CLINT EASTWOOD V / FIRST DECADE OF THE XXI CENTURY: THE LAST OF A DYING BREED AND QUITE A FEW HITS

Eastwood's agenda had lessened little by little, on all fronts (long gone were the times when there was a new film of his, or several, each year), so he could remain focused on more intimate and personal projects (a trend that he had already begun and established during the nineties) which will allow him to spend less time in front of the camera.  

But still, he started the XXI century acting and directing, like so many times before, and making sure in the process he fixed the relative commercial flops he had just experienced, with SPACE COWBOYS, premiered in 2000. This flick tells about a veteran bunch of former pilots, who have come a long way together, and they are about to be sent into outer space. Clint is FRANK CORVIN, one of them, and the remaining three, Donald Sutherland, TOMMY LEE JONES and JAMES GARNER, complete another all star cast. There are also other well known faces, such as JAMES CROMWELL, MARCIA GAY HARDEN and JOHN HAMM. The last two, with honourable mention to Gay Harden, would work with Clint again after this film.

The movie was shot at some of the most important facilities of the american space program, and concerning the part of the plot which tells the story of the four characters when they were young (1958), another four young actors were cast, and his voices were dubbed by the four main actors.

Garner, Jones, Eastwood and Sutherland

Although it was not on par with other previous hits, this film was a commercial success and managed to make more money than the two previous movies combined. The reviews were good as well, remarking that, as much as Space Cowboys played it safe, was brimming with cliches and was something that had been told a million times before (I guess the last part refers to subjects like the second chances and being at peace with oneself), the performances and the special effects made it more than worthy. They also remarked the emphasis the film put on the tense nature of the bond between Jones and Eastwood's characters, whose relationship had strained in the past. There was even one nomination for this flick at the Academy Awards, for best sound editing.

Back in the day, my interest in Clint Eastwood was not as huge as it is now (that would change soon, thanks to some works of his which will be reviewed in no time), and when I first read about Space Cowboys and its plot I remember that the first word that came to mind was lazyness. Soon after it was on the telly and I thought I would give it a chance, only to realize how wrong I was. This film is really entertaining and worthy, and this is when I first thought that no movie related with Eastwood could do wrong, or was, at least, deserving of a chance.

Eastwood also contributed to the score, which was taken over by Lennie Niehaus, of course.

Which equals to Tank, Hawk, O'Neill and Frank

The failed BLOOD WORK, premiered in 2002 (being the umpteenth adaptation of a novel of the same name, this time from 1998 and written by the very famous MICHAEL CONNELLY), was the film that, in my opinion, stopped Eastwood's streak of great works (which had begun with Unforgiven) on its tracks, giving way in turn to another similar or even better streak. Old habits die hard though, and Clint directs and once again plays the main character, TERRY MCCALEB, a former FBI agent who chases a sadistic killer. JEFF DANIELS and ANJELICA HUSTON are the renowned actors who work with Eastwood this time around.

My recollections are vague and that's why I don't have much to say. I saw it a long time ago and I remember a rambling but predictable plot, and something specific which was really over the top, perhaps a love relationship between two characters. I don't know. I've read the book too, although I don't know whether before or after, but I don't think I liked it very much. The critics were indifferent towards it and they said its pace was slow and the film was more of the same. Some of them appreciated good old Eastwood's courage for going at it one more time. They did not know what was about to hit them quite soon.

Blood Work underperformed at the box office, making little more than half of its budget.

A tormented McCaleb together with Buddy,
played by Jeff Daniels

The fun fact is another role (the first one was in True Crime) for DINA RUIZ, Clint's then wife (much younger than him and with whom he had another daughter, MORGAN, back in 1996), playing a journalist, something she actually is (or was) in real life. They met, in fact, when she had to interview Eastwood. Together with daughter Morgan and the already mentioned Francesca, another one of Clint's daughters, she starred in a 2012 reality show called MRS. EASTWOOD & COMPANY (Clint and her had not divorced yet), which luckily enough (taking the content and its poor mark on IMDB into account) only lasted one season of ten episodes, in three of which Clint made an stellar appearance.

