The Hot Blog

Well, Clint's still got 30 more days to whip up and release a THIRD movie that might make the Oscar cut.

(I say that in total jest, and Clint is my idol and I love everything the guy's ever done.)

man, i gotta stop drinkin before reading dave's poetry

He should stop drinkin before writing it
(ZING! Sorry, too easy).

Maybe it's good I went to see Punisher: War Zone instead.

Now that was some ownage. And the director's name? Lexi.

Coincidence?

It's the theme song to ALL IN THE FAMILY, people.

(Clint Voice) CHRIST.

WAR ZONE MOTHERFUCKER.

LOU FROM CADDYSHACK KNOWS HIS FACTS, cuz that shit is going to FUCKING RULE despite having a female director.

oh for fuck's sake, lex, i got the 'all in the family' thing, i just had a bitch of a time singing the lyrics first time through but i got there in the end (i have a lovely singing voice)

Yes, we all got the joke. Albanian fetuses got the joke. Thanks.

Translation: Dumb-ass McDouche didn't get it AT ALL.

What a douche.

I actually don't care if this movie is Oscarable in any way; I am just glad to have a new Clint movie where he's in GUNNY HIGHWAY mode wearing ARMY GREEN T SHIRTS and scowling and glowering with that GRUFF VOICE saying AWESOMELY HILARIOUS DIALOGUE like in THE ROOKIE, which is the very definition of OWNAGE.

2/3 of THE ROOKIE is the most quotable, hilarious shit on this planet, a crowd pleaser EVERY TIME, so I'll take ROOKIE/DEAD POOL REDUX any day over some regular old Oscar Bait.

(A) Yes, I got the stupid joke. And DP should stick to his day job.

(B) I actually agree that, after Changeling, I'd rather see an unpretentious, entertaining Clint movie than another Oscar wanna-be.

How much more awesome would it be if Clint had actually called the movie "Get off my lawn!"?

If rumors aren't true and he does act again, I expect him to play a dude in an old folks' home and find the coolest way possible of saying "I want more jell-o!"

LYT, are you serious about War Zone? By "ownage," you do mean "direct-to-dvd style," right? War Zone does an excellent job of making the Tom Jane Punisher movie look accomplished by comparison. The new one is just creepy (and style-free) fanboy gorehounding (and I say this as a horror fan).

Shame the word is bad. Although Wells reported that 3 big critics saw it and loved it, saying Clint is a lock for the Oscar. But maybe that was just to his face. (Clint's, not Wells')

What I want to know is whether Clint's portion of this song is in the movie itself or over the end credits. He sounds like Tom Waits as a Muppet.

http://www.hypeful.com/mp3s/Gran%20Torino.mp3

"War Zone does an excellent job of making the Tom Jane Punisher movie look accomplished by comparison."

Couldn't disagree more. The Tom Jane Punisher was embarrassing. This one gets straight to the point of kicking ass.

I'm not saying it's Dark Knight -- it's Steven Seagal meets Jason Voorhees. But that spells all kinds of awesome to me.

"I actually agree that, after Changeling, I'd rather see an unpretentious, entertaining Clint movie than another Oscar wanna-be."

Not having seen Gran Torino (or even Changeling yet), what are these "unpretentious, entertaining" Clint Eastwood movies you're hearkening back to here?

This is obviously going to be semi-subjective, but look at the man's track record over the past two decades, broken down into "Oscar bait" (O) and "non-Oscar bait" (NO)

2008 - Changeling and Gran Torino (Double O)
2006 - Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima (Double O)
2004 - Million Dollar Baby (O)
2003 - Mystic River (O)
2002 - Blood Work (NO)
2000 - Space Cowboys (NO)
1999 - True Crime (NO)
1997 - Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (O) and Absolute Power (NO)
1995 - The Bridges of Madison County (O? - don't remember the marketing/buzz on this one)
1993 - A Perfect World (O)
1992 - Unforgiven (another toughie - I remember it being sold as pure summer kick-ass, then the build to Oscar built from there - call it a NO to be fair)
1990 - White Hunter Black Heart (O) and The Rookie (NO)
1988 - Bird (O)

Aside from a few outliers on each side, I'll take pretentious Clint over popcorn Clint hands down.

You forgot 1993's In the Line of Fire, which was very well-received by critics and at the box office, and was not Oscar-bait (although according to IMDB, it received 3 noms).

In the Line of Fire was Wolfgang Petersen.

wow! just watched 'gran torino'...that was just painful....eastwood was ok but some of those support actors (the priest) were beyond bad...

Should've clarified that I only meant Eastwood-directed films, but thanks for jumping in there, yancy.

jeff: Even though Changeling is Oscar bait, I really don't think it's pretentious, and I found it quite entertaining in an old-fashioned, Golden Age sort of way - a good story well told. And of course I mean "entertaining" in the sense of holding one's interest, not making one feel good.

Nick Rogers--Clint's verses on the awful, awful "Gran Torino" song indeed play over the closing credits. It's bad enough I think he doesn't achieve his intended tone with the ending (or, actually, the whole film), but to hear him croak about his "heart locked in a Gran Torino" completely kills any good will whatosever.

