CLINT EASTWOOD IV / THE NINETIES: WILLIAM MUNNY, MADISON COUNTY AND THE ULTIMATE ACCLAIM

The nineties would become a milestone for him, with a less busy schedule in both acting and directing (above all keeping in mind what he did in the seventies) and more personal and overall better rounded projects than those of the previous decade. But he would not start this decade on the best footing, if you ask me. The first movie was WHITE HUNTER, BLACK HEART, premiered in 1990, in which he played JOHN WILSON, a hunting-lover film director who is bent on filming in Africa, and who would be JOHN HUSTON's alter ego during the shooting of his famous film THE AFRICAN QUEEN (1951). This is an adaptation of the roman à clef (novel with a key) of the same name that PETER VIERTEL had written in 1953. To those unfamiliar with the term (myself among them, until a few minutes ago), that is a novel based on actual facts with a layer of fiction over them, being the metaphorical key the relationship (explicit or implied) between reality and fiction. Viertel had taken part in the filmimg of said Huston movie, in a time in which american movies were seldom filmed abroad (this one was shot in Zimbabwe), and the characters in Eastwood's movie (also directed by him) are real people who also took part in The African Queen (Viertel included, along KATHERINE HEPBURN and HUMPHREY BOGART), but with fictional names. Among the best known actors within the cast there was the then young TIMOTHY SPALL, a reputed english actor, and american model and actress MARISA BERENSON, who had been seen in the glorious BARRY LINDON, by Kubrick, back in 1975.

In good company

This movie was another commercial flop, and a resounding one, but there were good reviews this time, focusing on Eastwood surpassing all his goals as an actor, although there was also praise for a performance which went beyond Huston's peculiarities. It did not do it for me, actually. I enjoyed it to a certain extent and that was it, besides thinking that the ending was kind of rushed, although it is true that I don't know which things actually happened and which ones didn't. But I do remember the complete selfishness of Clint's character, who was an egocentric person willing to deploy something as big as the filming of a movie is, only to get away with something that had nothing to do with the film itself.

Far from being one of Eastwood's best achievements, in my opinion, although I'm in the minority here. At least it was well regarded by the critics, unlike the next one.

John Huston?

Which would be THE ROOKIE, an action buddy movie premiered in 1990 and directed by the man himself, in which Eastwood was joined by CHARLIE SHEEN. The two of them play an atypical couple of cops (NICK PULOVSKI, the veteran. and DAVID ACKERMAN, the rookie) set on dismantling the wrongdoings of a german mobster in LA. The main cast was completed by RAÚL JULIÁ, SONIA BRAGA, LARA FLYNN BOYLE and TOM SKERRITT.

I don't remember much of the movie and that, once again, is usually not a good signal. I've never liked Charlie Sheen as an actor, beyond his work on the TV show TWO AND A HALF MEN, and I don't know if that was because of him or in spite of him, but his chemistry with Eastwood was nonexistent. As far as Clint is concerned, I believe this kind of movie, with no holds barred action, car chases and all that (I think the number of action double stunts involved in the filming outnumbered the number of actors by far), was a little too much for him this deep into his career, no matter how willing he was to do his own action scenes himself. That was something he usually had to be talked out of, for, as much as he still could pull those scenes off, any accident could mean the cancellation of the shooting. I'm glad to say this would be the last action movie of his career. And this is an statement which is only personal and does not have to be shared, for he would still act in subsequent movies which could be tagged as action ones (at least partially), although they are far from being what The Rookie was.

And, if the story was ok, the film could take flight, but it doesn't. I don't have any good recollections about this flick and I'm thinking that it could even surpass Pink Cadillac as perhaps the lowest point in all Clint Eastwood's career, for at least I do remember some things here and there about the cadillac one. I don't even remember (and this is really strange) anything about the controversial scene in which Sonia Braga rapes (?) Eastwood, which apparently was one of the few things related to this film which were talked about. All this meant that the spotlight was taken away from another controversial scene,  which I did not remember either and I will not talk about to avoid ruining the plot.