Doctor Fox (Anjelica Huston) watches over
 Clint' health and his cardiac episodes in Blood Work

2003 brought one of Eastwood's best movies ever, and one whose acclaim was almost unanimous, the outstanding MYSTIC RIVER, which he only directed, leaving acting for another occasion. The plot, based on DENIS LEHANE's novel, and scripted by BRIAN HELGELAND (also responsible for the screenplay of the very succesful L.A. CONFIDENTIAL, a film which was premiered in 1997 and directed by CURTIS HANSON), follows the current lifes of three old Boston friends, reunited twenty five years after. I don't think there is a single self-respected, prudent movies fan left who has not seen this movies, but just in case there are some, and they decide to give this reading a chance, I will not say anything else about the plot. As for Lehane, I don't know whether he was already famous before this adaptation of his novel or not, but be it as it may, he got fame after it, and deservedly so, for he's the author behind some other novels which have been succesfully adapted to the big screen, such as GONE, BABY GONE, SHUTTER ISLAND or THE DROP. To the average filmgoer, the subsequent movies which adapted those books need no introduction. But there's more, because among some other works, Lehane has written four episodes of THE WIRE, probably one of the best three TV shows ever.

It all looked good with all those means, but there was also the cast, which was spectacular. When I reviewed Unforgiven I said that its cast could have been the highest profiled one to ever appear in an Eastwood movie up to that point, but this one might as well have surpassed it. Clint is not acting this time, but instead you have an inspired KEVIN BACON, in a role that, save for some minor details, could have been played by a younger Eastwood. With him there are SEAN PENN, a one of a kind actor, and TIM ROBBINS, about whom no introduction is needed either. In fact, the last two had already worked and triumphed together in 1995, as main character and director, respectively, in the amazing DEAD MAN WALKING. These three actors played those three friends, but there was another awesome threesome left, formed by the always reliable LAURENCE FISHBURNE and, above all, the two brilliant returning actresses Laura Linney and Marcia Gay Harden. Besides, Mystic River meant the world's introduction to the then very young and multifaceted EMMY ROSSUM. Even legendary Eli Wallach has an uncredited role.

Eastwood directs Penn and Bacon

This film was a commercial and artistic success, besides leaving a big mark on the subsequent ceremony of the Academy Awards, and with good reason. More on that later on. Let's say first that Mystic River made almost one hundred sixty million dollars worldwide, a figure that dwarfed the less than thirty millions it used as budget. The reviewers embraced it wholeheartedly, with marks that honor its virtues (7,9 on IMDB, after almost half a million votes, no less), and the critics remarked the human factor, the great performances and the rapport between Eastwood and his actors, besides his development as a filmmaker, pourin everything he knew about this craft over the movie.

Dave Boyle, victim of his own personal
 hell, brilliantly portrayed by Robbins

As for my own memories, I remember one summer day of 2004, on which one seller working for The Readers Circle came knocking on the door to offer a membership. I would have said no, as people usually do in those rushed and very often uncomfortable situations, but after weighing a really good offer up, and realizing that out of all the books I could first choose from, one of them was Lehane's, I was driven to do it. I had already seen Eastwood's film, the previous year, when it had been premiered, and loved it to bits, but the novel is another piece of art whose reading was not ruined by the fact that I had seen the movie. Further, I remember my dad, never one prone to this kind of enthusiasm, watching the film after my advice, praising it as crazy, and proceeding to read the book afterwards. After doing so he told he had been on the verge of tears.

No wonder, and is difficult to avoid feeling shaken from the inside when remembering the film's starting point and, of course, its ending. Or that scene in which one of the most brutal desperations known to man makes one of the main characters to be subdued by a bunch (many) policemen. All in all, the spectator witness the overwhelming weight of misfortune, which seems to be about falling down on the characters during the whole length of the plot. Needless to say, this is drama of the highest order. Tragedy in its purest form. As if evil itself had chosen to settle in that irish bostonian neighbourhood and destroy everything in its wake.

Laura Linney is Annabeth, Jimmy's (Penn)
faithful second wife

This was the first film Eastwood wrote the whole soundtrack for. MICHAEL KEATON was the first choice for the role that Kevin Bacon would end up performing, although he left the filmimg due to discrepancies between him and Clint.

Concerning the Oscars, if Mystic River did not make it into the list of privileged films which had entered the Big Five (starting with the nominations) that I had already talked about with Unforgiven (as a reminder, nominations for the film, director, leading actor, leading actress and script), was because there was no nomination for the leading actress (there is no leading actress in Mystic River). In return, those four nominations were joined by another one for Gay Harden as an actress in a supporting role, and the same for Robbins on the male front. Sean Penn (after three previous unsuccessful nominations) triumphed, and so did Robbins. They both hit bullseye at the Golden Globes ceremony as well, and the list of awards and accolades of the film is enormous.

Those Oscars won by Penn and Robbins, as leading and supporting actors respectively, marked the first time since 1959 that something of the like happened. That year was BEN HUR's (WILLIAM WYLER) turn, and CHARLTON HESTON (leading actor) and HUGH GRIFFITH (supporting) won.

