CLINT EASTWOOD II / THE SEVENTIES: STARDOM, DEBUT BEHIND THE CAMERA AND HARRY CALLAHAN
The next decade started with Clint working again with Siegel, in the film TWO MULES FOR SISTER SARA, and with Hutton, in KELLY'S HEROES, both from 1970. These two movies, although entertaining, are, in my opinion, far from being ranked too high in an hypothetical ranking of Eastwood's films. In the first one he plays HOGAN, a mercenary who joins a nun after saving her from some bandits, all this during Mexico's french invasion, which happened during the second half of the XIX century. This is a western with some action and touches of comedy whose main appeal is legendary co-star, SHIRLEY MCLAINE, who plays SARA, the nun. Apart from that it could pass as a much lighter and more comical version of Clint's usual westerns, with his character having pretty much the same features, a similar environment and tons of mexican people, although the amount of violence is nowhere near close.
I did not enjoy it very much, to be honest, and even less when compared to the adaptation to the big screen which the great RICHARD DONNER did in 1994 of MAVERICK, a movie which could be considered a distant descendant of Siegel's, but much better. Namely, the traits are similar (not the plot, though), for Maverick is another western with action and a female star (JODIE FOSTER), but unlike Siegel's flick, gets the best of its comical possibilities and the rapport between Foster and her male counterpart (neither Siegel, nor Eastwood, got along very well with McLaine), who is no other than MEL GIBSON, another one of this blog's idols (a pity him and Eastwood have never worked together). For similarities sake, let's say that Gibson meant to Donner (and viceversa) what Eastwood meant to Siegel. The five films shared by Siegel and Clint are replicated by the six Gibson starred in under Donner's direction. And there's more, for Gibson worked along Donner in the LETHAL WEAPON saga, while Siegel directed the first movie of the five Harry Callahan film. Each actor played in them a cop with his very own methods and little, if any, fondness for established rules.
But the reviews were mostly good, including Eastwood's portray of yet another antihero. As fun facts, Morricone did score this movie too, and this was the last time Clint was billed as a supporting actor in a movie (although this happened in the credits and not on the poster).
 |
| The nun and the soldier of fortune |
Much better is Kelly's Heroes, another flick with a comical touch (this time within a war environment) and loosely based on an actual event, in which some american deserters try to cross the german lines in France to rob a bank full of nazi gold. This would be the last film Eastwood was involved in which was not produced somehow by his own company, the before mentioned Malpaso. Clint plays private KELLY, and he is supported by a high profile cast comprising fabulous canadian actor DONALD SUTHERLAND (who got ill during the shooting with a life threatening meningitis), TELLY SAVALAS (correct, the one from KOJAK), comic DON RICKLES and even the great HARRY DEAN STANTON in a small role. I remember it as a fun movie, with good moments here and there, and I have to be in the minority here, for people seem to find it much better than I do, given its very remarkable 7,6 mark on IMDB, which is quite good. Oddly enough (no pun intended), I found Sutherland's ODDBALL, the spaced out tank pilot, a tad tiring, and he was supposed to carry, along with Rickles, most of the flick's comical burden on their shoulders. Not bad, but as far as I am concerned, and leaving Eastwood's films with Leone, because of being a landmark in cinema's history, Clint's already well established career was about to improve quite a lot, and at all levels.
An oddity? It was shot mostly in locations in the former Yugoslavia, only because of the fact that this country was one of the few whose army, still in 1969, was equipped with stuff (german and american) from WWII, which made logistics easier.
 |
| Kelly and Big Joe, played by Savalas |
There is something worthy of mention before I go on, because those two previous films were the first Eastwood movies in which the unforgettable and multifaceted CONSTANTINO ROMERO (who passed away too soon in 2013) lent his voice to Clint's spanish dubbing, starting a relationship comprising thirty three movies and which lasted almost steadily until 2012, no less. This person has dubbed a bunch of legendary characters to spanish, thus becoming a benchmark within the profession, but Clint Eastwood is the actor he's dubbed the most times. And wonderfully so. It is tough for the spanish audience to picture Eastwood without Romero's voice, to the extent that he is Clint's voice. I always try to watch movies in their original language (at least when it comes to languages I know, I'm learning or are close to me from a cultural point of view), because, among other things, I think that every actor's voices is part of their performance. But I don't mind making an exception with Eastwood's movies, and I even feel more at ease listening to him with Romero's voice, due to everything I've just said. His is a deep and quite imposing voice, which matches most of Eastwood's roles, and in contrast with the softer and more whispering voice of Eastwood himself, who is one of those people who always seem to speak in a very low voice.
I don't know if they ever met some time, or if the american is aware of what Constantino did with his voice as far as the spanish language is concerned (is quite unlikely that, one way or another, Eastwood had never listened to himself speaking in spanish), but I'm pretty sure that, hadn't he done it already, he would appreciate Romero's amazing craft.
 |
| Dearly missed Constantino Romero |
In 1971, THE BEGUILED, his third work with Siegel, was premiered. It was based on a novel from 1966 called A PAINTED DEVIL, written by THOMAS P. CULLINAN. In this film, Eastwood played corporal JOHN MCBURNEY, a quite injured Union soldier, during the american civil war, who is found by one of the young girls who live in a sort of ladies school in confederate Mississippi, run by Mrs. FARNSWORTH, played by GERALDINE PAGE. This flick is quite interesting. Simple, but interesting, because the usual action found in most of Eastwood's movies is completely replaced by the psychological factor and a constant tension, emphasized by the manipulating nature of Clint's role (within an environment of sexually repressed women) and by its twisted outcome. Note that the spanish title (the seducer) contrasts the original one, which refers to those who are seduced, in a passive way, and not the other way around.