Clint together with Sheen, years before the latter
  embodied the very famous Charlie Harper

Speaking Of Braga, this actress, a brazilian one, and Juliá, a puerto rican, portrayed the german mobster marriage, something which turned out to be ridiculous and also polemical. By the way, if Eastwood (or any other) decides nowadays to cast two german actors to play a latin couple, that would be armaggedon.

This film did not do well at the box office either, taking in less than its budget, and the critics were bad, although there was some praise for the stunts and the special effects. Some said that the rape scene had been  the most disgusting one in all Clint's career, and someone even talked a Harry Callahan number five and a half (come on, no way). It was stood out the fact that everyone seemed to having delivered a sub par performance, and that there was nothing which could tell this film apart from any other within the genre. In my opinion, there is no way this flick could hold a candle to, just to mention an easy example, any installment from Lethal Weapon. Not even close.

But, despite this film not being the best example to be used here, I've read one statement about it which I think is right to the point, at least when it comes to some other minor Eastwood movies and to all those films which only aim at sheer entertainment: A deliberately silly, knockabout adventure, which aims for the outrageous and hits bullseye. We are talking about good and dumb fun. Leave your brains out and bring the beers in, and you are all set. As I said when I reviewed Pink Cadillac, is not a bad thing to resort to this, every once in a while.

Pulovski upsetting an authentic teutonic

But that was how far that minor commercial (and some times critical) fall from grace could get. There was nothing to be reviewed in 1991, but from 1992 on, Clint would begin a very good run of amazing films which, with a few exceptions, would reach the present day. At least as far as artistic and critical results (not always the commercial ones) are concerned, and always judging by my own standards, of course. Apart from that, his work would bring him a much bigger critical acclaim and provide him with an status as a filmmaker which he had hardly enoyed until that moment.

It would all begin with the lauded and astonishing western UNFORGIVEN, which was premiered in 1992. Eastwood produced, directed and acted, playing WILLIAM MUNNY, an aging farmer with a past as a hitman which haunts him, and who would end up accepting one last job. If we consider Eastwood's career as a whole, being as long and succesful as it is, it comes as no surprise that there is no shortage of big acting and directing names linked to his, but I think that Unforgiven's cast might be the highest profiled one of them all, because together with Clint act MORGAN FREEMAN (nothing to be heard from Spike Lee concerning this), RICHARD HARRIS and GENE HACKMAN. None of them need any introduction.

With Morgan Freeman

The screenplayer behind hits such as the famous BLADE RUNNER (RIDLEY SCOTT, 1982), DAVID WEBB PEOPLES, had begun working in what would become Unforgiven's script in the seventies, although with some different titles, and this script had come to Eastwood's attention at the beginning of the eighties, but he had kept it on the back burner because he wanted to get older to embody Munny.

Traditional western has very often toyed with the idea of good and evil as two easily distinguishable concepts, making clear that the good guys (cowboys, most of the times) are very good indeed, and have a right moral compass when doing what they do. They do it because that's the right thing to be done. The bad guys (native indians or whoever), on the other side, are always willing to show how mean they actually are. As already mentioned, the spaghetti western, twisted that dicotomy, featuring a so called good guy with less respectable motivations and a debatable moral. Not all that glitters is gold. We are introduced to the usual antiheroe who devotes himself to stand while others fall, using reprehensible means if necessary. And that is pretty much what happened in the revisionist westerns Eastwood had laid his hands on up until 1992, and that's the idea which hovers over Unforgiven as well. Munny may be the main role and the one who is somehow championed by the audience, but he's far from being a hero. The other way around. He is a man tortured by a past brimming with awful deeds done by himself, and he also shows that he is incapable of resisting said past one more time, because it does not matter how hard he tries to convince himself that he's not the same person anymore, he knows his past self is just waiting around the corner and is also part of his destiny.

But Munny is not the only one all this applies to. Regardless of the means used, the motivations behind some deeds are not doing what is right, but surviving, getting paid a reward or just exacting revenge, and who is supposed to watch for the law to be enforced, quite often turns out to be even worse than those society needs protecting from. The West has stopped being a land of opportunities to become somwhere to simply survive in.

