Showing posts with label Clint Eastwood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clint Eastwood. Show all posts

Saturday, October 6, 2012

Trouble with the Eastwood?



When I heard Clint Eastwood was coming out of retirement (he said Gran Torino would be his last film as an actor) my feelings were mixed. I figured he, like MJ, had the perfect close to his (acting) career with Gran Torino. It certainly wasn’t his best all-around movie, but it definitely scooped into a barrel of quotables and kicked some gritty neck-scrunching ass. Everything you’ve come to know and love Eastwood for. One last ride into the sunset, albeit a much older, retiree sunset.

Then, I saw my all-time favorite actress, Amy Adams, was on the bill. My thought was, Million Dollar Baby II, one last run at the Oscar. Why not? The academy certainly makes picks to reward a career over the present, for respect and it’s own “Hall of Fame” aspirations. I thought Adams would be a ray of sunshine to what is typically and literally a dark brand of cinematography. Adams certainly can shine in shadow lighting too, right?

It and many other feelings alllllllll came crashing down when he made that “Eastwood and Chair” (link: Bill Hader SNL edition) speech at the Republican National Convention. What a train wreck. It reminded me of how I would turn my face away from the TV the first time I watched the British Office. Squirming. Squinting. Covering my eyes, I got through what seemed like a half hour of the worst improv I’ve ever seen. That brought my dreams of Eastwood glory to a screeching, whistle-laden speech impediment halt. There would be no Oscar. Is everything I know and love about my favorite movie maker a sham? Perhaps, he’s just a senile old man off his gourd? Or, I’ve hitched my movie wagon to an incandescent asshole, you know, the opposite of the kind of admirable asshole he plays in his movies that I love so fondly. 

I soon learned the real reason he came out of retirement was to help his long time director assistant and production partner, Robert Lorenz, who was directing his first film. That seemed noble to me. I like that. Use the name and pass the torch onto others. It was the first time since the 90’s In the Line of Fire that Clint relinquished overall movie command. They were able to rope in quite a surrounding cast, with Adams, who without a doubt was the star of this movie, and JT, who added impressive comedic flair, along with John Goodman, who once again, is in EVERY movie. Good for Goodman.

The real question I have about it all: Was it worth it? I believe, because of the retarded speech, Clint was actually in need to come through on screen to not tarnish his movie legacy.

I didn’t like J.Edgar at all. It was like a boring Oliver Stone spoof. 2009’s Invictus was similarly disappointing with a seemingly great premise and all-world cast with Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela and Matt Damon as a studly rugby player.

The 2006 duo-perspectives of the flag-raising at Iwo Jima left me slightly ying-yang dizzy. I felt Flags of our Fathers was flat, while Letters from Iwo Jima left me stunned with its sheer awesomeness.  I’m not sure how Eastwood pulled off a picture in Japanese and why that perspective had so much more punch and enthrallment, but it did and the duo perspectives ordeal ended up being successful in the face of a probable plateau.    

2010’s Hereafter and 2008’s Changeling were good movies, but nothing to get overly excited or brag about.  

Needless to say, after Gran Torino, I think coming out and making a bad movie would teeter the end of his career to a downward spiral that would possibly affect the legacy. So, that’s added pressure for Trouble with the Curve. Grantland already predicated this concept, basically promenading over Eastwood’s career as if he were the Limp Bizkit of filmmaking. They can go-ahead and profile the “rise and fall” OF MY ASS!!!!

There was one great take in the piece I agreed with though, “He rolled movies off studio lots like cars off Ford factory floors: speedily, under budget, without a ton of flash or hassle or pauses for fits of artiste-style pique. Actors and executives spoke with awe about how quickly and painlessly it all happened. And then it was onto the next one.”

I guess I’ve always enjoyed that about Eastwood though. His steady hand guides you through darkness, violence and all-around malfeasance like a floating, rocking hammock. I like a warm glass of milk when Sean Penn’s daughter is killed. Despite the awards and overall recognition, the highs and lows of his movies are typically pretty tame and/or consistent. You know what you’re going to get. That’s why J.Edgar and “Eastwood and Chair” were very troubling to me. He was handed Leo and a topic that should have been more engulfing. It wasn’t. He was handed a spotlight to make something I’m typically not that interested in, more exciting. He didn’t. He made me question my taste in pictures and heroes. He let me down.

Does Trouble with the Curve deserve all this pressure cooker legacy propaganda? Certainly not. Why can’t movies be fun anymore? You go, take a load off, get some terrible-for-you-food and forget about life. Good, bad, indifferent—just be entertained. There’s nothing like it, cue projecting reel sound.

Eastwood’s comeback was pretty parallel to Micheal Jordan’s with the Wizards. He proved in Trouble with the Curve that even at an age when you don’t belong “in the biz” the moves are still there beyond what others are capable of in their prime. He probably shouldn’t have made the movie and certainly should have declined to speak at the RNC, but, there is still something there for those like myself, that miss zipping by Model T’s on the roads. Even if you’re like me and weren’t alive when they were on the roads, you’ve read about them, your parents and grandparents told you stories trumpeting their omniscient prowess. They are ancient archeological antiques that now rule museums. When you see one, alive and well, you just have to gawk, and remember the day when they ruled the world.