CRASH meets HEE-HAW. He did it once with Swank's family in MILLION DOLLAR BABY, and now he has apparently gone full-retard. No thank you.

I was being a little sloppy, and of course Gran Turino is still trying to be an Oscar movie, but I feel like in a lot of ways I prefer the simple storytelling of a Space Cowboys or True Crime over the bloat and lack of focus of Changeling (I was mostly entertained, but I don't think it was well-told)/Flags of Our Fathers/Mystic River (I'm not a fan of that last one at all except for the performances).

'Crash meets Hee-Haw' actually sounds like an improvement on both.

In his defense, it does seem like Eastwood knows his version of the song is best in small doses -- his singing segues into the Jamie Cullum version of the song that, should it be nominated, is undoubtedly the one we'll be hearing at the Oscars.

LYT, "straight to the point of kicking ass" is actually what's wrong with the movie (apart from, you know, the terrible-even-for-B-picture acting and copious cliches). Before we know much of anything, there's the Punisher, making heads explode. The extreme violence is novel for about five minutes, but like that Rambo sequel, I just got numb to it quickly, because it's all handled with such flat-flooted, gorehounding clumsiness. In other words, it's got the overacting and buckets of blood of an exploitation picture, but their mere presence doesn't make it a well-done one. You aren't supposed to remember scenes; you're supposed to remember kills. I find that borderline creepy, and I've seen tons of violent movies, including slasher pictures.

I grant you that the Seagal/Voorhees comparison is apt. But it's important to note that this isn't like the best Seagal movie ever meets the most inventive/campy Friday the 13th movie ever. It's more like direct-to-DVD Seagal meets Friday the 13th, I don't know, say, Part VI.

Many geeks will embrace it purely because it's violent and profane, and that's too bad. The Jane Punisher wasn't great shakes, but there were some fun sequences, at least, that amounted to more than "and then the Punisher blows up or cuts off sixteen heads."

jeff: Fair enough. But I was thinking I much prefer the reach of a Flags of Our Fathers (flawed, but at least I fondly remember bits of it) to the thriller/procedural tedium of an Absolute Power or a Blood Work.

Anybody could've made those latter movies, but Clint, thanks to his reputation for coming in under budget, on time, and frequently Oscar-ready, is one of the few directors who can get a major to commit to something like Changeling, Million Dollar Baby or Mystic River.

I'm just saying I'd rather see the man trying for something great and sometimes failing than just waste whatever director capital he has left on CSI: The Movie.

Although I'd certainly take another Space Cowboys if he's got one in him.

I understand and agree, to a certain extent - I just personally didn't really see the fruits of 'risky filmmaking' in Changeling or Mystic River. Sort of like how, while I enjoy Gus Van Sant's experiments, I'd rather see another Paranoid Park than another Psycho.

Assuming Dave and some others here saw Gran Torino at an LA critics' screening:

Was Kenneth Turan seen genuflecting to the screen and foaming at the mouth throughout while sketching admiring drawings of Clint, all before giving the film an 11-minute one-man standing ovation even after everyone else cleared out?

Is there even a .00001% chance "GT" WON'T be Turan's favorite movie of the year?

Turan's reverence for all things Clint reads as just SLIGHTLY south of De Niro in "The Fan."

"Should've clarified that I only meant Eastwood-directed films, but thanks for jumping in there, yancy."

No, it was clear enough. My mistake.

jeff: I know it's a personal perception thing, but Changeling didn't feel bloated or unfocused to me. Like most Eastwood films, 15 minutes or so could be comfortably excised I suppose, but I didn't really feel the length here. Yes, it takes a while after the climax to tie up all the threads of the true life case, but since I was interested it didn't bother me.

I can't say that I'm surprised "Gran Torino" is (mostly) getting panned.
Like Ford's "Seven Women," Billy Wilder's "Fedora" or Hawks' "El Dorado," it's unapologetically an "old man's film," but kind of magnificent in a gnarly, grizzled, stubbornly marching-to-the-beat-of-his-own-drummer sort of way.
Gaucheries and occasional (well, maybe more than occasional) heavy-handedness aside, it's a worthy companion piece to the post-"Unforgiven" (if not before) Eastwood ouevre: yet another reflective meditation on mortality and morality.

"You've got a rendezvous with my ASS, motherFUCKER" from LINE O' FIRE = ALL-TIME CLINT WHOLESALE TOTAL APOCALYPTIC MEGA-OWNAGE.

Wait. The Gurus saw "Gran Torino" and it moved up on their list?

Movieman, please don't ever mention Eastwood in the same sentence with Ford, Hawks, and Wilder again. Unless you're saying "not anywhere near as good as" along with it.

If there's a more overrated filmmaker in the last 25 years, I'd love to hear who it is.

And I'd love to hear someone use the auteur theory to defend the aforementioned Blood Work, Absolute Power, and Space Cowboys, and True Crime, all which are from the last 10 years, after Unforgiven and can't be considered "old Clint". No great director would make four films so devoid of merit beyond cheap thrills.

