time, we will be doing one more Clint Catch up before we finally Saddle Up for Western Territory.

GROWLS AND ‘SWELLS’: A CLINT EASTWOOD ANALYSIS (Part 11)

Clint directs

EPISODE 11: CLINT CATCH UP (Part 1)

Welcome back to those still reading. To those who aren’t still reading, you cannot read this therefore this entire sentence is ridiculous.

We are almost to our conclusion, with 16 films left to go. It’s been an interesting ride thus far and we have managed to tackle many different subjects. At the beginning of this project, the intention was to find a category or consistent theme for each article and pair every single film that worked within that into that particular article. However, due to frequent lapses in my intelligence, I have unfortunately left a few films here and there from their respective categories. Thus we are playing “Clint Catch Up” to rectify this.

The first “Clint Catch Up” will be revisiting the “Being Tender In Your Heart” article which tackled Clint going into emotional territory. The four films poised in that article showed that for the most part, Clint himself is not only capable but also proficient at tackling the human drama through various points of view. The two films we will examine today how he both raises questionable material and how he can actually transcend an already solid source. It is safe to say that at least one of these film has an easy slot for the best of his career period. Furthermore, both do show how he is able to handle depression specifically through a grizzled lens. It is uniquely frank in its approach and tends to be the best part of both films.

So join me as we look at stories that discuss the possibilities of newfound love and the sad realities of newfound loss.

BREEZY

2.5 outta 4 Hitchhiking Trips

BREEZY is an interesting and overlooked film in the Eastwood canon. In some ways thats for the better. The film depicts the story of free spirited, hitchhiking, bubble of joy Breezy (played delightfully by Kay Lenz) who through her travels in early 70’s Los Angeles, ends up at the door of lonely, cynical, and divorced Frank Harmon (William Holden). As their polar opposites attract through the film, they develop a romance that delves into the “Older man dating a younger woman” kerfuffle. This films ingredients are usually a concoction for a relatively interesting examination of “what is love”, but the film tends to side step its potential by playing into the safe space of melodrama tropes. Its hard to tell at points if its the script or direction, because theres an uneasy balance between “Love Conquers All” and “Life is a Sea of Disappointment.” Clint seems to want to push the film into a darker territory, but theres a noticeable hesitancy thank is clearly absent in his career going foreward as a director. Having said that, the chemistry between Holden and Lenz is there despite not having a solid roadmap. It also boasts in its opening 10 minutes a sadly all too relevant moment involving Breezy and a creepy driver, which is unfortunately kinda just an isolated moment rather than a point of discussion. Lastly, Roger C. Carmel (famous for his role as Mudd on the original Star Trek series) has an interesting side arc that, while limited, would be an interesting character to follow on its own. All in all, it does nothing too spectacular to further the Romantic Drama and sadly it does makes sense while Universal shelved it for a spell before its ultimate release.

MYSTIC RIVER
4 outta 4 Walks Down A Sad Boston Street

If it had been any other year, Mystic River would have grabbed the Oscar for Best Picture. But 2003 was, rightfully so, they year to finally honor Peter Jackson’s mighty Middle Earth trilogy. This film is easily the best thing Clint directed that he was not an actor in. Following the story of three men (Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, and Kevin Bacon) who are reconnected through tragedy when Penn’s daughter is murdered. What follows is a deep, dark, and dirty look into grief, loss, regret, and unspeakable real life horror. Clint’s style of dark lighting and moody atmosphere is cranked to eleven for the film, pushing the actors psychologically and sometimes physically into uncomfortable places that keeps the viewer engaged and tense. It has a thriller element involving the investigation of the daughters murder that weaves through complicated emotional situations with superb grace. Clint does not hold back for any single moment in this film from it’s horrifying opening to it’s somber conclusion. It also boasts among the finest performances of the three main leads, with Robbins being the stand out as the most tortured one of the bunch. There are moments of levity with the help of Laurence Fishburn, but even those tend to thankfully service the story as a whole rather than create a true distraction. By the time the film is over, you the viewer are left to ponder over it’s numerous examinations of loss in all its forms. And it intelligently gives you a conditional “happy ending” that is loaded with baggage that can only be unpacked in your mind.

————

Thus ending the saga of Tender Clint. Next time, we will be playing catch up once again. And soon, very soon, we will get to Clints most famous trope.

GROWLS AND ‘SWELLS’: A CLINT EASTWOOD ANALYSIS (Part 10)

Clint

EPISODE 10: BOO, PUNK!

Welcome back to Clint-ville eager readers.

Last month we got to dive into Clints musical side, and boy could he play a tune.

As it has been exhausted in this series, the fact remains that Mr. Eastwood can run the gamut with efficiency. And as we learn today, sometimes that even means exploring the weird alleys many “prestigious” men dare not tread.