Former drunkard and quarrelsome Munny

The success of this film, on all fronts, is not something that can be easily summarized. It started becoming the most successful opening weekend of Clint's career to date, to end up taking in circa one hundred sixty million dollars worlwide, from a budget of barely fifteen. It run almost an entire year in the United States theatres.

Its many awards and the wave they caused the film to ride were greatly to blame. Talking about the Oscars alone, Unforgiven got nine nominations and won four awards, among them Hackman's triumph as the best actor in a supporting role, but above all, the best film award and best director for Eastwood himself, who had also been nominated as best actor in a leading role, falling just that award short (the award went to a then still Oscar-less AL PACINO, for his work in SCENT OF A WOMAN, directed by MARTIN BREST) from achieving a still unprecedented treble (film, director and leading actor). It became the third western in winning the best film award after CIMARRON (WESLEY RUGGLES, 1931) and DANCES WITH WOLVES (1990), KEVIN COSTNER's acclaimed film.

In order to provide this feat with some context, it needs to be said that we are talking about something that I think only WOODY ALLEN and Kevin Costner had been on the verge of achieving. The former in 1977, with ANNIE HALL, with which he not only almost achieved that mentioned treble (again, the best actor award was the only one missing), but also, had Allen won the award as best leading actor, it had meant that Annie Hall would have become only the fourth film in history to win the famed Big Five, consisting in best film, director, leading actor and actress and script (original or adapted), after IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT, by FRANK CAPRA (1934), ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST, by MILOS FORMAN (1975) and THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, directed by JONATHAN DEMME (1991). Had Allen won the best leading actor award, Annie Hall would still be today the only one film in history to achieve those two feats (Big Five and the treble). Costner, on the other side, and thanks to the already named Dances With Wolves, fell short from the feat by not winning the best leading actor award. By the way, the western genre's revitalization had a blast during the early nineties.

To finish these awards trivia, and only for the sake of pointing out another similarity between Eastwood and Mel Gibson, I have to say that, soon after, the latter would do the same with 1995's Braveheart (let's differ between the year one film is premiered and when the ceremony takes place, usually the year after). Gibson was not nominated in the best leading actor category, but Braveheart is very likely to be the only film, apart from the previous ones, in which a director triumphs as such, the movie wins the award as best film, and the director is also the leading role, regardless of their nomination as best actor or actress. In this regard WARREN BEATTY's REDS (1981) did get those three nominations, but only Beatty won as best director (although the film had been unsuccessfully nominated in absolutely all the most important categories). ROBERT REDFORD, on his part, won as best director, and also the best film with ORDINARY PEOPLE, from 1980, but he did not acted in it.

As far as the Oscars and everything I've just said go, Clint himself would have much more to say, and has been omitted, beyond Unforgiven, on purpose. We'll get to that.

Eastwood and Hackman shatter the 1993
 Academy Awards ceremony

The critic supported Clint this time around, and big time, saying that it could be the best western since THE SEARCHERS, directed by John Ford in 1956, being a brilliant summary of all the themes his films had dealed with so far, among them a remarkable reflection on violence, including his own. Later in 2008, Unforgiven was considered, by the American Film Institute, the fourth best american western ever, after The Searchers, HIGH NOON (FRED ZINNEMANN, 1952) and Shane.

Its 8,2 on IMDB speaks volumes about it. Leaving the not very reasonable presence of Richard Harris within the plot aside (something the public at large seems to be agree on), it is a golden classic of the highest order we are talking about, absolutely deserving of a spot among the top ten films of Clint Eastwood up to that point and also, most likely, in his entire career, because with not much beating around the bush, is one of the notches in his filmography's belt that quickly comes to mind when is time to think about which ones are his best works. How to forget some of Munny's lines concerning his past, or that legendary thought about what killing someone means. I get the shivers only by remembering it. Good proof that twilight Clint is very often more esteemed than, let's say, the young one. At least as a director.

Some other fun facts:

- Clint was sensitive enough to forget past disagreements, and dedicated the film to his two main mentors, Leone y Siegel, who had just very recently passed away.

- The soundtrack's main theme, CLAUDIA'S THEME, was composed by Eastwood himself.