Seems like a similar conversation came up here not too long ago, so I won't get into a whole thing -- but I quite like Blood Work, despite plot holes, as an unpretentious B crime flick of the sort Clint's mentor Don Siegel might have made. Also had fun with Space Cowboys and thought Absolute Power and True Crime were acceptable entertainments if nothing super special. I know that's not an auteurist defense, but I probably couldn't do that without looking at all of them again.

movieman, good point about late films of old masters, which are often dismissed only to be rehabilitated decades later when considered in the perspective of a complete career. Since I seem to be in a minority on Changling, I'll hold out hope for Gran Torino.

I wouldn't rank Clint with Ford, Hawks or Wilder I guess, but he's one of the few working directors who at least has been prolific enough to make a meaningful comparison. I think he's made lots of good films, but not as many great ones as those other guys.

Lazarus and Yancy:
I never said that Eastwood was in the same league as those hallowed pantheon masters (for starters, his pre-"Unforgiven" body of work is, for the most part, largely undistinguished), just that "Gran Torino" has the same flavor of some of their defiantly-out-of-step-and-I-don't-give-a-damn twilight films.
But a legitimate case could easily be made that Eastwood is the closest we've got to a Hawks or Ford working today:
the proudly old-fashioned, unfussy craftsmanship; a
constant reiteration of favorite themes, usually within a genre context; contrarian values that often place him outside the "mainstream;" etc.
And while Don Siegel was Eastwood's most influential and obvious filmmaking mentor, can I dare suggest that the "student" has officially (and definitively) surpassed his former "teacher"?

So I know these is fightin' words, but really, when's the last time you looked at the complete filmography of ANY of the "hallowed pantheon masters?" There are very, very, very few directors with a batting average above .500 over 25 years of work.

Howard Hawks directed 47 films. John Ford directed 145. Billy Wilder 27. I love the best movies of all three men, but each directed at least a few clunkers. I'd even argue, with the exception of the comparatively less prolific Wilder, you could classify half or more of these auteurs' films as, to borrow yancy's term, "acceptable entertainments if nothing special."

If you just compare highlights (which is what I think most of us do), sure, I'll still take the best of Hawks, Ford or Wilder over Eastwood. But to argue that Clint isn't a great director because he made Absolute Power and True Crime is to ignore the stinkers on the other masters' credits lists. Hell, even Hitchcock made Topaz, Torn Curtain, The Paradine Case, Stage Fright...

I think at worst, history will put Clint Eastwood in the league of Fred Zinnemann, George Stevens, et al - directors with long and respectable careers, a handful of movies people still watch and remember fondly, but no cult of auteur-worshippers.

Before Ford made The Informer (arguably his breakout film), he made approximately 80 films. So clearly we're taking about a different era. From that point on, he was STILL averaging 2 films a year, so I'll forgive him a handful of clunkers. You could also argue that once Hawks started producing (post Scarface) his track record is pretty damned good, too.

Eastwood, even before Unforgiven, had the clout and money to do whatever the hell he wanted. And yet after his Oscar triumph he continued to dwell in crap. After the second Oscar, he's now become an Oscar bait machine, and doesn't seem ashamed of so blatantly whoring for more, something I don't think Ford or Hawks placed too high on their list of priorities.

Don't even try to tell me that Hitchcock's worst is somehow on par with Clint's trash. Topaz is brilliantly directed (its flaws lie mainly on the absence of a main/identifiable character), and Stage Fright has long since been reevaluated on the critical front. The other two are still interesting entertainments with great actors.

You want to classify Eastwood alongside Zinnemann and Stevens? Go right ahead.

lazarus:

I was actually trying to pick a fair place to start Ford's filmography: Lost Patrol? Arrowsmith? But I'll take The Informer. There are still more than 50 films after that. Without checking imdb, I can name Stagecoach, The Grapes of Wrath, The Quiet Man, Mister Roberts, The Searchers, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance...

Others I'm sure can name more, and some I intentionally left out ("My Darling Clementine" is fine and all, but I don't love it). But 25 out of 50+? Not just "good at the time, dated now," but still great movies? I've got enough gaps in my Ford viewing that you could maybe get there, but honestly, I think a lot of "classics" get looked at through auteur-colored glasses. Is "How Green Was My Valley" really any less boring and overwrought than Eastwood's Oscar bait?

I guess if your summation of Eastwood's career is "he continued to dwell in crap" since 1992, then obviously I'd be wasting my time trying to convince you otherwise. Just like you'd be wasting your time trying to convince me that The Paradine Case is "interesting entertainment."

It's probably not right to categorize Eastwood with Hitchcock, Ford or Hawks, who were all three mostly genuises, but I do think it makes sense to group him with just about any other dependable, craftsman-like director with an independent streak, like Siegel or Zinnemann, in the second tier (or third depending on how you like your tiering.)

Rightly or wrongly, Eastwood already has more auteurist defenders than Stevens and Zinnemann.

Brandon: Yes, I suppose a lot of "classics" (with or without quotes) do get looked at through "auteur-colored glasses," as you say. Such critics can go overboard, but it's also true that more casual viewers can miss nuances and subtexts that connect a director's films.