I’ll be frank, the three films examined for this article are the closest Clint has gone towards the science fiction and horror realm. It is certainly not what you expect from him. Yet in watching them we get to see a part of him that is honestly his most admirable. In an interview, Clint once proclaimed his eagerness to keep learning even in his later years. He boasts rightfully that it allows him to try new things, and while the three films today are not among his mainstream classics, they prove his willingness to say “Fuck it” and move with full force.

So join us as we delve into tales of obsession, the supernatural, and elderly regret in the stars.

PLAY MISTY FOR ME

4 outta 4 Slashers

PLAY MISTY FOR ME is an important picture for Clint, as it marks his directorial debut… and what a debut. MISTY is a straight forward horror film. Many will put this into the thriller barrel to save face (Horror is a dirty word in Hollywood despite it bringing in so much money for them), but I know a horror film when I see one and this is definitely one. The film centers around Clint’s disc jockey character, Dave Garver, who’s one night stand with die hard fan Evelyn (Jessica Walter) turns into a nightmare when Evelyns obsession with him turns downright deadly for him and those around him. The main selling points on this being a horror film are Jessica Walter’s amazing performance as the deranged Evelyn, whose actions move into some of the creepiest slasher sequences I’ve seen from a film that early in the 70’s, and it plays with the dark so well. Clint and DP Bruce Surtees paint a dark portrait in this film, making Carvel, CA almost the sister to Antonio Bay in THE FOG. Its a superb triumph for any first time filmmaker to handle tension so well, and frankly suggests that Clint could’ve been an effective horror director going forward if the cowboy/cop thing ever collapsed.

HEREAFTER

2.5 outta 4 Ghosts you shouldn’t be afraid of…

This film is without a doubt the strangest beast in Clints filmography. It’s also one of his most ambitious in many ways. The film surrounds how the supernatural affects the lives of three different sets of people, including Matt Damon as a former clairvoyant who no longer wishes to speak to the dead. The three interchanging stories don’t balance out as well as one would hope, with the only truly fascinating story being about a French newswoman (Cecile de France) who deals with the aftermath of having survived a tsunami. The other two series are sadly… just kinda there. The star of the film is honestly the cinematography and the extent in which Clint plays a role in it. The three stories are separated out by three distally different color palettes which makes the film more fun to examine and dissect on a purely academic level. Its a shame too because all the pieces are there for Clint to tell a grown up ghost story.

SPACE COWBOYS

3 outta 4 Cowboys, but in SPACE!

The first Clint Eastwood film I ever saw in a theater is also the strangest. Its also Clints only real dip into Science Fiction, even if that dip is extremely shallow on defining its genre (It involves science and is a fictional story. Math). Truth is, this is much more of a comedic Geezer-sploitation film that has a surprising amount of heart. The story revolves around 4 Air Force pilots who in their waning years finally get their shot at going to space when a Russian satellite is about to crash to Earth. Clint shows off his usual swagger and leaves plenty of room for Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland, and James Garner to show off their comic chops. Its certainly not a perfect space movie or even a perfect Geezer-sploitation film, as it tails off into heavy handed revelations a bit late in the over 2 hour game. Still, its probably the closest Clint will ever come to playing a Space Cop, so I say enjoy.

———————

Well boils and ghouls, that was what happens when Clint goes creepy or beyond the stars. Tune in next month when we will dig into the second part of Tender Clint.

GROWLS AND ‘SWELLS’: A CLINT EASTWOOD ANALYSIS (Part 9)

clint

EPISODE 9: I LOVE TO SING-A!

Welcome back to… JESUS, I HAVEN’T WRITTEN AN ARTICLE SINCE APRIL OF 2016?!?!?!

Yes dear readers, I’m afraid I was away for a while. But I have a good explanation …

You see, after the last article I decided to take a journey to a big city, one with many bridges. I just needed to get away. Well no sooner did I arrive in that big city that I went to one of their many banks to cash a travelers check when a gang of masked clowns burst through the door and robbed it, with one of them escaping on a school bus after killing all his fellow clown robbers and revealing under his mask that he was an even scarier clown. Well I got out of there quickly and got to my hotel and after a few days of watching more Clint movies for this series, I decided to take a barge ride to another part of the city. Wouldn’t you know it though, that same scary clown came over the boat intercom and revealed that if we didn’t turn a switch and blow up another boat, we would be blown up. Thankfully, A big giant bat suited man stopped him and I was whisked off to the police station to write a statement. As I left though I was shaken as I learned that the “Bat” man that saved us was then outlawed. I decided to not rest until he was vindicated… so I started a grassroots campaign to clear his name. Turns out he didn’t need my help, cause he vindicated himself a few months later by stopping a guy in a breathing mask and carrying away a nuclear bomb to a safe distance. The body was never found near the wreckage of his inexplicably high tech plane, so who knows. Maybe he got to safety and is hanging out in a outdoor cafe with the girl from The Princess Diaries…

With that, I packed my bags and came back home, forever changed by this “Bat” man….