- A japanese remake of the movie was filmed in 2013, directed by LEE SANG-IL and starred by prominent asian actor KEN WATANABE, who would work with Clint before this remake happened. The action moves to Japan a to another time, being Munny's character a samurai.

- This film was on the cards to become the main theme for a rollercoaster in an amusement park in New Jersey, but it was rejected for being too dark a movie.

- Eastwood said after the filming that Unforgiven would be his last traditional western.

It's a hell of a thing killing a man.
You take away all he's got and all
he's ever gonna have.

But this has just begun. In 1993, the magnificent thriller IN THE LINE OF FIRE was premiered, directed by famed german director WOLFGANG PETERSEN, responsible of films such as THE NEVERENDING STORY (1984) or the very famous TROY (2004). Clint plays FRANK MORRIGAN, a veteran Secret Services agent, overwhelmed by the guilt of not having been able to save president's KENNEDY life back in the day, who will have one last chance to redeem himself. RENE RUSSO, an inspired JOHN MALKOVICH, DYLAN MCDERMOTT and JOHN MAHONEY (yes, FRASIER's dad on the famous TV show) can also be seen.

This is an agile and entertaining movie, with Eastwood redefining the tough guy concept (in the end, he's played a similar role so many times) and with a brilliant response by the remarkable Malkovich. The two of them playing the usual cat and mouse game but in a more skilled fashion. This is not only about action and stunts, but also about grey matter.

And it was another blockbuster, with the critics embracing it as well and three nominations more to the Academy Awards, including best original script and best actor in a supporting role (Malkovich). No luck this time. Concerning that script (written by JEFF MAGUIRE, who finished an idea by producer JEFF APPLE about a secret agent on duty at the time of Kennedy's assassination), it had been ruled out by several influential people within the business, but ended up being the subject of some kind of auction among Eastwood, TOM CRUISE and Sean Connery, before Maguire chose Clint.

Morrigan, always on alert

Besides all the praising for Malkovich, there was some for Petersen's tense direction and for Eastwood's charismatic presence, which the movie relies so much on that is almost impossible to picture another actor in his role. All things considered, a thriller as good as it gets, and not devoid of some anecdotes. For example, that Eastwood and Petersen had offered ROBERT DE NIRO Malkovich's role before him, but De Niro had to say no because of his busy schedule. Also, this flick was one of the first ones whose trailer was offered on line, and BILL CLINTON himself, who had become the United States president, praised the film, but Petersen refused to use that as a marketing asset, unsure as he was of that being something positive or not.

But the most interesting fun fact of them all is the fact that, in order to talk about Morrigan's past (the only secret agent who remains active out of all those who were supposed to protect Kennedy when he was murdered), some digitalized images of Eastwood's movies from the sixties were used, so the moments surrounding Kennedy's assassination in 1962 could be reproduced.

In The Line Of Fire was the penultimate movie in which Eastwood was directed by someone different than himself.

You have to go far and beyond the usual stuff to impress
 someone like Lilly Raines (Rene Russo)

Still in 1993, Clint went back behind the camera to direct (and also play a little role) one of his best and, at the same time, most underrated movies, the great A PERFECT WORLD, in which ROBERT HAYNES (played, funnily enough, by a likeable Kevin Costner) is a convict on the run who takes a kid as hostage. Eastwood is the texan Ranger who leads the chase and LAURA DERN acts too.

Clint, as mentioned, also acts. But that is misleading, for his screen time is little (in fact he wasn't going to act at all) and the plot focuses on the peculiar rapport which arises between Haynes and the kid PHILIP (T.J. LOWTHER), with some moments shared by them both which have been lauded as some of the best crafted in the entire career of the filmmaker. The outcome is another minor entry in Clint's filmography, which triumphs due to its small details and reflections, be them funny or bitter. Lowther's character is remarkable, for having come from an absurdly severe environment, he begins knowing and enjoying life and himself thanks to someone like Haynes. The reality both characters have to face clashes with the film's title. Clint admitted this movie was a very risky move, but he was eager to do it and get out of his comfort zone. The audience may have been expecting a fierce chase between cop and fugitive, or perhaps a great adventure shared by both main roles, but no. Look somewhere else.