At any rate, I think How Green Was My Valley is an absolute masterpiece. Yes, the story is sentimental, but not at the expense of life's crueler realities. It certainly didn't bore me, and only a couple of supporting performances struck me as overwrought. If Citizen Kane had to lose Best Picture, I'm sure Welles was happy it went to Ford, the director who seems to have had the greatest influence on him.

I've seen only about 35 of Ford's features, all from the sound era. Without putting much thought into it right now, I'd probably grant about a dozen of them masterpiece status, with the rest hovering in the vicinity of excellent, except for a couple of merely good ones. I seem to have successfully avoided his turkeys.

Among his best not mentioned here yet: They Were Expendable, Wagon Master, The Sun Shines Bright, his cavalry trilogy and, for me at least, The Horse Soldiers, Steamboat 'Round the Bend and possibly Three Godfathers.

movieman, I think if Eastwood has surpassed Siegel it may have more to do with clout than ability. Siegel was almost always at the whims of studios and producers, even after his biggest successes, while Eastwood has had near carte blanche almost from the moment he stepped behind a camera.

Amen, Lazarus!

Wow, short of John McCain, I cannot think of another grizzled old veteran (of his industry) who has been sustained by media hype and mythology (he's a Maverick, really!)for so many years more than Clint Eastwood.

Don't get me wrong - he has done many good films, but I don't think he's done a truly tight, accomplished film since In the Line of Fire, which to be fair, is probably also Wolfgang Peterson's high watermark, post-Das Boot.

Million Dollar Baby, Unforgiven, and Mystic River are all solidly made films, but I'm sorry - I find them all to be overrated based on bloated running times, some very poorly conceived secondary characters, sharp tonal shifts and third acts that really do not follow the logic of the story that preceded it. Watch any of them again and you'll see......

Brandon S said (re Ford): "But 25 out of 50+? Not just 'good at the time, dated now,' but still great movies?"

The more I think about this... forget percentages - how many filmmakers, alive or dead, have made 25 good movies? A hell of an achievement. Few of today's filmmakers will have a chance to match that because of the way films are made now, and I don't penalize them for that. But neither do I penalize the old masters for cranking a few out of the sausage factory, especially since that's often how they gained the clout to do the ones from the heart.

As for the concept of "dated," it really sticks in my craw sometimes. Arguably, anything older than last week is dated to some degree. Films are "of their time," and the onus is on the viewer to understand them in that context. We can't expect a film from 1945 to resonate in every way with a viewer in 2008. And granted, we can't expect a 2008 viewer to study the history of every classic and the era it hails from. But great films routinely transcend being dated. Great themes, superb craftsmanship and artistry being timeless and all.

yancy: I'm happy to back off of Ford, whom I never intended to disrespect. And thanks for giving me a few titles I should check out. Although I'll stand by my opinion on How Green Was My Valley. Gorgeous to look at, never got to me emotionally.

And Geoff: I'll withhold judgment for now on Million Dollar Baby and Mystic River until I get back around to them, but I've seen Unforgiven enough times (and recently enough) to know how well it holds up. Tonal shift in the third act? Hell yes. But it absolutely follows the logic of the story that preceded it.

Brandon, I realize that I am in the extreme minority on Unforgiven, but....

SPOILER ALERT

Throughout the movie, we are continuosly taken through the gritty details of the old west, demystifying all of the heroics we have heard about. Most people die and they die ugly.

But then we get to the climax where William Munny is in the bar with about 12 guys who have the drop on him - how the hell does he walk out of that bar alive? He kills all of them and is not gunned down as the "mangy dog" that the Sheriff predicts - it is such a bullshit ending that goes against the ultra-realistic logic of all that precedes it. Only Eastwood would have been allowed to get away with that and he did.

yancy: "But great films routinely transcend being dated. Great themes, superb craftsmanship and artistry being timeless and all."

I probably chose the wrong word, but that's exactly what I meant. I didn't mean "dated-looking," "politically incorrect," "pre-Method acting," or "primitive special effects." I meant "praised then, but doesn't stand the test of time." The way Crash is already more dated than a good silent.

"Forget percentages - how many filmmakers, alive or dead, have made 25 good movies? A hell of an achievement."

Again, I think that was my original point. To me, a great director is a director who's made some great movies, and the stinkers will eventually be forgotten. Whatever judgment film history makes on Clint Eastwood, it's going to be based on Unforgiven, Bird, Million Dollar Baby, Mystic River, his Iwo Jima movies, and maybe a few others that find a critical champion (personally, I loved A Perfect World, but it's been too long to trust my memory of a single viewing). Nobody's going to be saying, "Yeah, but he made Absolute Power."

Brandon: it's all good. I think I may have even had a similar opinion on "Valley" until I saw it again on DVD a couple years back.

We certainly seem to agree on Eastwood, however. I'm with you on Unforgiven, and I spent a fair amount of time recently defending Million Dollar Baby on dave kehr's blog. Mystic River strikes me as a decent procedural, but I didn't get much more out of it.

Oh, and lest I forget -- TypePad still sucks.