An spectacular Marcia Gay Harden, 
here with Sean Penn

Also in 2003, Clint took part on a TV documentary show by Scorsese, about the story of the blues as a musical genre, called THE BLUES, directing the episode PIANO BLUES. I haven't seen it, so I can't tell anything about it.

Everything that has been said about Mystic River got even increased one year after with the otherwordly MILLION DOLLAR BABY, with which Eastwood (also acting this time) completed what is very likely to be the best one-two punch of his career (together with Mystic River, obviously), only with the permission, perhaps, of those three films he did with Sergio Leone.

Million Dollar Baby is another literary adaptation, although this time is a short story and not a novel what we are talking about. That story is called MILLION $$$ BABY, and is included in a book titled ROPE BURNS: STORIES FROM THE CORNER. I'm not sure if PAUL HAGGIS's (who would triumph in 2005 with the script for CRASH, which he would also direct) screeplay was based on this story alone, or wether it took things from the others too. That book, published in 2000, was written by JERRY BOYD, a former boxing coach writing under the pseudony of F.X. TOOLE. Boyd died in 2002, and the success of Eastwood's film helped his novel POUND FOR POUND to be posthumously published in 2006.

The plot focuses on MAGGIE FITZGERALD (HILARY SWANK) a courageous amateur boxer who makes a living how she can and chooses to always look forward to prevent herself from drowning in the misery her own life is. In order to achieve his goal of devoting herself professionally to boxing, meets a reluctant and cantankerous coach called FRANKIE DUNN (Eastwood), who is helped with all the chores at his own gym by his friend and former boxer SCRAP, played by a returning and unforgettable Morgan Freeman.

Dunn and Scrap have both experienced better times

Apparently, Haggis wrote the script on his own, while jobless, with no one he got this task assigned from. It took him a long time to sell it, and once he sold it, that script spent some time gathering dust while experiencing one rejection after another. It was rejected even by Warner, despite having Eastwood agreed on acting and directing. The necessary budget was eventually gathered by means of a coproduction. Clint's major concern was Swank's physical condition. Her acting chops were no problem whatsoever. On the contrary (she had even won an Oscar, already in 1999, thanks to her role in BOYS DON'T CRY, by KIMBERLY PEIRCE). But her muscles and so on were far from being those of a person devoted to boxing. That is how she began a wild training routine to become what was expected from her, according to her role. I remember reading an interview with her, on the occasion of this movie, in which she said that once the filming had been wrapped she did not want to lose all the muscle she had gained, because she looked better that way than as thin as she was before. You just have two watch her in these two mentioned roles and compare.

Despite being Clint Eastwood who he is, a living legend of his own since way before this shooting, and despite Mystic River's recent success, Clint had a hard time accomplishing this venture. The next piece tells all about it, as well as the previous interest of the very well known SANDRA BULLOCK in carrying it out on her own.

THE POWER OF PERSEVERANCE

Dunn, a bad tempered but good natured guy, will
 find in Fitzgerald motivations beyond boxing

This film flattened the 2005 Academy Awards ceremony, made tons of money at the box office (close to two hundred and twenty million dollars worldwide, contrasting with yet another budget of around thirty) and was praised by the critic, going from being a contender to the best movie of the year, of the decade, of the XXI century (the best one for THE NEW YORK TIMES, later in 2017) and, eventually, in all history (PARADE ranked it at number sixty three in 2023). And well deserved, if you ask me.

The websites show an overall mark of B+ (between 8 and 9, always keeping in mind how difficult it is for a movie to reach a 9 when it is this popular and has lots of votes; Million Dollar Baby has an 8,1 mark, after seven hundred and twenty thousand votes) and the scholars went as far as using the well used term of masterpiece, but properly this time. Not every review was an enthusiastic one, of course, but more on that in no time, for it is impossible to talk about this movie without using spoilers, which I'll make use of them for the first time, although with a previous warning.

Million Dollar Baby triumphed at the Oscars, as I've said. AndI have to go back to Unforgiven, once more, for I said I would not mention some stuff about Eastwood and these awards, beyond Unforgiven itself, until come the right time. This is. Million Dollar Baby is Eastwood's contribution to that famed list of forty three movies which accomplished the Big Five, which I have just also mentioned when writing about Mystic River. This flick got those five famous nominations, and two more, to the best actor in a supporting role and to the best editing. It won the best film, best director and best leading actress awards, with only Haggis (script) and Eastwood (best leading actor) falling short of their own prized awards for Million Dollar Baby to join those three movies which, besides accomplishing the Big Five, eventually won all five awards. And just like it had happened with Unforgiven, Clint was left just one award away (as best actor in a leading role) from achieving the unprecedented treble of best movie, best director and best actor. Freeman also won as supporting actor, and Eastwood and Swank won a Golden Globe as well, as director and best actress respectively. There were many awards more.