This film, for some reason I do not know, was a hit in France, to the point it almost entered the Cannes Festival (something both Siegel and Eastwood agreed with, but was rejected by the producers), but apart from that, it did not do very good, leaving Eastwood angry because he thought that UNIVERSAL had neglected it when it came to its marketing (you only need to watch it and take a look at the poster afterwards to realize it). Eastwood had signed a long term contract with Universal, but terminated it in 1975, and did not work with them again until well into the XXI century.
The film's reputation among the critics has improved ever since, given its current status, but initial reactions went from lukewarm at best to irate, with accusations of misogyny included, although there were also some of them which saw some kind of feminist vindication by Siegel, in the depiction he did of women who had to face something they could have never thought of.
Now I realize there is a recent movie, from 2017, of the same name, and which uses the same source (I don't know whether the word remake can be used it here or not), directed by SOFÍA COPPOLA. I'll have to see it, for not only I usually enjoy Coppola's movies, but also there are some interesting names in it, such as COLIN FARRELL, NICOLE KIDMAN or KIRSTEN DUNST.
*Eastwood's spanish dubbing was not handled by Constantino Romero.
Eastwood's debut behind the camera would take place in 1971 as well, but related to The Beguiled, he directed a short film of twelve minutes about this movie himself, called THE BEGUILED (STORYTELLER). I haven't seen it yet and I guess it will be difficult to find.
 |
| Tension arises between Eastwood and Page in a foster home full of southern young ladies |
As I've just said, his long awaited debut as a director took also place in 1971, with PLAY MISTY FOR ME, a movie the already mentioned Leonard (deceased in 1969) and him had been thinking of for some time. In this film, Eastwood plays DAVE GARVER, a radio disc jockey who is constantly receiving live phone calls from some girl (EVELYN DRAPER, played by JESSICA WALTER, in his first role) who asks him to play MISTY, a jazz number by ERROLL GARNER, for her. It's not my intention to ruin the film for anybody, so I won't talk any further about the plot and I'll spare the reader its obvious comparison to a very famous later film (this is something I've just thought about but, said and done, it is so obvious that, taking a quick look around I realize I'm not the only one to think about it). This is an enjoyable film and little more, but this statement needs, as in many other cases, to be put into context. It's easy to be seen, and there's also Clint's different role in front of the camera and observing how he does behind it, but it's one of those movies about which I already said they are a little bit rushed and maybe hasn't aged that well. By this I mean I've watched it not very long ago but it was shot more than fifty years ago, so perhaps its viewing was much more enjoyable back in the day, and its twists much more effective than nowadays, when we've seen it all and the surprise factor is more difficult to get. In fact, it was a box office success and among the critics, with Walter being nominated to the Golden Globes, while there was also praise for Eastwood's work as a director.
There are some anecdotes about this film, and also some nods to popular culture. It was shot in Carmel itself, because Clint wanted it that way, and that made everything much more comfortable, with scenes shot at friend's homes and in the edition of 1970 of the nearby Monterey's Jazz Festival. Even the radio station was local. Don Siegel helped Clint in his directorial debut and even acted in it as a barman. The fim's title can be found in one song by BOB DYLAN and, just to name another one, a novel of the same name was published in 1972 (written by PAUL J. GILLETTE), inspired on the movie's script, which had been written by JO HEIMS, Eastwood's friend and co-worker.
 |
| Evelyn Draper (Jessica Walter), willing to listen to Misty once again |
 |
| Clint went from piling victims up to collecting albums |
At this point, Eastwood already had what he had always wanted. He was a renowned actor, even a star, and had made his debut at directing, besides taking advantage of all the benefits that having his own production company meant. And yet, the best was yet to come. Therefore, and still in 1971, he was gifted with what is, most likely, his best known role, and the one the whole world at large mostly identifies him with. That role is, and this goes without saying, the already mentioned Harry Callahan, a controversial cop who has his own modus operandi, and whose existence produced so big a fuss, so much gossip, so many anecdotes and left such a big mark on popular culture which is difficult to find something similar before or since. And granted, you just can't picture anubody else portraying Harry. This one has to be one of the quickest and most obvious affinities (if not the most) between an actor and a character in all cinema, in spite of the fact that Clint was not the first choice for it.
The film at issue was DIRTY HARRY, first of the five Eastwood played Callahan in and the only one in this saga directed by Don Siegel (who wasn't the first choice for directing either, but ended up working with Clint for the fourth time). The title itself, both the original one or in spanish, went far beyond cinema's boundaries at both sides of the pond to find a perpetual spot in the collective mind of a few generations, regardless of their interest in cinema or their opinion about the actor.
In this flick, Callahan is a San Francisco cop on the hunt for a psycho killer (SCORPIO, played by ANDY ROBINSON) loosely based on the famed real life criminal known as the Zodiac Killer, and on several traits of a few others. There's nothing I can say about Dirty Harry that hasn't been said already, because, on top of it raging fame, is one of those films that has been seen by almost everyone. There's action, a controversial and charismatic main character, lines which are in the minds of almost every movies fan (that one where Harry aims at a robber and asks him Do I feel lucky? and which belongs to this entry's main pic), zero political correctness, non existent attention to fit the usual hero mold (quite the opposite) and violence. Tons of it. To the point that was the reason why the script did not turn into a TV show and also why some actors rejected the main role. Again, nothing shocking by today's standards I guess, but this was 1971. People were not used to certain stuff.
 |
| They may call me dirty, but I'm a perfect gentleman |
Finding a suitable leading role was a tall order. The script changed hands and was modified here and there, but Callahan still had to be someone in his mid fifties, in principle. The role was offered to JOHN WAYNE, and FRANK SINATRA even came on board when Warner purchased the script, together with a director called IRVIN KERSHNER. When Sinatra left, so did Kershner. Enters BURT LANCASTER, who rejected the role for being too violent a story, in which the end seemed to justify any means, something which was against his beliefs. That's when some younger actors were considered, and STEVE MCQUEEN, when approached, refused to star in another cop's movie after having been recently seen in BULLITT (directed by PETER YATES, in 1968), and PAUL NEWMAN himself, who, believing the role was too far right for him, rejected it as well, but not without suggesting Eastwood for it (?). Clint said yes, on the condition of using the first script (leaving the age issue aside, of course).