Brandon: I guess I was misinterpreting your point about Ford then. I thought you were saying, in effect, "So what if Ford made a few great films? His greatness percentage is not that high." I went back and reread your previous post on the matter, and that gave me additional clarification. Sorry for the confusion.

A Perfect World is one of Clint's best I think. And I'm fond of most of his pre-Unforgiven work, such as The Outlaw Josie Wales, Breezy, Bronco Billy, Honkytonk Man, The Gauntlet, etc., etc.

Re: Geoff's above Unforgiven complaint:

It helps that (a) What Munny does is hardly 'heroic' - don't forget what the movie's title is - and (b) the movie establishes that Munny was, in his day, the kind of guy who would be capable of such an action.

Also, the third act tonal shift in Mystic River is one of the only things I like about that movie.

SPOILER ALERT CONTINUES

I figured that would be the argument, Geoff. But I don't think it's ever disputed in the movie that Munny isn't good at what he does. Right after the gunfight, Beauchamp (the writer) breaks down exactly how Munny DID gun down 12 men and walk out alive. Munny calls it luck, but he's already been established as an experienced killer.

DOUBLE SPOILER - DIFFERENT MOVIE

I just watched Open Range for the first time last weekend (not usually a Western fan), and Kevin Costner's character walks through the same process with Robert Duvall right before their climactic gunfight - exactly how an experienced gunman can take out a much larger number of men. In neither movie did it feel like a case of, "If the Stormtroopers are supposed to be such great shots, why do they keep missing Han Solo?"

Back to Unforgiven, the climax is completely in line with the demythification of the western that you're talking about. The whole setup, the reason for Munny's visit, is a classic case of a black knight coming to rescue the aggrieved locals (the local prostitutes). Munny says all along it's not as noble or glorious as The Schofield Kid imagines it, but you don't really see that completely until Munny sinks fully back into the ugly killer he used to be - the drinking, the vengeance, and yes, the skill.

If the prostitutes had all come in cheering and the locals named Munny the new sheriff, I'd be right there with you. But they don't. It's an ugly ending, and it has to be, because Munny's been telling us all along how ugly it's going to be, even while he denies he's going to fall back into the old habits again.

If Munny dies in that gunfight, he's a martyr defending his butchered friend, and he gets to become a myth himself. Instead, he has to go back home and become a haunted, bloodstained nobody. Not even a legend - just a guy who maybe went to San Francisco with his kids and sold dry goods.

I can't believe the blasphemous bullshit I'm reading in this thread; Some of you guys' posts should be sponsored by fucking Summer's Eve.

To write off Clint's entire pre-1992 directorial career is your first folly, as you're thus writing off High Plains Drifter, Outlaw-Josey Wales, The Gauntlet, Bronco Billy, Honkytonk Man, Bird, White Hunter Black Heart; Am I the only one who grew up on this shit? Clint is practically my STAR WARS, and the shockingly glib dismissals via laz and Geoff sound like some Spree-addled 15-year-old ADD club nerd catching one glimpse of John Wayne on TV for ten seconds and immediately proclaiming, "Fuck that old man, he's overrated!"

Even the more recent potboilers you're all derided, even the Clint fans: Really, you can't see that something like Absolute Power or True Crime, clunky as they kinda are, are TOTALLY OF A PIECE with Clint's CAREER-LONG obsession with demystifying the iconography of machismo, of his own virility, of men in general? With their past-their-prime heroes valiantly, sometimes feebly, pressing on, even those clunky, generic potboilers are as valid a form of artistic self-expression as any number of equally transparent late-era Woody Allen flicks.

Just after posting that (29 log-in attempts, HOORAY!), I realized something interesting:

Absolute Power, True Crime, Space Cowboys, and Blood Work (and, I'll assume in advance, Gran Torino) are actually FAR MORE of a piece with Eastwood's recurring thematics, and have more of an auteurist center, than "Changeling" or "Million Dollar Baby."

You can say that "Mystic River" and "Flags" deal with the deconstruction of tough guys that are Clint's thematic stock in trade, but it's not really there in "Changeling," unless you're really reaching to include the boobish cops on the periphery. And maybe some amateur Film Studies whiz could whip up a thesis on how the gender reversal inherent in the story of a female boxer-- nah, not there either, unless you're spinning some major bullshit.

Obviously adherence to a director's overriding interests isn't what alone makes great movies or a great body of work, but there's a pretty obvious throughline running through most of the man's work, with the aforementioned exceptions; In some ways, his recent work retains some of his interests that go back at LEAST as far as "Tightrope," but in other ways some of these flicks are borderline hired-gunnish, in the best, Pollack/Soderbergh kind of way. But overall that throughline I think is obvious enough that it's surprising so many smart people think of him more as some folksy journeyman instead of a true artist.