I bet you won't knock the next one out in less
than thirty seconds

Spoiler alert

Million Dollar Baby goes far beyond the average sports drama, or the quest for the american dream. I remember I was reading one issue of the FOTOGRAMAS magazine (former benchmark in cinema a few years ago and woke culture nonsense nowadays, given what I usually read from it on social media), soon before going to watch the film, and Million Dollar Baby was on the reviews section. I could not help making the mistake of reading its own review, and I mean making a mistake because those in charge of the review were as foolish (maybe they think that everyone who reads their magazine has already seen the movies they review) as to (in order to put some emphasis on how good the film was) commenting, on the cons part, that the only bad thing which could be said about this movie was that it simply embarrassed ALEJANDRO AMENABAR's MAR ADENTRO. That film, known by everyone because of its plot based on real life events, had been premiered some months earlier. In it, JAVIER BARDEM portrayed RAMÓN SAMPEDRO, a person who had spent most of his life lying on a bed while fighting for being allowed to die in his own terms. I have nothing against it, for I saw it back in the day and enjoyed it, but that unnecessary and nonsensical revelation made me realize that the Eastwood movie was going to deal with the euthanasia subject. Said and done. To be honest, I must admit that being aware of that did not ruin the experience the least bit. I remember telling my buddy SAMUEL, after suggesting him he should go watch the movie, that it was going to be, most likely, the best film of the year. He asked me if I wasn't exaggerating. Absolutely not. I fell short with my assertion, and he would soon agree on it.

We must have been very often asked about which movies we like the most, or even which one would our favourite movie ever be. Only one There are people who are certain about it, but I consider this discussion, as much as it is good fun, a tad ridiculous, because there are so many different genres and so many amazing movies that choosing only one movie seems too difficult a task to me. Not to mention the fact that there is no need to choose. Films are not incompatible. But despite all that, it's been a long time since I concluded that I would not mind at all choosing Million Dollar Baby, if asked that aforementioned question. It would be a much more than worthy and feasible choice.

But the thing is that, what I've just said about the euthanasia brought some criticism, due to an allegedly deceiving marketing strategy which did not mention that turn of events. But how could it? The criticism spoke about selling some kind of female ROCKY (JOHN G. AVILDSEN, 1976) first, but without giving any clues of what was coming next, something I deem logical unless you want to spoil the movie for everyone. One critic even said that no film had ever saddened him as much as this one had, referring to the film's second act.

There were also criticism (even with some protest meetings included) by associations which championed the rights of the disabled people, based on many of them finding happines in a different life which is worthy of living. This, in my opinion, is a silliness of the highest order, because as much as everything those associations said is true, not everyone who has to face those kinds of situations do it the same way. And also, anyone who has seen the movie is aware of the fact that the person who is facing that situation in the plot, chooses not to live any longer, and there is even some suicide attempts.

There were those who would rather a happy and triumphant ending as well, which is more of the same nonsense. There are movies with happy endings. This is not one of those. Eastwood shielded the film from this criticism in an interview (with a very accomplished assertion which was classic Clint), by saying that he made movies, while distancing himself from what happened in them. He said he had spent years blowing criminals heads off with a Magnum 44, but that did not mean he thought something like that was right. He tells the story but he does not take a stance on it. The already mentioned Rogert Ebert defended the film by saying that a movie is not a good one because of its content, but because of how it handles it.

In this regard, Clint handles the content of Million Dollar Baby in a very crafty fashion. From Scrap's past, going through the confessions and questions that Dunn asks one priest who is not in a position to give him answers and ends up fed up with him, to the relationships among the characters: fondness and good spirits between Scrap and Maggie, Dunn's initial tension concerning Maggie, who seems to idolize her bad tempered mentor, and friendship filled with confident silences between Dunn and Scrap. How to forget the conversation between the last two about Scrap's socks, or that scene in which a restrained Dunn makes a polite comment about the scarce skills with the punching ball of a beaming Maggie.

But nothing as brutal as the plot's twist and its inevitable and sad ending, which are the heaviest blows this movie hits its audience with, together with getting to know that the story's account is actually a letter that Scrap sends to Dunn's estranged daughter, whom he has not seen in a very long time (something that tormented good old Dunn), for her to know her dad's true dimension as a human being.