Unexpected buddies

Even Steven Spielberg showed interest in the script, but he was too busy with his JURASSIC PARK (1993), so Clint, also busy himself as he was with subjects pertaining the two previous movies, saw in A Perfect World a very good chance to forget about acting, something he only did in the end after Costner asked him to. His presence here is not as meaningful as usual, at least as far as his running time in the plot goes.

It had a relative success on that side of the pond but, don't ask me why, it worked much better at the box office in the rest of the world, earning three times as much as it earned in the States and Canada.

Garnett together with partner Sally Gerber
 (a young Laura Dern)

As for the critics, despite not being completely unanimous about it (some said the story rambled a little and was too soft on Costner's character, a criminal who was kind of idealized somehow), they backed the film. Costner's work was praised, and so were all the emotions the movie unveiled, and critic ROGERT EBERT (first time I mention him, although I've captured some of his opinions before) went as far as saying that this was a movie every director would be proud of signing.

Any way you look at it, a great film (bitter though), with a welcome participation by a then six or seven years old Lowther, who, after working in several little known films during the nineties, seemed to vanished into thin air. This movie was a highlight in Kevin Costner's career as well, as far as the critic was concerned.

Costner and Clint, western's last two biggest defenders,
 during the filming

In 1994 there was nothing new by Clint and, come 1995, he did a small uncredited cameo (shared with Mel Gibson, by the way) in the children's movie CASPER, by BRAD SILBERLING. But what really did matter about 1995 was the premier of THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY, one of his most liked and remembered films and, incidentaly, a change of tone at all levels which was unprecedented in his career (with the sole exception of, maybe, Breezy, where he did not act). This is a romantic drama which could pass as a variation of that previous movie, save for some obvious differences and starred by him, together with one of the best actresses ever and, most likely, the best living actress, the unparalleled MERYL STREEP. Based on a 1992 novel of the same name, written by ROBERT JAMES WALLER, tells about the short, intense and unlikely romance between FRANCESCA, an italian woman, and ROBERT KINCAID, a photographer working for NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC who travels to Madison to take pictures of its famous bridges. It's all told according Francesca's point of view, as a prolonged flashback, through some material which her very surprised sons find at the family house, already in the present and once Francesca herself has died.

A series of names and circumstances are linked to this project before it came to fruition, for the rights were purchased by Spielberg before the book was first published (?), and he had contacted SYDNEY POLLACK to direct, while Eastwood had been chosen as the first option to star in the movie. Pollack quit and Spielberg thought about being the director himself. A third draft of the script (written by RICHARD LAGRAVENESE, and including everything concerning Francesca's sons, the letters and so on, something brilliant in my opinion) was of everyone's liking, but when Spielberg refused to direct, along came BRUCE BERESFORD, and with him another draft. Eastwood's environment liked LaGravenese's draft better and Beresford left as well. Clint ended up directing.

Francesca, Kincaid and one of Madison's
picturesque bridges

It was another commercial success, with a very warm reception in Japan (?), of all places. That success went hand in hand with a widespread critical acclaim, which remarked Clint's accuracy at improving the raw material the film was based on (the book's indiscreet stare, compared to the film's much more watchful one). I read the book time after I watched the flick and I remember I was not at all impressed by it, which means this movie can perfectly be one of those unusual times when a book falls below its film adaptation. Who would have thought it, but after a long career of embodying brute and controversial guys, and its corresponding share of atrocities, both verbal and physical, one critic said that this movie was Eastwood's present to all women. What about that!

I've heard it before, and from some different people: boring, a ladies movie, what is Clint doing in a film like this, you name it. I don't care. This movie rules, and so does the interaction between both main characters and their chemistry, which is far from being overly sweet (something that is attributed to the book), and proceeds with a calm pace and tons of silences. You can read and hear a lot about one of the final scenes when is time to praise the movie and remember some special moments in all cinema's history and all that, but the thing that struck me the most was the moment when Francesca's sons, both struggling in their own marriages, use what they've just learnt to get their shit together, at least when it comes to that specific area of their lives. They take it as a wake up call. After all, their dad was a good man whom their mum loved and yet, she could not help certain things. Not even realize them.