Plus HE FUCKING OWNS YOUR ASS. Now get on your knees and BOW. Especially if you're watching THE EIGER SANCTION.

of studio bosses throughout most of his career versus Eastwood's enviable clout--based, in good measure, I'm sure, on his ability to work on ultra-lean budgets. But I'm only commenting on the evidence presented by comparing/contrasting their ouevres; and for me, Eastwood has made more masterpieces than virtually any other working American director in the past 16-odd years.
Sorry if I appeared to shortchange Eastwood's pre-"Unforgiven" work, Lex. There were plenty of keepers ("Black Hunter, White Heart," "The Gauntlet," "Bronco Billy," "Breezy," "The Eiger Sanction," "High Plains Drifter," "Josey Wales")) in Clint's pre-Oscar days, but lots of depressingly mediocre programmers tossed in there, too ("Firefox" and "The Rookie" for starters).
And without "Unforgiven," "A Perfect World," "Mystic River," "Million Dollar Baby," "Letters from Iwo Jima," "Changeling," "Bridges of Madison County" and yes, even "Flags of Our Fathers" and "Gran Torino," I might be willing to buy the "Expressive Esoterica" argument many of you seem to think is Eastwood's due rather than the "Almost Paradise" or, gulp!, "Pantheon" status I think he's more than earned for himself by now.
Since Sarris never got around to updating "The American Cinema," maybe it's okay if we start making some additions of our own. Certainly none of you would disagree that a lot of important, pantheon/almost paradise/expressive esoterica-level directors have emerged since 1968.

Here's the complete posting: (thanks Keypad!)

Yancy- I appreciate your point about Siegel being at the mercy of studio bosses throughout most of his career versus Eastwood's enviable clout--based, in good measure, I'm sure, on his ability to work on ultra-lean budgets. But I'm only commenting on the evidence presented by comparing/contrasting their ouevres; and for me, Eastwood has made more masterpieces than virtually any other working American director in the past 16-odd years.
Sorry if I appeared to shortchange Eastwood's pre-"Unforgiven" work, Lex. There were plenty of keepers ("Black Hunter, White Heart," "The Gauntlet," "Bronco Billy," "Breezy," "Tightrope," "The Eiger Sanction," "High Plains Drifter," "Josey Wales")) in Clint's pre-Oscar days, but lots of depressingly mediocre programmers tossed in there, too ("Firefox" and "The Rookie" for starters).
And without "Unforgiven," "A Perfect World," "Mystic River," "Million Dollar Baby," "Letters from Iwo Jima," "Changeling," "Bridges of Madison County" and yes, even "Flags of Our Fathers" and "Gran Torino," I might be willing to buy the "Expressive Esoterica" argument many of you seem to think is Eastwood's due rather than the "Almost Paradise" or, gulp!, "Pantheon" status I think he's more than earned for himself by now.
Since Sarris never got around to updating "The American Cinema," maybe it's okay if we start making some additions of our own. Certainly none of you would disagree that a lot of important, pantheon/almost paradise/expressive esoterica-level directors have emerged since 1968.

man you guys are just rocking the clint debate, it's a little scary, but i just wanted to add that 'bridges of madison county' is one of the few films that makes me blubber like a baby every time (a simply heartbreaking example of unrequited love), and 'a perfect world' is my all-time fave clint, i have a deep and wide soft spot for that little gem, i just adore it

"and for me, Eastwood has made more masterpieces than virtually any other working American director in the past 16-odd years."

For you, maybe. That's seriously devaluing the contributions of one Martin Scorsese, who also has a FUCKING THROUGHLINE, Lex, and manages to follow it from genre to genre, while creating art on a level that Eastwood could never approach (he also would never give us something as inept and empty as the aforementioned Firefox, or The Rookie). And I'm sure thee are others who would make a case for Spielberg, though I can't stomach doing so, even at the expense of Clint.

And for the record, I've seen a shitload of John Wayne films, and count myself among his fans.

Movieman, what would you define as Clint's 'masterpieces'? Personally I think that word gets tossed around and devalued, and I'd say that in that same period of time, no working director has made more than one or two films that can truly be given that title (three tops in a rare case or two).

"Unforgiven," "Mystic River," "Million Dollar Baby" and "Iwo Jima" seem like masterpieces to me. And the other Eastwood films I mentioned--the post-"Unforgiven" ones--come pretty damn close.
During that same timeframe (roughly 1992--present), Scorsese only made two films that I consider unequivocally great (and I'm sure there'll be a lot of disagreement here): "The Age of Innocence" and "The Aviator."

I would be happy to label both of those Scorsese films 'great' (plus The Departed) but I'd call neither of them 'masterpieces' which for me re: Marty are Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas.

those aren't in the last 16 years owned

Clint's probably had more "great" or "greatish" movies since '92 than Scorsese. Though that's not to see most or any of them are on par with Scorsese's highest highs.

I also want to point out that THE ROOKIE is entertaining every single time it's on Cinemax; I've never had even a second's inkling of an urge to throw in my dvd of "Letters From Iwo Jima" (sorry, Clint), but watching Clint chomp cigars and make fun of Sheen's doughnuts and guzzle whiskey and drop F bombs and get owned by Sonia Braga before cold-bloodedly shooting Julia's ALREADY-CAPTURED-AND-DEFEATED VILLAIN in cold blood?

OWNS EVERY TIME.