Oh, and there are some boxing moments and combats as well!.

Despite not having followed Swank's long but somehow irregular acting career very closely, and not having seen many films of hers, I do not care about it. It doesn't matter what she does, she will always be the actress who stareed in this film.

Maggie Fitzgerald

There are some fun facts worthy of being told:

- The name of the story the film is based on is taken from an insult that legendary boxer MUHAMMAD ALI, then the underdog contender, received from SONNY LISTON before a combat.

- Eastwood composed the song called BLUE MORGAN for the soundtrack.

- Another one of his daughters, the already mentioned Morgan, has a very small role in the film.

- Fitzgerald's gaelic nickname, Mo Chuisle, was misspelled in the film as Mo Cuishle. That expression comes from the sentence A Chuisle Mo Croi, which is more or less gaelic for The beating of my heart. Apparently, this sentence and its usage in the movie led to an unexpected interest in said language.

- Some fancier DVD editions came with a paperback copy of Toole's novel.

- The excruciating training routine of almost five hours a day that Swank underwent made her gain almost nine kilos of muscle, but also catch a very dangerous infection through blisters on the feet. It did not get any worse than that, but it seems like something like that could even be life threatening. Swank did not let Eastwood know about it, thinking that something like that would be what Maggie had done. 

One of the best movies ever

We had to wait until 2006 to enjoy Clint's next two movies, which deserve to be reviewed together, for they were two back to back films about the Iwo Jima Battle. In that battle, the americans  took the island of Iwo Jima away from the japanese in little longer than one month at the beginning of 1945, during WWII. The first movie, FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS, dealt with the conflict from the american standpoint, while the other one, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, did it from the japanese's.

Flags Of Our Fathers focuses on the five marines and the doctor of the American Army who raised the american flag on Iwo Jima's mount Suribachi, after the american victory, as can be seen in the very famous and iconic picture which turned its author, JOE ROSENTHAL, into a Pullitzer Award recipient later that year of 1945.

The famed picture, taylored to
 the film's poster

This fim was based on the book of the same name written by JAMES BRADLEY (his dad, John, was initially considered among those six previous people, the only one who was not a marine, although that was only a very long lasting official version, because in 2016 it was known that him and another one in the picture were not actually them) and RON POWERS, published in 2000, Many well known faces from this century's television and cinema can be seen in the film, standing out RYAN PHILLIPE, the sadly and untimely deceased FAST & FURIOUS saga star, PAUL WALKER, and JAMIE BELL. Some even more famous actors than those, such as BRADLEY COOPER or JARED LETO, were linked to this film, although they eventually did not take part in it. This film also marks the acting debut of another one of Clint's sons, the fairly famous SCOTT (I remember watching him in an old videoclip by the omnipresent and hugely famous american singer TAYLOR SWIFT, something that today would mean putting him on the map even if he had not done anything else), born in 1986 to flight attendant JACELYN REEVES, who also had an affair (a long one, apparently) with Eastwood. This man is an artifact of massive sexual destruction.

Paul Haggis came back to the fold to write the script, although Spielberg, who coproduced the film, brought a certain WILLIAM BROYLES, who (among other things) had already written the script for APOLLO 13 (RON HOWARD, 1995) and CAST AWAY (ROBERT ZEMECKIS, 2000), both starring TOM HANKS.

When Eastwood did the research he needed, regarding the events which are told in the film, he also did it taking the japanese point of view into account, and that made him to make up his mind about shooting an unexpected second film which would be this one's counterbalance, with the japanese as leading characters. It would become, of course, Letters From Iwo Jima.

Clint, during the filming

This is one of those movies whose anecdotes about its viewing are right now much clearer for me than the film itself, something that also happens with regards to its companion piece. Both of them are quite good, and no matter that the second one is shot in japanese in almost its entirety, or might look less appealing because of that or several other reasons (one of them, talking about myself, is that I'm not attracted to asian stuff at all), for I remember it was even better than Flags Of Our Fathers, and closer to the characters perhaps. I saw the two of them, back to back (which means more than four hours and a half of war movies session), during a not very busy night shift of work. Obviously, I had little to do on that very day, and, having thought about that possibility in advance, I turned the laptop on (not the best option to watch a movie, I know) as soon as I was done with my chores. I wasn't exactly eager to watch them, I won't deny it, because these kinds of movies make me really lazy, and I don't know why, for they usually are really rewarding, but always when looked in hindsight. It takes more effort from me to enjoy them, but the outcome is very good, more often than not. I think I remember Eastwood saving a little surprise for his son Scott, concerning the plot, and not a very pleasant one, if memory serves. Quite the opposite. But it is a fine movie no matter what, and a fitting tribute to those people who raised the flag, in a film which also focuses on their lives beyond the military stuff, and the aftermath that the narrated event had upon them, for is very well known the inclintation of the United States to exaggerate and magnify any feat of its own, and to create heroes as well.