It's best to leave it here and avoid explaining any further. But as much as is deceiving the film's suggestion to understand Francesca's doings, is also surprising Kincaid's demeanor. It has to be seen because it means food for thought and some debating.

There's someone around much more
 deserving of being photographed than
 those damn bridges

Streep got, thanks to this film, one of her many Academy Awards nominations, although she did not win, and the same happened to her and the movie at the Golden Globes, in the drama category. There were many awards though, and some anecdotes to be told:

- The flick was initially rated as restricted, due to a raunchy but sarcastic line uttered by Streep. That was successfully appealed and the movie was pigeonholed within the not suitable for under thirteen years old kids category.

- Unlike the way it's usually done, the story was filmed chronologically. That's what Eastwood wanted,  because it was all about the performers and their roles getting to know each other, little by little.

- Some other very famous actresses were considered for Francesca's role, like ISABELLA ROSELLINI or CATHERINE DENEUVE, but Eastwood held his ground in this regard concerning Streep, who always was whom he wanted.

A very high profiled couple

1996 was another Eastwood-less year on the billboards, but 1997 brought ABSOLUTE POWER, another very good thriller on par with Clint's great momentum, for which he had Gene Hackman again on board, besides some very much respected performes such as ED HARRIS, the wonderful LAURA LINNEY (in her first film with Eastwood), SCOTT GLENN or RICHARD JENKINS. Clint directs and also plays LUTHER WHITNEY, a cat burglar who witness a murder. The movie adpats the book of the same name which DAVID BALDACCI had published in 1996. Its rights had already been sold some time before 1996, and the script, also in process before 1996, was modified at Eastwood's request, so there could be some changes which are not to be explained here, to avoid ruining both the film's viewing and the novel's reading.

The reviews were not as good as those of the previous movies, but I remember I liked this film very much, and above all its power games, Eastwood's role as a burglar and Linney's involvement, being as she is, one of my favourite actresses. An illogical plot, which marred the plot, was pointed at, in spite of the all star cast and the skilled direction. It did not matter, for the audience at large was much more benevolent (it has a respectable score on IMDB) and, to be honest, I just remember good words about this flick by all the people I was surrounded by when I saw it. In all truth, I was expecting much more enthusiasm regarding Absolute Power when I did some researching to talk about it here, given the very good memories I have. I guess is all about watching it again and find out how time has treated it.

Eastwood and his fictional daughter, Laura Linney

There's not much left to say, because of my fear of spoiling the movie. Money-wise it almost doubled its own budget at the box office, so I guess it can be considered a success in that department. I've already talked about what I deem Eastwood's minor films, and I don't mean to consider this one as such (not among his most popular entries either), but maybe it came along during a time in which Clint Eastwood was, let's say, on fire, and the quality and popularity of the fims that sandwich Absolute Power might make it look as not as good as it really is, as if unnoticed. But no matter what, it has nothing to do with his weakest moments of the previous decade. Quite the contrary.

Eastwood composed the song called KATE'S THEME, which opened the soundtrack.

An eagle-eyed Luther Whitney

Also in 1997, a movie directed by Eastwood, about which I have very good memories as well but I'm also surprised to read the critic's lack of enthusiasm, was premiered. It is no other than MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL, which Clint directed but did not act in, counting on another high profile cast mainly comprised of JOHN CUSACK, a very young and still relatively unknown JUDE LAW, and KEVIN SPACEY. Alison, Clint's daughter, has a very good share of screen time too.

This is mostly a courtroom thriller with southern flavor, which is again based (barring some changes) on an identically titled book, the best seller written by JOHN BERENDT (on whom Cusack's character is loosely based), which was published in 1994. The plot revolves around an antiques dealer, JIM WILLIAMS (Spacey), investigated for a male prostitute's death. It was filmed in the picturesque southern town of Savannah, and has some peculiar characters (some pets included), some of them portrayed by themselves, for the novel is of the non-fiction kind and it mixes actual characters and facts with fiction. In fact, the event both book and movie are based on is real, and took place in 1981. Some of the locations are actual buildings which also had to do with that story, and some neighbours were hired as extras.