"BUCKLE YOUR SEAT BELT."

Whoah, LexG - spare me the "ageism" charges. Eastwood has earned his aged-icon status right alongside Connery and Ford, but.....that doesn't mean his more recent films were not overrated, in my mind.

I don't care how legendary his career has been - Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby were still inconsistent misses with illogical endings. Although, I forgot about A Perfect World - very good movie and probably the best one he has done in the past 15 years.

Brandon, you made a strong defense of Unforgiven's ending - I might have to revisit the movie, though I still think the idea of one man killing 12 men within 20 feet and walking out is a stretch. I mean, could the guy have even had that many bullets? You're right though - it's not exactly played as a slap-happy ending.

As for Scorcese, the dude has not faultered - let's see since '92: Casino, Age of Innocence, Bringing Out the Dead, The Departed - all excellent films. And Gangs of New York and The Aviator had great stuff within them, though they did not quite pull it off - those are his weaker ones and I would put them right alongside the best of Eastwood's best recent films.

Sorry, Lex, but it is Scorcese who has OWNED.

Eastwood is a true icon, and an ambitious filmmaker always interested in demystifying manhood while subtly reveling in it. Which makes him ripe for too much over-appraisal from eager critics who really seem to worship him exactly for that machismo.

And for the record, THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES is his best directed film. I do prefer his 70's output.

how could anyone forget 'a perfect world'??!! i'm shocked and appalled ;-)

that pesky beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, lest anyone forgets

Frankly, there are so many things working against the creation of a masterpiece, I'm often in awe of the "merely" great or very good.

I do think Scorsese has faltered in a way. His technique is still dazzling, but I haven't found his subject matter (or more precisely his treatment of it) to be especially provocative in the last few years. Granted, he's released only four narrative features in the last decade, but even the best of his stuff since '92 (the cut-off point we seem to be using here) pales in comparison to the highs of GoodFellas, Raging Bull, The Kind of Comedy, whatever. And he's often had big gaps between greatness.

All IMO, of course. And I'm not trying to diss Scorsese or elevate Eastwood. I just think the playing field is kinda level between those two, all things considered.

That's why I don't think Scorsese has made a masterpiece since Goodfellas (which, yes, was more than 16 years ago. But to be fair, I don't think any of Clint's movies in the last 16 years qualify as 'masterpieces' either. I'm stingy with the term.)

Geoff, Munny kills four men in the shootout (not counting the bartender who was killed beforehand). Not close to twelve. The rest of the men don't even raise their weapons and run.

I don't get the urge to pop Kundun in very often, but I still think it's better than anything Clint's done in his entire career.

It also shows a director who wasn't close to emptying his bag of tricks in the mid-90's.

I love how Clint aims low with his little boxing film, and despite its cartoon character villains gets called a masterpiece (which implied some kind of flawlessness, no?), while Marty shoots for the stratosphere with Gangs, and though he doesn't quite reach it, has to wear the film's rep like an albatross. Bill the Butcher (SUPREME OWNAGE) would carve up any of Clint's icons for breakfast, and I'll take a handful of bravura classic scenes over Clint's polite craftsmanship, and cheap hankie moments, thank you. And that goes for The Aviator as well.

You people are into CINEMA, right?

To tell you the truth, in all this excitement I've kinda lost track myself...

Laz, I'll *mostly* give you Gangs, but at least 75% of what makes that an incredible experience is Daniel Day Lewis, whose insane genius steamrolls over everything in its path, including obvious last-minute tinkering and interference as well as Scorsese's own inspired technique.

Kundun is one of those decent-enough experiments, like Age of Innocence, that I wouldn't rewatch again ON A DARE; For all the lip service paid to artists expanding their horizon and dabbling in new genres, both of those, and "Aviator" for the most part, seem like cool enterprises in their own right but we all goddamn know in the end you just wanna see some crime and gangster shit with F-bombs flying and De Niro or Nicholson owning some motherfuckers. We can all pretend, with our lofty film degrees and critical reputations and indie street cred, that we don't.

But in the end, we kinda do. Just like much as I'm down with "Iwo Jima" or "M4B," and will dutifully go see a "Changeling" with proper reverence, if Clint announced he was making "Dirty Harry '10" or "Only Which Way Left To Be," I'd be CALLING OFF FUCKING WORK AND ORDERING MY TICKETS A MONTH IN ADVANCE.

I admire Scorsese for branching out and tackling Kundun, but I'm still drowsy from seeing it eleven years ago.

As for implied flawlessness, I for one would never imply it, because I don't really think it exists, especially since there's always the subjective element, you know? At any rate, I don't think it's a prerequisite for masterpiece status, because masterpieces are made by flawed humans.

I wouldn't call M$B aiming low either. It's dark stuff, with an unsettling ethical conundrum at its center - not exactly 'feelgood hit of the year' stuff. I think it's more successful on its own terms than, say, The Aviator, which does indeed have some great scenes but is hampered by typical biopic problems -- what to leave in, what to leave out, what to fudge, what to invent.

But this is all getting to be a bit too either/or for me. They're both great, but they work different sides of the street. Plenty of room in the canon for both of them.