Apart from that, I'm not familiar with Walker's career, but I do think Phillipe and Bell are very good actors, and I am specially fond of the latter, because I happened to watch the filmimg of one scene from one of his movies, HALLAM FOE (by the very interesting scottish director DAVID MCKENZIE, 2007), while in Edinburgh.

Ryan Phillipe, portraying
 John Bradley

Although I'm not entirely sure about the film's numbers, it can be said it was no hit at the box office, almost reaching its original budget, worst case scenario, or performing a little bit over it in the best of cases. It was praised by the critic though, getting very good marks on the usual websites and being nicely reviewed by the critics, who hailed the movie's depiction of war and Eastwood's work, which landed him a nomination as the best director at the Golden Globes (there were two minor nominations at the Academy Awards as well, but did not come to fruition). As for the relationship between USA and its heroes, the critics embraced the film's patriotism when it comes to paying homage to those who fought in the Pacific, while wisely reminding us that those people were no superheores or anything resembling that, thus critizicing the questionable handling that this country does of these issues.

The score for the movie was written by no other than the one and only Mr. Eastwood.

Scott Eastwood and Paul Walker, to their own devices

In spite of its smaller budget, Letters From Iwo Jima was more successful and talked about than its slightly older sister, because of being the first american movie to depict an armed conflict from the point of view of the american enemy, to begin with. Watch out, for Eastwood takes no prisoners, not even Uncle Sam. I already mentioned that this movie (filmed right after the other one) arose from the researching Clint did about the japanese's tacticts and so on during the same episode, and that is what the movie is all about: same story, opposite side, something that means including the letters which the japanese soldiers wrote to their loved ones during the conflict, for the film is based on the books PICTURE LETTERS FROM THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, written and posthumously published (in 1992, I believe) from general TADAMICHI KURIBAYASHI's letters, and SO SAD TO FALL IN BATTLE: AN ACCOUNT OF WAR, by KUMIKO KAKEHASHI (2005). Ken Watanabe's presence is the most remarkable aspect about the cast, for the rest of it is comprised of mostly asian actors and I don't know whether they are famous or not. I'm not familiar with them, but being Watanabe the only actor who was chosen without auditioning for its role, I guess they are not. As I said before, Watanabe would star in the 2013 asian reamke of Unforgiven.

What I said about Flags Of Our Fathers' viewing can be transferred here, although I have many more memories from this movie, mostly about the tunnels, the peculiar sense of honor of the japanese and the way they react and prepare when they sense some things are about to happen. If memory serves, I think I liked this movie better than the other, something I was surprised by.

Eastwood and Watanabe

It was not a major success either, making not much more money than the previous one. The difference here is the smaller budget. But still, its relative success, when compared to the initial budget, needed the boost which the film experienced abroad (it was a hit in Japan), because the american earnings would have not matched the budget on its own.

The critics were even happier with this new war foray by Eastwood, with praising on all fronts. There were some of them who named it movie of the year, and it was even called a masterpiece by some. Same happens with its marks, when compared to those of Flags Of Our Ftahers, on the usual consultation websites. On IMDB, the very good 7,1 that the previous movie got, is thoroughly surpassed by the 7,8 that Letters From Iwo Jima got, also counting with thousands of votes more.

The reviews said that, overall, this film packed a bigger punch and was more straight to the point than Flags Of Our Fathers, altough it had its share of negative reviews as well, such as the one which said that the americans could be as mawkish with enemy soldiers as they could be with their own, and that the film put some emphasis on the fact that the japanese people could also be nice and decent, as long as they had spent some time in the States. I can't exactly remember if there was something about that in the film, but general Kuribayashi had actually been in the States, and maybe there was some kind of conversation amidst the plot which fueled the previous comment.

Eastwood and some of his actors during
2007's Berlinale

Japón loved the film, at least commercially, although its critics liked it as well, and I guess it has to be a tall order to tell about an event like this and make both sides happy. They remarked the respect Eastwood showed when portraying the japanese soldiers, the accurate depiction of the japanese society of those days, and the fact that, unlike many other times before, the vast majority of acters were native ones, something which provided the plot with more realism, at least for the japanese, because foreign accents and so on were avoided. Japan was also thankful because of the absence of the usual stereotypes about the japanese folk.