Scorpio was not that difficult to find, although not an easy task either, for the actor first chosen, AUDIE MURPHY, died before he could make up his mind about it, and JAMES CAAN came next, but only while Sinatra was aboard. Eventually, unknown actor Andy Robinson landed the role, after having been suggested by Eastwood himself, who had seen him on stage. Siegel accepted because of the choirboy face Robinson had. The funny thing was that he turned out to be a commited pacifist who hated firearms and had to be tought to fire a weapon properly.
 |
| Choirboy Robinson confesses hating firearms to Siegel |
The film was controversial, no doubt, but also a resounding box office success (Siegel's best in that department). It was also pretty much welcomed by the critics, despite said controversy.
Concerning anecdotes and similar stuff, there are many. Some of them to be found here:
- In the beginning of the movie, Eastwood's own Play Misty For Me can be seen announced on the marquee of a theatre. Dirty Harry is also mentioned in DAVID FINCHER's ZODIAC, the 2007 flick about the Zodiac Killer.
- Eastwood directed one scene in which a person tries to jump off a bulding with suicidal purposes, and he also managed to shoot a dangerous scene, like the one in which he jumps on a bus from a bridge, without a stunt.
- The film's main controversy has a lot to do with Callahan's attitude, who's even described as a criminal with a badge, relentless when it comes to get what he wants, no matter how. His goal is protecting the victims of violent crimes, and even avenging them, and rules or even ethics amount to nothing when it's time to achieve it. He has his own personal notion of justice. That's when matters such as police brutality or how far can one go to protect themselves and as a part of society arise, in a time of a high criminal rate. A very dangerous message to many, to sum it all up.
- While Eastwood's acting was praised, there were some who branded it as fascist. This, the way that I see it, might bring subjects related to double standards to the table. Callahan crosses the line, sure, and his deeds are not always right. But he achieves what he wants. What would we all do in his place? Despite knowing some things are not right, are we not tempted to do them or even feel ourselves jealous when we see someone else do them? Some critics said this movie could make you feel uncomfortable once you realize that you really enjoy it. The next installments tried to tone down certain issues and the bad guys spanned different scopes of the ideological spectrum.
- Some crimes were committed, allegedly influenced by what had been seen in Dirty Harry.
 |
| I am in command in San Francisco |
- Apparently, Robinson, during the shooting of a scene in which he's in front of Eastwood, came up with a line of his own (My, that's a big one), related to the size of a gun. The crew bursted into laughs due to the obvious double meaning and the take needed to be redone, but the line stayed.
- A bunch of feminists marched in protest outside the DOROTHY CHANDLER PAVILION, during the 44th ceremony of the Academy Awards, with banner which read Dirty Harry is a rotten pig.
- Eastwood and Siegel did not give a flying fuck about the whole controversy. The former denied the film being right wing and pleaded that what was being aimed at was the judicial system. The latter explained that he felt himself as a liberal leaning to the left wing, while Clint was more conservative, but they had not talked about politics at all and he did not make political movies. It was only the story of a tough cop after a killer. Only that said cop could be, his own way, as harmful as the killer.
- Callahan, in principle, works within the homicides department, but he's always waging a constant war with his superiors, whom he deems as incompetent, and that's why he's transferred to minor departments in other films of the saga.
- Robinson's portray of a killer was so convincing that he even got death threats himself.
- It is implied that Callahan is a widower. I do not know anything else concerning this, but this fact could shed some light on the obvious bitterness of the character and that I do not give a crap attitude of his.
- This film, and Callahan's larger than life lines, helped boost the popularity of the gun used by the cop (a SMITH & WESSON 29, powered by a MAGNUM 44 cartridge), which Callahan describes as the most powerful handgun in the world, and whose sales increased considerably after the film.
- Needless to say, Callahan became the blueprint for every trigger-happy, unscrupulous cop to appear in subsequent movies and, as a matter of fact, the Dirty Harry nickname is common slang to describe them.
- The film gives some loose explanations about Callahan's nickname, and he uses to say that he is assigned to every dirty job that comes along. His partner CHICO has a few funny ideas of his own about the nickname, though.
- Concerning Callahan, no matter which movie of the saga we're talking about, it needs to be said that he enjoys working on his own (obvious), but he usually has a partner who's assigned to him, to his very much undisguised chagrin. Apart from that, his sunglasses differ from one film to another, he enjoys playing pool and seems to live only on fast food and sugarless black coffee. To order the coffee he always says the usual. He also enjoys being fit.
 |
| Do I feel lucky? Well, do you, punk? |
- The Simpson, to the surprise of no one, parodied Callahan's role through another fictitious inspector called MCGARNAGLE, starring in a TV show who gathers all the traits of a tough cop who portrayed Callahan. Neither Eastwood or Callahan are mentioned, but the looks, the voice and the behaviour leave nothing to imagination. Although not the only episode he stars in, his most remarkable appearance takes place in THE BOY WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (season five, episode twelve), where he shares the screen with a child who's pretty much in the same situation BART is, in the episode's plot.
 |
| McGarnagle |
The hypothetical reader might has asked themselves at some point how come someone like Eastwood, with a personality as an actor always linked to the tough guy profile, and with some roles he's played throught his acting career, has not ever played JAMES BOND, the ultimate secret agent. He's not british, of course, although some exceptions were made with Australia's GEORGE LAZENBY and Ireland's PIERCE BROSNAN. Those two could be understandable though. But the thing is that, after everything a movie like Dirty Harry signified (with a character which ended up being legendary), that role was offered to him. He politely rejected it saying That was someone else's gig, besides expressing his respect for SEAN CONNERY and even stating that role should be for a british actor. I have some doubts here, for I don't know whether the part was offered to him after Connery's first renounce, after the second, or both times. Because the dates are correct if we talk about 1971 (when Dirty Harry premiered), given that was the year when Connery's last flick as Bond, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER (GUY HAMILTON) had also been premiered. But Sean Connery had already previously renounced in 1967, after YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE (LEWIS GILBERT), and in the meantime the producers decided to be more open minded and offered Lazenby the role for his only time as 007, in ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE (PETER R. HUNT), premiered in 1969. When was Clint offered the part, in 1967 after his success with Leone's films, in 1971, after portraying Callahan, or both times?