As for the eccentricities, a highlight was the participation of the already deceased transgender actress known as THE LADY CHABLIS, who achieved some notoriety thanks to the book and this movie, becoming one of the pioneering transexual performers when it came to reach a larger audience.

Kevin Spacey, a much peculiar
southern gentleman

Unlike Clint's last blockbusters (maybe I'm using this word lightly but you catch my drift), this movie failed at the box office and could not take in what it had been invested to do it. And the reviews were not good either, and this is kind of shocking, for not only I did enjoy this film, but also, I had always thought it had a very good reputation. I was wrong, and I've read that the critics talk about a southern blunder which drags itself, oblivious of the cultural details which gave the novel its intrigue. I get it, the critics have to do their job and they are what they are for a reason. They know their craft. But one of the perks of being an average spectator, with little or no idea of cinematography, is enjoying what you watch in a more spontaneous fashion, without so much thinking about it.

A funny thing about this film is the one Berendt himself told. He was not too happy with Spacey's acting, because he had adviced the actor to listen to some private recordings containing conversations between Berendt and Williams, stories William told him and so on, and yet, Spacey seemed to having played his part as if half asleep. Later on, he realized that Spacey, who had rejected to listen to those recordings Berendt kept, arguing that he had already listened to those of Williams' trials, maybe only listened to one taken from a trial in which Williams had taken a lot of valium before it.

On another note, both Clint and Alison sang on the soundtrack.

Clint, Cusack and Alison Eastwood during the filming

Already in 1999, Clint undertakes his fourth film adaptation of a novel of the same name in a row, and that movie would be TRUE CRIME. He also acted, embodying a journalist named STEVE EVERETT, who gets assigned the execution of a convict called FRANK BEECHUM, played by ISAIAH WASHINGTON, an actor who few years after would gain a lot of fame thanks to his role on the famous TV show called GREY'S ANATOMY. There's also a role for the very well known actor JAMES WOODS, and even for one of Eastwood's daughters, little FRANCESCA, born in 1993 to actresss FRANCES FISHER, who was seen in Unforgiven and was in a relationship with Clint.

My memories about this one fade, to be honest, for I saw it a long time ago, very little after it was premiered and I've never come back to it. I saw it with my pal GONZALO (the legendary POTITO), who will probably be reading this (he should), when he invited me over his place on a beautiful island in the Canarys, La Palma. But I do remember the tension created by the countdown which the plot led into, but little else. Once again, I have no doubt that it would fare very well when compared to the worst, or least good movies of Clint's career, and the more I read about it, the more eager I am to see it again.

Clint, little Francesca and actress Diane Venora,
 who was seen in Bird

The public liked the movie, but without too much fanfare. There were people who doubted Clint as the most suitable acting choice for his role, which, together with a somehow customary plot, damaged the film's potential. Eastwood's played a recovering alcoholic whose life is a complete chaos, mostly due to his own personality (there seem to be some similarities between Everett's demeanor and Clint's). His assignment is given to him after the passing of a partner and, according to the critics, Clint might have put the details of the crime itself aside, in order for his character to achieve his goals and find some personal peace of mind. But mostly for that reason, and not for the sake of justice. Most of the times, is a good thing not having read the books the movies are based on (the novels use to be better) and just keep those movies in mind, so no comparison with the original stuff can be drawn. That's how you get to appreciate the film for what it is, instead of it being a better or worse adaptation of something previous. 

What is really remarkable is the commercial flop, because this flick did not even take one third of the budget money in, being his worst movie of the nineties in that regard (omitting White Hunter, Black Heart, which made much less money, but suffered from a very limited distribution).

Chaotic Everett

Clint finished the nineties directing what I guess is the only videoclip of his entire directing career, for the song WHY SHOULD I CARE?, which he also contributed writing and was performed by the elegant DIANA KRALL. In said video, scenes from True Crime intertwine with Krall singing the song.

WHY SHOULD I CARE?

End of the fourth chapter