Letters From Iwo Jima had an even bigger impact on the awards. It won an Oscar for best sound editing, but was also nominated as best movie and best script, and Eastwood himself as best director. Clint repeated nomination at the Golden Globes, and the film won one for best foreign film. Not to mention an overflowing of more nominations, awards and spots on several Top Ten lists.

Clint Eastwood congraciándose con el enemigo

This flick left some interesting trivia as well:

- It was first premiered in Japan first, having a subsequent and very limited premiere in the States, by the end of December, 2006, in order to become a contender at the 2007 Academy Awards.

- SAIGO, one of the main characters, is a fictional one. But this fact is a rarity in the plot, for most of the commanders and the main bulk of the battle were based on actual facts and people.

- There were some minor scenes filmed on Iwo Jima itself, something which was achieved by means of special permissions granted from Tokyo, for the access of civilians to the island is quite restricted, because, among other reasons, there are still missing japanese soldiers, who fell in combat during the conflict, lying underground.

- There's a battleship that can be seen in both movies, which actually took part in the attack on the island.

- CHARLES W. LINDBERG is the only real person to appear in both movies. He was a marine who was among those who conquered mount Suribachi, and the actor who played this person was ALESSANDRO MASTROBUONO.

- Due to the japanese success of the flick, the group of islands known as Ogasawara Islands, which Iwo Jima is part of, experienced a touristic boost.

- Kyle, Eastwood's musician son, was one of the people in charge of composing the score.

The poster

As I said when reviewing Bird (which is when it all began, apparently), Clint again clashed with Spike Lee because of these two movies, and once again due to racial reasons. To cut a long story short, Lee wondered how Eastwood could have made two back to back movies about Iwo Jima without any black marines in them. Eastwood said he wanted the whole thing to remain historically accurate, and told Lee to shut up, because, while it was true that there were black marines in Iwo Jima, they were segregated and the story focuses only on those who raised the flag (none of them black). Clint accused Lee of intentionally looking for this kind of controversy in order to promote the film he was filming, about an american platoon comprised only of black people, which fought in Italy during WWII (MIRACLE OF ST. ANNA, 2008). And Lee fired back saying that Eastwood was behaving like a grumpy old man, It has been said that Spielberg himself mediated between the two of them and Lee ended up sending Eastwood a copy of his movie so he could see it in private, maybe as an apology. Because, unlike Lee stated, there were black marines in Flags Of Our Fathers. They fought in Iwo Jima, of course, but mostly in defense and help duties, and they can be seen in the plot and in real pictures shown during the end credits. More sour grapes, Spike Lee.

There was another behind the camera success (a mild one, at least, regarding the box office), already in 2008, thanks to CHANGELING, a respected drama based on real events which featured one of the most important actresses of those years, ANGELINA JOLIE (Clint thought her face fitted the historical time in which the plot took place). Eastwood had to replace Ron Howard to direct, due to Howard's busy schedule, and there were also John Malkovich (after his involvement in In The Line Of Fire), JEFFREY DONOVAN, MICHAEL KELLY and the brilliant and usual show stealer AMY RYAN, among others. Jolie portrays CHRISTINE COLLINS, a woman who, after having (presumably) gotten her son back after his vanishing, reports several months after that this kid is not her real son, which makes her endure a long series of accusations, hospital commitments, sues and trials. And an unfair lack of credibility.

This project took form thanks to the very long and disrupted research about Collins and her son WALTER that the screenwriter of the film, JOSEPH MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI, started and conducted already in the eighties, when he first knew about this case (thanks to a tip about documents on all this which were going to be burnt), which is one of those known as the Wineville crimes, in which several children were abducted and murdered around the LA area in the late twenties of the last century. All this incidentally meant exposing the blatant coruption within the LA police. The script is based on tons of paperwork (so much that the uncomplaining scriptwriter had a hard time arranging everything so the story could be told) about this sordid chapter of the blackest american history. So awful it was that, come the thirties, the Wineville inhabitants decided to change the name of the town to Mira Loma, to avoid the unbearable fame that this issue had brought to the area.