Whatever. The next step for the actor, and already director, was JOE KIDD, directed by the great JOHN STURGES, which became Eastwood's only filming gig in 1972. This is another revisionist western in which Clint plays an ex bounty hunter (KIDD) who goes back to old habits, and in which he shares the bill with no less that ROBERT DUVALL, who had stood out (and how) that same year as consigliere TOM HAGEN in THE GODFATHER (FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA).
The plot was based on a real life activist called REIES TIJERINA, who fought for the hispanic to regain the land that one day had belonged to their ancestors. That person would be LUIS CHAMA in the movie, played by JOHN SAXON, while Duvall would be the wealthy landowner who hires Kidd to keep order. It is told that the actors were so starstruck by Sturges (I won't even bother to mention any of his essential movies) that they struggled to pick up their paces.
 |
| Eastwood and Duvall, patroling |
Joe Kidd was quite successful, box office wise, and, despite the fact that I sometimes struggle trying to remember all Eastwood's westerns post Leone and differentiating one another, if I trust my memory, this is the best one out of all I've reviewed so far. Very fun to watch, although the critics did not think likewise and the reviews were lukewarm, aiming at the lack of identity granted by the script to the umpteenth relentless, almost speechless gunman played by Clint, and also at his motivations, which were far from obvious.
Let's also say that he went through a nightmarish filming, with panic attacks and symptoms of what seemed to be a bronchial infection.
 |
| Clint will never turn his back on a good western |
1973 was another busy year for Eastwood, premiering his sophomore directorial effort, another western called HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER, which he also starred in. He played a misterious character who arrives at Lago, a border and quite corrupt mining town, to make sure order is kept. But there's much more than meets the eye and the right thing is saying nothing else about it, to prevent the viewer's perspective from being spoiled. But, at the same time, this makes much more difficult commenting the film, for Eastwood's standpoint as a director implies that everything is an allegory, something not very explicit which favors the viewer's own point of view. At the same time, this goal was hampered by the dubbings, Spain's included.
But again, let's say nothing else. The movie was, overall, praised by the critics and was a box office hit, and I remember it as quite good. Confusing, but most likely better than previous westerns (leaving Leone's aside and, if memory serves, even better than Joe Kidd). According to scholars, Eastwood mixed what he had learnt from his most obvious mentors at the time, like Leone and Siegel were, with a noteworthy dosage of violence, his own sense of humor and his personal vision of society. I've said it before, but this is another role quite removed from the usual hero and concerning whom, one could be as judgemental as with Callahan. Mostly when is time to tell both characters from their antagonists. They may wear a badge (in this case, no badge whatsoever) and they may not kill for pleasure or own profit's sake, but what they do is more than questionable. In this regard, I remember one scene, probably very unjustified, as well as awkward, involving one of the ladies who lives in Lago, about which one wished to know what makes Eastwood tick. Does he really want to create leading roles who become so despicable?
 |
| This does not look good |
Is best to watch the flick and draw one's own conclusions. Clint left a nod to Siegel and Leone in the shape of two tombstones with their own names in one graveyard that can be seen in the movie. A real small town was also built (forget about scenery), using a lot of wood, which included a two-storied hotel, so all the interiors could be shot without decamping to somewhere else. Not everyone enjoyed this peculiar film, of course, and Clint found a very distinguished naysayer in JOHN WAYNE himself, who aparently wrote a letter to him stating that that wasn't the spirit of those who settled in the United States and made the country great. I have no idea about Eastwood's reaction to the missive, but I can picture him not being very worried about the DUKE's opinion.
*Eastwood's spanish dubbing was not handled by Constantino Romero.
 |
| The stranger |
The next movie would mean a new step as a director and, for the first time, Eastwood relinquished acting and gave others the spotlight in a flick as odd (at least to his own standards) as BREEZY. It tells the unlikely relationship which arises between a fifty-some and a teenager, played by one of the greats, and big star during the fifties, WILLIAM HOLDEN (FRANK HARMON in the film), and KAY LENZ (an almost unkown young actress who played BREEZY and got nominated as best new actress at the Golden Globes thanks to her role in this movie).
Is quite remarkable that Eastwood dared to tackle something like this, removing himself completely out of his comfort zone, only in his third effort as a director. I really loved this movie, because of everything I've just said and because I think Holden is exceptional (Lenz did not allow herself to be left behind either, being a surprise and for all the good reasons), but I guess this film is in risk of being labeled as the usual after lunch movie, or even a womanly one, aiming at the female audience due to the initial romantic subject. Pretty much what would happen again to Eastwood with a film he would star in many years later. But, in my opinion, this one is much more than that. This is a film in which a fifty five years old hooks up with a lady who's seventeen in the film (Lenz was nineteen, give or take, during the filming), to begin with, with everything something like that entails from an ethical point of view. Not to mention all the scenes in which Lenz has to get naked. Concerning this there were critics who said the sex scenes were too soft for such an outrageous relationship.
 |
| Clint instructs Kay Lenz, with Holden waiting in the background |
And there's also the most noteworthy matter of the story, because Harmon is a person who has already been through it all, while Breezy is quite the opposite (besides going through some circumstances which pretty much turn her into a homeless person), so one could expect Harmon to teach Breezy one or two things about life, given she doesn't know anything about it yet. No way, for Harmon is a disillusioned and bitter person and she's the other way around. Harmon will learn much more from her than the other way around. In fact, her name (or nickname) alludes to this and I think that is something deliberate, no matter said nickname reads like her second name's diminutive. Hence EDITH BREEZERMAN becomes Breezy, which comes from breeze and refers to the carefree and happy nature of a person.
 |
| Eastwood and Holden |
The film knew no success and Eastwood himself admitted that, despite loving the challenge, this was a risk with little or no chance of success, and Universal only allowed him to do it as a favor. The advertisement was almost nonexistent, but the film little by little managed to regain what had been invested.