Sigh….

Anyway…… CLINT GOES MUSICAL!

Clint though has been very vocal in his appreciation for music. His scores for his own films have been an important part of his legacy. The Warner Brothers even named one of their musical studio buildings after him.

Music themed films take a small yet important 4 film portion of his career. Two are only true musicals, the others are music centric.

So join me once again as we explore a legendary jazz musician, a uncle/nephew tale in the Great Depression, Lee Marvin singing, and THE FOUR SEASONS!!!

BIRD

3.5 outta 4 Saxaphones

When it comes to Jazz biopics, Clint certainly delivers one of the most interesting and compelling. BIRD recounts the story of saxophonist Charlie “Bird” Parker as he runs through the tragic mills of obscurity and drug addiction to make a name for himself in the world of Jazz. The films seemingly lowest quality is in its basic construction. The structure here is loose, even too loose for a film about jazz. As it jumps from moment to moment, it can be seen as directionless. I would challenge one however to view it as more of a exercise on the script and clients part to play the story with style and mood to draw out the right reactions. Its a gamble and it may not work for anyone who detests artsy fare. As usual, this films beautiful cinematography lines up with Clints established style of mood and noir, which gives Bird’s story a proper telling.

PAINT YOUR WAGON

2.5 outta 4 Wagons

Look… if you are like me, you first heard about this films existence from a hilarious bit on an episode of The Simpsons. And while I won’t say the film is as dreadful as Homer and Bart felt it was, I cannot say it holds up very well. Not even an adaptation from the legendary Paddy Chayefsky can make it as timeless as it aspires to be. Set in the Gold Rush days of California, and the hijinks that ensue, the film’s primary set piece of a mining camp has a tone of tongue in cheek that frankly was done better 5 years later by the town of Rock Ridge in Blazing Saddles. The humor sadly falls flat, leaving a plot that while time honored from melodrama, cannot compel. In terms of our hero (in co bill with Lee Marvin), Clint tries his very best in the role of Pardner, and delivers well on the song “I Still See Elisa” in the first moments of the film, but overall, you can tell he is not yet used to stretching beyond his gritty roots. While elaborately staged and technically spot on, it winds up a drag in time.

JERSEY BOYS

3.5 outta 4 References to Martin Scorsese

Now hear me out: this film is not the disappointment it was reported to be upon release in 2014. More to the point, it is actually a entertaining affair more than worth your time as you glide down the dark and strangely humorous slide that is the story of Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons. Lifting primarily from the hit stage show for it’s script, it falls on Clint to visually guide the audience. His choice is familiar in as much as his camera moves nearly point for point as an homage to Goodfellas. While this seems blasphemous, I will remind you that this is ultimately a story about A) a tragic spiral and B) gangsters (albeit somewhat ancillary). This choice does service in comparison to any alternative flat staging that a musical surrounded by pop songs could feasibly be. Added on to that, he grabs wonderful performances from the original broadway cast and a expertly casted Christopher Walkin. Is it perfect? No, but given that Clint stepped into this almost last minute (at least that how it seems given Jon Favreau was attached forever), I’d say, “job well done.”

HONKYTONK MAN

4 outta 4 People in a car headed for Nashville

What on the One Sheet Poster surface seems like shameless nepotism is actually a tender old fashioned melodrama centered around the dream to make it big. The story concerns Clint as a singer invited to audition for the Grand Ole Opry in the 1930’s. He drags along his young nephew (Played by Clint’s son Kyle Eastwood) and the film recounts their journey to reach Nashville. From the set up to the end, we are actually given a sadder story to contend with. Clint’s character is broken, both figuratively and literally as he pines and comes to terms with his life of bad decisions, surrounded mainly by his nephew who must come to terms with these awkward truths about a man he admires and adores. In a way, it’s one of the greatest performances Clint has ever given, one that easily could’ve snatched an Oscar were it not for the nepotism stigma. Said stigma, as it happens, is not warranted, as Kyle holds his own just as fine as any child actor in the late 70’s/ early 80’s. It is frankly a decent film that, while not necessarily aging well in terms of it’s content, surpasses the hurdle with a captivating performance.

————————-

So there you have it folks, the Eastwood has awaken from it’s slumber, and will continue now once a month until the very end.

Next month, we are gonna dive into films in Clint’s filmography that are on the more bizarre and unexpected side. Ones that make you simply say, “He did what now?”

Stay Tuned. Same Clint Time, Same Clint Channel.

Scroll to top