Yancy, I think the comparison is actually kind of interesting and worth going for - in the past 15 years, they have both been perennial Oscar contenders, although Eastwood has been much more prolific.

Seems to me that a lot of critics started to turn on Scorcese after his budgets got much bigger and he became associated with Weinstein - also, the guy is now doing animated movies and appearing in American Express commercials.

Late in his career, he has finally become a household name and I think some critics resent their "discovery" becoming mainstream big, like that band that you only listened to when they did "small clubs."

Sorry, but The Departed is on HBO all of the time and when it comes on, I cannot turn it off - I'm sure, the same deal for most of you. It is the most purely entertaining Best Picture winner of the past ten years and yes, that includes Gladiator, Chicago, and Lord of the Rings. Try telling me the same thing about Million Dollar Baby.

On Geoff's last paragraph, I agree ALMOST wholeheartedly-- No Country is pretty compulsively watchable when it's on STARZ! every 11 seconds. But THE DEPARTED fucking OWNS and it's one of those CLASSIC pay-TV movies, like Collateral, where when you run across it, whether it's from minute 1 or minute 100, you'll sit there zoned out watching it riveted.

Of course most people here won't agree with you on that, Geoff, because most people here profess to prefering wack shit like "Shakespeare in Love" and "The Hours."

Most people here also have lives, and don't watch Collateral every time it's on tv so they're able to get their SAG cards and not bitch about it twenty hours a day on the internet.

Here's one way to look at it--imagine cinema without Martin Scorsese. Even the last 15 years. A pretty sad place, in my opinion. And as much as I have issues with Spielberg's films, he's clearly vital as well, and doesn't usually make disposable films (War of the Worlds, maybe).

A cinema without Clint? Yawn. Would it be much different? I just don't consider him vital in the way that I view these other guys, and maybe that's the auteurist in me, though I'd say another craftsman like Lumet has a truly vital body of work, certainly moreseo than Clint's.

Geoff, I was highly entertained by The Departed, and I'm sure I'll see it again. And yes, it's more "entertaining" than Million Dollar Baby, but I'm not sure what your point is there. Mamma Mia! is more entertaining than Diary of a Country Priest.

laz, I agree with you about Spielberg's vitality (including War of the Worlds, which I don't find disposable at all). Notwithstanding the Indy debacle, his films are more provocative these days than Scorsese's (and yes, like Clint, being more prolific gives him an edge). Lumet's been pretty vital, too. I wouldn't want a cinema without ANY of these guys.

But okay, I'm imagining a cinema without Marty for the last 15 years. No Age of Innocence, Casino, Kundun, Gangs, Aviator, Departed, the great docs... would their absence negate all the other great stuff that got made? We'd muddle through without Eastwood's films, too. I'm just not sure why we have to use one as a stick to beat the other.

I'm no expert on auteurism, but judging from some recent back-and-forth in various threads on dave kehr's blog, Eastwood seems to have way more auteurist cred than Lumet, for what that's worth.

I think Geoff is correct that certain factions may have turned on Scorsese for his recent "mainstreaming." But anyone would find it hard to keep meeting the high standards he set in the earlier part of his career.

I think Scorsese is the filmmaker who's made more 'swing for the fences' movies than Eastwood, which is also why I would treasure MS more highly than CE. Gangs of New York is a delirious, challenging mess; The Aviator is half biopic (the less interesting part) but also half pure madness as it takes us inside the head of a man with severe OCD (which I'm sure Scorsese knows at least a little about). And The Departed, I'd agree, is the most entertaining Best Picture winner in at least a decade or three.

Knew this was coming - look, "The Departed" being entertaining is not the same as "Mama Mia" being entertaining.

What was amazing about The Departed was that it was smart, funny, suspenseful, well-acted, well shot - the movie had depth, interesting characters and an interesting storey - and it was highly watchable. Scorcese made his own type of film on his own terms and just knocked it out of the park - seems like a lot of people held it against the film that it was so entertaining.

And it's not like the film had a happy ending or even a hopeful, uplifting one. Infact, you could make a case that The Departed had the more downbeat ending than Million Dollar Baby, but......I only walked out of one of those films with a grin on my face. eager to see it again.

Dazzling filmmaking and very rare.

Oh I know, Geoff - I just picked as ridiculous a counter-example as I could think of. I don't disagree with your assertion, I just don't quite get your point. I'm reasonably sure you don't mean to imply that the Oscar should always go to the most conventionally entertaining nominee, but your original post seemed to suggest that: "It is the most purely entertaining Best Picture winner of the past ten years and yes, that includes Gladiator, Chicago, and Lord of the Rings. Try telling me the same thing about Million Dollar Baby." Okay, I can't say the same thing about M$B. But it still seems award-worthy to me, even if on a given day I'd be more apt to kick back with The Departed.

I just watched the Gran Torino trailer for the first time earlier tonight, and I have to say, regardless of how the movie itself plays, the trailer makes it look highly enjoyable in a gruff, crazy kind of way. The things I was laughing at probably aren't meant to be comic in the finished movie...or maybe they are?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)