And there are also the stories to be told that everyone loves to know about.
- Holden had not worked in four years and was so happy for being approached that he accepted to work with no wage in return, only in exchange of a percentage of the profits. Given there were no profits, the Actors Guild made Eastwood pay him the minimum wage.
- Holden's own son has a little role as well. He wanted to become an actor and this was his last try.
- As many other times, before and since, and loyal to his reputation, Clint finished the shooting before scheduled and under budget.
- Clint met actress SONDRA LOCKE during the filming of the movie, and she would become his romantic partner (a relationship not alien to controversy, starting with the fact that both of them were married back in the day) and worked with him in as many as six movies. She was in the casting but, despite her deceiving looks, was too old for the role.
- Eastwood gave Kay Lenz the power to decide about her own nude scenes. No take she wasn't happy with would make it into the film.
- Aforementioned Jo Heims wrote the script and wanted Clint to play Harmon, but he said no for being still too young for the role. That's why Holden was chosen and Eastwood directed, and it has been said that Holden told Eastwood that he had been that person, alluding to Harmon, to what Clint replied that he supposed it.
- Clint can be seen in the movie, uncredited, leaning on a banister while the starring couple walks past behind him.
 |
| Breezy and Harmon |
This flick was more successful than the first one, money wise, although the reviews were not as good. Sometimes I have a hard time telling all five films from one another, beyond the first and the last one, which I remember more vividly, and this is why I did not remember what Magnum Force (undisguised reference to the main role's weapon) was about until I saw the picture of the motorized policemen once again. With this in mind I can say I liked the movie, and neither I ask or expect exquisiteness in an action flick starred by Clint Eastwood. As I said, that alone is enough incentive. In fact, and concerning this, there was a critic who said that Eastwood wasn't a bad actor, because in order to consider someone bad at something, that someone has to perform that something first, and Clint did not in the movie.
 |
| Trust no one |
After all the controversy brought by Dirty Harry, the intention was makink look like a better guy. The vigilantism thing is discarded and, in fact, there are meaner cops than him. There was even the reasonable shock due to the idea (it was Eastwood's, after the gazillion letters he was sent by women demanding a female character who chased Callahan) of someone as antisocial and lonely as Harry is, teaming up with a woman (SUNNY, played by ADELE YOSHIOKA). So far, so good. But there was also the moral conflict that some critics remarked, when they said this new and moderate Callahan, who chases vigilantes instead being one of them, turns out to be little trustworthy when he always devotes himself to grabbing his gun as if it was an extension of his manhood. Same old, same old. In the end, he may be a trigger-happy cop, but he gets the job done when it comes to stopping the bad guys (no matter their political leanings), because he shoots the right people. Deciding whether that's the most ethical thing to do or not is another story.
This film also meant some sour grapes between Post and Clint. Post might be the official director of the movie, but Eastwood pulled the strings his own way too, and that led to some clashes between the two of them. Clint wanted things as spontaneous as possible, but that and some of his decisions, according to Post, were the outcome of both ignorance and an enormous ego. JOHN MILIUS, screenwriter and also director, who had written the first movie, did not end up happy with the whole thing either, and said that, out of all the projects he had been involved in, this was his least favourite, due to all the changes in the script and the female companion of Callahan.
To top it all off, there was a crime related to one of the scenes, in 1974, which meant horrific publicity, although when caught, the criminals said that hadn't they seen the film and thought about a certain way to do their deeds, they would have thought of any other they could have seen in another flick.
*Eastwood's spanish dubbing was not handled by Constantino Romero.
 |
| A new, more prudent Callahan? Don't think so |
In 1974 Clint was directed (although, as Ted Post had already stated regarding Magnum Force, Eastwood's shadow was a very big one to be overlooked) by novice director MICHAEL CIMINO, who had taken part in magnum Force's script (and would also direct a few years later the formidable THE DEER HUNTER), in THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT, a great movie which spanned several genres and in which he played a seasoned thief (THUNDERBOLT) who was joined by a young con man called LIGHTFOOT. In this movie Eastwood shared the screen with young, up and coming actor, soon to be a prodigious performer, JEFF BRIDGES, one of the best actors ever, to put it simply. Some other well known names to star in the film were GEOFFREY LEWIS and BILL MCKINNEY, who would join Eastwood, one way or another, in several films of his, a young GARY BUSEY (the dangerous bad guy in Lethal Weapon's first movie) and, above all, legendary actor and Academy Awards recipient, GEORGE KENNEDY.
The very famous and succesful (a fact difficult to stomach, in my opinion) EASY RIDER, premiered in 1969 and directed by DENNIS HOPPER, had made road or buddy movies very popular. Those are movies in which the action develops along a trip, with special focus on the rapport between the main characters. Clint wanted to do one of those and, given he had enjoyed this script so much, he wanted to direct himself. But he gave Cimino (who made his debut here) his first directorial chance instead. Cimino expressed his gratitude, and later on said that had not been for Eastwood, he would have never had a career in this industry. In any case, and as we already know, Eastwood's opinion still mattered, despite not being the director. And a lot. He was well known because of his austeriry when working and his dislike for shooting too many takes, favoring a bigger spontaneity. Thus, an enthusiastic Bridges would ask Cimino to do another take, and Cimino would divert him to Eastwood, who always had the final answer.
 |
| Eastwood and Bridges getting ready for a new heist |
This movie, leaving aside the several genres it spans, explores the comradeship between two men, and there were talks about a dormant homosexuality hidden within a male friendship. I saw this film many years ago and I don't remember anything of the sort. or at least not as something obvious, beyond having Bridges dresses up as a woman, if that has anything to do with it. It's kinda weird, for this film was also tagged as homophobic. I don't remember the ending properly, but I do remember something unpleasant related to it.