Despite all that, I don’t think Trouble with the Curve has NOTHING to offer. The chemistry between JT and Amy Adams was electric, though mostly spoiled by the previews (stop doing that previews!!!). Timberlake is really proving that he can carry his own in a movie. He was funny, light and reflected the classic Amy Adams shine right back to her. It was tennis, not Adams hitting the ball against a wall, although, I’d certainly watch that—especially if she had a ponytail and sweats. Adams always seems like a real person to me. Perhaps, it’s because I have a friend that looks/acts/has the same first name as her. I just always see something real from something as basic as having a crooked smile, remembering her first movie moment (that I remember) as a girl with braces, to being remarkably cute in a non-movie star way. I think we all know an Amy Adams in our life, which seems plain, oozes cuteness, yet is an ordinary part of your day, but is extraordinary once she exits your lens.

The baseball scouts and players are comically clichéd Moneyball b-sides and poorly executed at that, much like the astonishing poor surrounding acting in Gran Torino. The “Grumpier Old Men III” lines are cringingly bad, like “Feng Schmei” and “I’m not a pole dancer.” He can take scripts that should have been in the shredder, he has to know they should have been in the shredder, deliver them in a way that says, “this is a lame line, but I can make it work,” and, somehow, it’s still warm and enjoyable. In that way, Eastwood’s late career is like the comedic delivery of David Letterman. Taking nothing, and pounding into something. A magical blacksmith who majestically rides into town to view the sunset with the common people—true Kings wouldn’t have it any other way. 

Clint Eastwood is the champion of being a bad ass. He’s so cocky he can do it as YOUR grandfather. Bob Dylan and Neil Young continue to make albums. 60 is the new 40. 80 is the new 50. Billy Joel never sang about how “only the good get old,” but, if he did, you’d have to respect the math and courage of it all.

In my favorite all-time Clint scene, he asks a bunch of guys to apologize to his mule. Then, he kills them all when they scoff at the idea. To ask the inverse of Eastwood, to apologize for becoming old and irrelevant, is just as crass.

Legends don’t need the money. They want the relationship. Somewhere someone is wearing a Michael Jordan Wizards jersey, reading and scoping a Model T in a museum after playing four hours of Megaman II on Nintendo. 

I wish someone would hand that guy the keys…that baby still runs. 

Friday, November 12, 2010

Eastwood. Hereafter.

This new blog moniker is a feature of all things Zerfas. The tagline itself is a string of one word sentence punches in a stream of consciousness intertwining things that make up Ryan C. Zerfas. One of my many obsessions of this world I live in within myelf—the work of Clint Eastwood. It’s to the point that I feel comfortable defining myself by it. So, I see all of his movies, and will naturally feel the urge to share some thoughts…

I think Gran Torino was the perfect close to Clint Eastwood’s acting career, yet it makes me sad that we’ll most likely (baring a Michael Jordan Bobcats like resurrection) never again see Clint grace the screen. We do have his work as a director and his touch is certainly a heavy one.

Without a doubt, there is a running theme (intentional or not) to Eastwood’s latest movies, and it’s very logical. He’s not going to live and/or be able to make movies forever. He has the option to be incredibly selective. The movies he’s been choosing lately tackle heavy topics with characters that are struggling with said topics of great weight and life circumstance. It’s also fun that he’s only working with the big names and besides Morgan Freeman (Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby, Invictus), unique and unpredictable choices to pair with Eastwood, like Angelina Jolie.

Although, I’d love to see another light and airy cop movie from Clint, I have enjoyed the popularity, dignity and respect this last batch of films has garnered Eastwood. I don’t necessarily need everyone to LOVE everything I love, but the respect and shared enjoyment of films like Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino, Mystic River, etc. have brought many of my friends into the Eastwood circle. There’s nothing like a good circle of shared entertainment.

The latest epic endeavor Hereafter finds Eastwood again teaming up with Matt Damon. Can’t lose formula right from the start.

This film uses the parallel story method much like Magnolia or the Chuck Klosterman book Downtown Owl, blending three seemingly unrelated stories together. Because it’s “the movies” one can’t help but know everyone is going to come together in the end somehow. But, the joy in this method is you get multiple perspectives in one story. And each set of characters in this trio did a nice job continuing the story in a compelling nature as Clint weaved it all together.

What I love about Matt Damon is his ability to be a sex symbol, smartest man EVER, James Bond, college wiz kid, but somehow seem so normal. The Ocean’s series really capitalized on this. I can’t help but think about how normal Matt Damon seems in movies, yet he’s obviously a movie star with sex appeal, power, money, fame, etc. In this movie he totally seems like a guy you could run into through the streets of some suburban Ohio town. How does he do that?

I think this brand of Damon is the only thing Leo can’t do. DiCaprio just can’t pull off “normal guy” like he tried to in Revolutionary Road. He just always has class like Jim Helpert in a tux. Leo can’t shed the class, while Damon can shed movie star. I guess that’s why I found The Departed so compelling, but that’s for another day.

Eastwood has this uncanny ability with lighting to make these suburban environments seem so dark and real. His continued use of shadow lighting continues to baffle me… how it engages scenes with his trademark shots and somehow I have yet to get sick of it. It’s almost laughable how he abuses shadow lighting over and over and over again. Like Vince Vaughn stumbling over lines to make his characters seem more off the cuff. With Clint everything is always pieced together in a precise fashion, one can’t help but be engaged.

Even if the movie is mediocre, people stick with it. Like a famous chef slinging cheese and crackers, you’d be entertained throughout the eating experience, even if the substance wasn’t everything you’d really want from that chef. You take what you get and it would still be a cut above anything else out there.

I think Hereafter is a cut above Invictus, Changeling, and Flags of our Fathers. I left Letters From Iwo Jima off the list, because that was a monumental achievement beyond words. Perhaps, also for another time…

Until then, I’ll be looking forward to the next listed (IMDB) project for Eastwood…wait…wait for it…. Leonardo DiCaprio playing J. Edgar Hoover.

Should be EPIC!