It was a mild success but the reviews were good (Cimino was even approached to direct the already mentioned The Deer Orden, a cinema achievement of the highest order), even praising Eastwood's performance. But nothing which could come close to all the praise Bridges got for his, something that got him a nomination at the Oscars, as the supporting actor. Apparently, this upset Clint, who felt himself eclipsed by the young actor (a more prestigious performer than him, in the long run) because he thought he was also worthy of some recognition in this department. All things led to him swearing not to work with United Artists again, whom he accused of a subpar promotion of the film.
 |
| No comment |
This project had no connection to Eastwood's camp at first, and had Paul Newman as the main star, but he left the film because of his disappointment with the script and the violent nature of the story. And that was (at the end of 1973) when Clint was asked and, in spite of not being interested in the spying subject and finding the script faulty, said yes because he saw the flick as a chance to end his contractual relationship with Universal Artists (unhappy as he was, again, due to the lack of promotion Play Misty For Me and Breezy got, and also for the little promotion this film would get) and be able to join Warner Bros. (a relationship still underway), and also because of the chance to work in Switzerland, away from everything and with a few people. Eastwood asked for the script to be changed and trusted that everything related to climbing and the breathtaking locations could make up for its flaws, given he wanted to shoot in the specific locations which had been chosen, and not in a movie set. And as for himself, without a stunt double (although the experts and his shooting peers dissaproved on this). Soon after he was appointed as the film's director as well.
 |
| Listo para la acción |
It is quite easy to picture a very difficult shooting, given the kind of film. There was trouble. And then some. Clint, being forty four at that time, and having almost no background or experience as a climber, had to work hard to shoot his own scenes. But in Switzerland things got even more difficult, and experts in the issue were needed, because the Eiger's north face is close to four thousand meters tall and is known as the Mordwand or murder wall, having claimed the life of several climbers. Unfortunately, it would claim one more this time, that of a climber called DAVID KNOWLES, who was struck by a rock after the shooting of a scene. Eastwood proceeded to call the whole project quits but was talked out of it by the rest of the climbers, fully aware as they were of the risks of their trade, to prevnt's Knowles death from being in vain.
Apart from that, there were also scenes shot in the middle of Zurich and in the States, including the famed MONUMENT VALLEY (where JOHN FORD filmed a few of his westerns), for one scene atop of the column known as the TOTEM POLE, where the leading roles did their workouts.
The commercial success was moderate and the critics mostly praised the action and the difficult climbing scenes, while aiming at some flaws within the plot, although they remarked that the former made up for the latter. This film has improved its reputation in the eyes of the critic as time has gone by. I think is quite entertaining, and besides some dizzying climbing scenes, it has some spying ones, in Zurich, which are fun to watch. But one of the things I remember most vividly is one scene which, had it been filmed nowadays, it would have caused quite a stir. In it, an exhausted Eastwood admits to Kennedy that he can no longer go on with one workout to get in shape for the mission. Enough is enough. What Kennedy does is saying that he is going to give him some reasons to go on. And that's when an attractive, indian looking female appears on top of the hill Clint was supposed to climb, and out of the blue, she gets naked from hip to head. Needless to say, he ran uphill as soon as he saw her, as if that was going to be the last thing he ever did. She was (is) BRENDA VENUS. There was some criticism as well, due to the fact that the bad guys were an homosexual and a disabled person. Clint managing to feed the controversy. Once again.
 |
| Hemlock and Bowman (Kennedy) thinking about how to motivate themselves |
Next on the list is THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES (premiered in 1976), another revisionist western which was again based on a novel and with had Eastwood behind and in front of the camera. That book was THE REBEL OUTLAW (JOSEY WALES), published in 1972 and written by FORREST CARTER, alter ego of ASA EARL CARTER, an ex activist who championed segregation and was linked to the infamous KU KLUX KLAN. A true diamond indeed, but his true identity wasn't made public until some years later, after the success of both book and film. Clint plays Wales, who, seeking revenge after the assassination of his family by Union soldiers during the american civil war, joins one confederate guerrilla. In the movie also star the already mentioned Sondra Locke (in her first movie with him and playing a character ten years younger than her real self), Bill McKinney again, JOHN VERNON and RICHARD FANSWORTH, among others. DAN GEORGE, á multifaceted indian chief who, among other stuff also acted, starred as well.
 |
| Lone Watie (George) and Wales |
Another very entertaining (and, of course, violent) flick, commercially successful and embraced by the critics (who saw in Eastwood's role a certain likeness to The Man With No Name). It needs to be taken into account that the western genre was a little bit in the doldrums. Clint himself deems this film as one of the highlights of his career, at least when considering his forays into this particular genre. Magical moments such as this one below, are good proof of it.
But being Eastwood who he is, this flick wasn't alien to controversy, one which this time even meant a turning point within the industry. As had happened with other movies, he wasn't the person who was supposed to direct the film, but this task was in the hands of the famous screenwriter and director PHILIP KAUFMAN. But Eastwood and him clashed, because Kaufman wanted to preserve the book's essence, but toning down certain stuff, because that book had been written by a fascist (apparently, the world at large did not know yet who the actual writer was, but the crew did; otherwise, this fact would not make sense, for, allegedly, the writer's identity wasn't made public until some time after). Clint, who was going to produce, refused. He even gave orders to shoot some takes when Kaufman was absent. But the most important thing for the two of them to lock horns was that they both liked Locke, with Kaufman's subsequent jealousy once Eastwood started a relationship with her.
 |
| Eastwood and Locke during the shooting |
All this led to Kaufman's sacking, which caused quite a stir within the directors guild, having Kaufman worked hard in the movie before being fired. When Eastwood and Warner refused to back out, they got fined, and the previous guild created what was called The Eastwood rule, according to which, no director could be fired from a movie, to be replaced in that task, by any actor or producer. I don't know whether that meant never or just under the risk of being fined. Granted, Eastwood ended up directing the flick.
Years later, Clint reflected on the nature of war in relation with this movie, saying that as pathetic as war is, it works as a bridge between countries and boosts mankind's creativity (concerning weaponry, etc), although he admits this assertion speaks too badly of humanity.
As a fun fact, famed american singer JON BON JOVI, vocalist in the successful hard rock band (at least back in the day) BON JOVI, made his solo debut in 1990 with a record called BLAZE OF GLORY, which also happened to be the soundtrack of the film YOUNG GUNS II, directed by GEOFF MURPHY (1990). Said album featured one song named DYING AIN'T MUCH OF A LIVIN', which, despite not having any relationship with Eastwood's movie, given its lyrics, it was inspired by the sentence Clint uttered in it. For it would have been so much of a coincidence that something that peculiar came out of the blue.
 |
| Eastwood, dressed as Wales and embodying the worst nightmare of rebellious directors |
Eastwood rejected some roles during these years, being the most notorious one what would become MARTIN SHEEN's part in APOCALYPSE NOW, by FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA, no less. The famous movie was eventually premiered in 1979 and its shooting was a nightmare. The reason Eastwood gave to not take part in said film was that he did not want to spend several weeks working in The Philippines. Instead, he starred in THE ENFORCER, third installment of the Harry Callahan saga, which saw the light of day in 1976. According to the outcome, this was not a bad choice, because this film became Eastwood's most successful (at the box office) flick to date.
It was directed by JAMES FARGO and in it, Callahan and his partner KATE MOORE (TYNE DALY), had to face a terrorist group called the PRSF (PEOPLE'S REVOLUTIONARY STRIKE FORCE), which had some resemblance to the far left terrorist organization known as the SLA (SYMBIONESE LIBERATION ARMY). JOHN MITCHUM (ROBERT's brother), who had already worked in some other Eastwood movies, including the previous one, repeated here for the third and last time as inspector FRANK DIGIORGIO. Clint wanted to direct, after having clashed with Ted Post in the previous chapter and the Kaufman controversy, but precisely because of that Kaufman thing, he ran out of time and Fargo, his usual assistant, made his debut as a director. As expected, Clint had the last word concerning some choices but the closer bond between the two men meant a troubleless shooting.
 |
| Eastwood in the usual poster picture |
Oddly enough, as much as some memories of the movie come back to me when writing about a terrorist group, what I do remember the most about what is likely to be Callahan's weakest movie, is Daly's role and Callahan's reaction when it comes to his work partner. I might be in the majority this time, for she got the best praising from the critics, who even welcomed the fact that Eastwood had left his ego at the door to give way to a role like hers. On the other hand, he was nominated as the year's worst actor by a humorous magazine and the critic, which was kind of indifferent towards this film, spoke of indications of tiredness concerning his role and criticized that the script had forgotten about the outrage which guided Callahan's actions, only to focus on the mayhem he generates. So it comes as a no surprise if I say that violence stood out once more. Another focal point of criticism was the absence of more credible villains, as Scorpio had been.
As fun fact, it deserves to be pointed out that the script (with some changes, of course, for Clint thought there was too much talk and it focused too much on the relationship between both partners, meaning a detriment to the action) was initially written by two film students who managed to reach Eastwood. Apart from that, Daly rejected the part as many as three times before she said yes, because she wasn't happy with the treatment her role got in certain scenes, and because she was not sure about her relationship with Callahan (she eventually was given the power concerning the development of her role, but ended up shocked by the level of violence all the same).
And also, Clint wanted this film (which was going to be called DIRTY HARRY III) to be the last of a trilogy, and this was the only Callahan movie in which the score was not composed by LALO SCHIFRIN, being JERRY FIELDING the person who took over this task.
*Eastwood's spanish dubbing was not handled by Constantino Romero.
 |
| The rapport between Moore and Callahan and an increased sense of humour in the dialogues are some of the most remembered things about The Enforcer |
Clint went back to direction with THE GAUNTLET, his only work premiered in 1977. He played BEN SHOCKLEY, an over the top cop who has to scort a prostitute (GUS MALLY, played by Sondra Locke) so she can testify against the mob. This is another fun and violent (it's getting tiring to pint this fact out all the time) action flick, but little else. I remember it as a good example of what I said about movies which seem to end abruptly, and, if memory serves, this is likely to be one of the most forgettable films (together with Two Mules For Sister Sara) that I've talked about so far. It could be a fourth and completely deranged Callahan movie, but worse, and without Harry Callahan. Even the film's poster, showing a comic aesthethics, went too far, showing a beefed up Eastwood as if he was trying to survive some kind of apocalypse.
 |
| Clint and Locke, comic heroes |
Little else can be said, to be honest. People liked it and was a moderate success but the critic thought otherwise. The best reviews praised the action and the sheer fun (fast, furious and funny) that the flick provided the audience with, but remarking that it had little brains. You just don't believe it, but allows you to have some fun.
MARLON BRANDO and BARBRA STREISAND were the actors who were supposed to star in the film in the first place. Yes, that feels weird indeed. Brandon was replaced by Steve McQueen, who did not get along quite well with Streisand, and that led to the both of them leaving the movie, which ended up in Eastwood's hands.
 |
| On the run |
Eastwood put his directing career on hold during a couple of years and his next role was playing PHILO BEDDOE in EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE (1978), the first of the two comedies in which he was accompanied by CLYDE, the famous orangutan (who was actually called MANIS). James Fargo directed again and the flick tells the story of said character, a trucker who wanders along the american west (the movie traverses rural landscapes and depicts the usual customs of the time's working class) together with his brother (and his girlfriend) and said monkey, looking for a former love interest (Locke), while taking part in fights and encountering all kinds of individuals, each of them more comical than the previous one. Well known names from the Eastwood movies of these years, like Geoffrey Lewis and Bill McKinney, show up again.
Clint, completely out of the blue, became infatuated with this project and wanted to star in it, against the advice of the majority of his co-workers, to increase his appeal with the audiences and to be seen in a different light. The critics butchered the movie and seemed to be hell bent on finding new and hilarious ways to butcher Eastwood as well. They said that the orangutan could be forgiven, for he could not read the script, but what was Eastwood's excuse? They also said Clint seemed to be using this film to find out how bad a movie he was related to could get. And one of my favourites: the fact that someone with his power chose to fill the screen with rubbish that way could only mean either that he despised his audience, or a complete display of masochism.
But god works in mysterious ways, or so they say, and people loved this film, which became a blockbuster. So much that it became Clint's biggest commercial triumph to date. One can perfectly picture him while laughing out loud (if he is capable of such thing) at the critic after this surprising turn of events.
 |
| A power couple and a forever friendship |
And there's more. The resounding success brought the expected sequel, a few years after, which I think is better than this one. But this one is fun in its own right, even if it's just for the ridiculous context and the funny situations, and also because of the change of tone. And it is not that Eastwood hadn't flirted with comedy, one way or another, before this movie, it's only that the guy is friends here with a monkey! Concerning Manis, Clint said he was a natural actor, but his scenes needed to be shot quickly, for his tolerance to boredom was scarce.
There's also something to be said regarding Sondra Locke (then Eastwood's girlfriend) and this flick, but I'll leave it for later, for her relationship with the actor was also controversial.
It needs to be stood out JOHN QUADE's hilarious role as CHOLLA, as the leader of the bike gang called THE BLACK WIDOWS, which always tries to avenge the constant humiliations they get from Beddoe. In fact is the whole gang which stands out. And also has to be said that ECHO, ORVILLE's girlfriend (Orville was Beddoe's brother) was played by a young BEVERLY D'ANGELO, a long running and experienced actress who may be better known to the broad audience because of her portray, years later, of EDWARD NORTON's long suffering mother in the brutal AMERICAN HISTORY X (TONY KAYE, 1998).
There's a song on the soundtrack which is called the same way as the movie, but the name actually comes from a line found in SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT (HAL NEEDHAM), a similar flick starred one year earlier by BURT REYNOLDS, who would soon cross his path with Eastwood's. PHIL EVERLY, half of famed musical duo THE EVERLY BROTHERS, sings in the movie, although uncredited.
 |
| The magnificent four: Echo, Orville, Clyde and Philo go across the west |
Eastwood's last films after The Outlaw Josey Wales had been successful, but no critic darlings whatsoever, although that was going to change in 1979, thanks to his last work with Don Siegel, the great ESCAPE FROM ALCATRAZ. This movie is based on the book of the same name from 1963 (written by J. CAMPBELL BRUCE), which told the real story that took place in 1962, of inmates FRANK MORRIS (played by Eastwood) and JOHN and CLARENCE ANGLIN, and their attempt to escape the famed prison. This fact led to the prison's closure (which is currently used as a museum) in 1963. Morris' pals were played by FRED WARD and JACK THIBEAU, respectively, and this film was also the acting debut of DANNY GLOVER, who soon after would get really famous as Mel Gibson's partner in the already mentioned Lethal Weapon. And there's another thing related to Gibson, for Alcatraz's warden was played by PATRICK MCGOOHAN, the sadistic english king EDWARD I, antagonist of Gibson himself in BRAVEHEART (Mel Gibson, 1995). As the reader can notice, there's no shortage of fun stuff related to the tandems Siegel-Eastwood and Donner-Gibson.
Maximum security prison Alcatraz, as everyone knows, was (is) located on the island of the same name, and was considered one of the most famous and safest in the whole world, due to the almost complete impossibility of escape. Because that island is in San Francisco's bay, two kilometers away from the coast, give or take, a fact which is joint by the cold temperature of the water and the strong currents. This led to some speculation, back in the day, concerning the veracity of the actual fact the film is based on, and the movie plays the hypothesis card towards its audience, so it's best to not say anything else. There are faults in some dialogues as well, concerning actual characters who were related to the prison.
 |
| Alcatraz Island, home to the famed prison |
There were many pros in regards to this movie, but one con was that Eastwood and Siegel argued (concerning stuff related to rights and the film's production), and, while is true that the two of them agreed on what was necessary to finish the flick, they would never work together again. Siegel would make two more movies after this one and would pass away in 1991.
The reviews were good this time around, with the movie and also with a convincing Clint (you know, his usual role of a man of few words who does more than he says). This film was also a box office success, although far from the previous film's figures. It is very good and is ranked really high among the best prison flicks ever. That is a very harsh movie genre, so there is no shortage of violent moments and tension. There was even a scene which matched an unpleasant actual fact which had happened during the thirties, when an inmate, in an attempt of seeking some attention, cut some of his fingers off and was taken to another prison.
Mind you, a hard work needed to be done, for the prison had remained unused for quite a long time. It had had its own power plant, which no longer worked, so three kilometers of electric wire needed to be laid to connect the island with San Francisco's electricity, besides spending a lot of money to prepare the prison.
 |
| Morris getting fit in order to escape |
 |
| But first, we need a proper plan |
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario
Comenta si te apetece, pero siempre con educación y respeto, por favor. Gracias!
Have your say if you want to, but always be polite and respectful, please. Thanks!