Malkovich (reverend Gustav Briegleb
 in the plot) and Jolie

Despite the positive impact the script had among those who read it, and Ron Howard embracing it, his choice of some other projects made this one to end up in Clint's hands. He just loved the whole thing, given his affinity for the times of the Great Depression, in which he had grown, and for Straczynski's script, mostly focused on Collins (about whom Straczynski said she seemed to be the only person in the whole story with no hidden agenda) instead on some other characters or the atrocities which took place. Let's not say much else, because Straczynski admitted to having resorted to newspaper clippings from time to time, to avoid forgetting that everything that had happened was actually real, due to the bizarre nature of this horrific episode. The main goal was to honour Collins' persistence and everything she managed to achieve, and in order to do such thing it was not necessary to add much fiction, given everything I've mentioned. The intention was to present the film as a real story, instead of something based on a real story. It was all real, but at the same time so grotesque it seemed unreal, and according to the screenplayer, there were just a couple of moments in which the unusual lack of information led him to just envision what it was that had happened.

To be up to scratch, Eastwood tried his best to film everything the way it had been written on the first draft (two more had been written by Straczynski, following Howard's requirements, but Clint wanted the first one). Just like that. He also resorted to the memories he had from when he was young, although some changes concerning the locations needed to be made, because some areas of the LA fro  the twenties had ceased to exist, including Collins' neighbourhood. This is why some close by areas which had not changed much were chosen, with the proper modifications and refurbishing. This is also what pretty much happened with some other key scenery, wardrobe, vehicles, extras, a peculiar and careful lighting, and the usage of visual effects to create some add-ons, always based on actual facts, aerial pics from those days, people's behaviour, etc. 

I am surprised for the amount of work needed to reproduce all this, at least when compared to other Eastwood films, but I realize that, leaving his westerns aside, the vast majority of his work tells stories set in the moment the actual movie was filmed in, with the exception of a few like this, which tell about the first half of the last century. A good example could be Honky Tonk Man, also set in the Great Depression, but much more modest and less ambitious than this one, besides having been shot like tewnty five years earlier, with everything it entails. Hence, the big deployment of means to bring Changeling to a successful conclusion.

Eastwood makes Jolie laugh with some of his
best lines from Heartbreak Ridge

This flick was more successful abroad than in the States, and, even if it is considered a relative triumph in that regard, the roughly hundred and ten million dollars it made worldwide more than double the budget it was used to make it. This looks like a success to me, but if it was not considered as such, maybe there are some other considerations I am not familiar with.

The reviews were, overall, quite good (7,8 on IMDB, after close to three hundred thousand votes), but, as had happened with the money, the recognition was better abroad than in USA, After a successful premiere at Cannes there was talk about Changeling becoming a serious contender for the 2009 Academy Awards, but that initial enthusiasm was removed by the much more restrained reaction of the american critics. Ther are some exceptions, of course, but most of the best praising fell on Jolie (despite the weight of her status and everything that means) and a surprinsingly (according to the critics) good cast of supporting actors. As for Eastwood as a director, the critics remarked how good it was that Clint had overlooked the goriest and most sensationalist aspects of the story (they are pointed at, but subsequently left aside), although that same fact (together with the lack of nuances which other films of his have) meant some monotony to some others. As expected, the most technical details of the final product were also praised.

No matter how big that excitement concerning the Oscars could have been, because this film did not match the levels of success of some other Eastwood movies and tip toed its way through a ceremony from which it returned empty handed, but there were three nominations (best actress, cinematography and best production design). It was more of the same at the Golden Globes, where Clint, who had written the score, was nominated for best soundtrack. Changeling also had eight failed nominations at the BAFTA awards, which is very striking.

I saw this movie at the theatre, and my memories of it are very good. I remember seeing it and going through similar emotions as the ones I've read about, for the facts and the way Collins is patronized (Jeffrey Donovan's role is quite remarkable, because he gathered some of the worst things that Changeling tries to expose) make the spectator go from annoyance to anger, while empathizing with Collins' helplessness. I like Angelina Jolie as an actress, although I don't hold her in the highest of regards as such, but this is her movie, and she bears its weight on her shoulders during almost the whole plot.

Captain Jones, a real asshole portrayed by
a convincing Jeffrey Donovan

I thought this could be one of those minor movies made by Clint Eastwood that I've mentioned so many times before, and even a minor one among those he's made during this century, but I'm beginning to change my mind. Regardless of what I think about it, I can notice that the level of success and the effort put on Changeling, make this film something much bigger than I had given it credit for (what I wrote about Straczynski's struggle to give the script its necessary coherence speaks volumes of this) and I realize it is taking me longer to talk about it than the usual average time I use to talk about other films. It is being harder too. There are times when I list trivia and anecdotes from Clint's works, and the dimension of Changeling makes something like that also suitable this time, but there are also many other things which need discussing and do not fall into that category. I'll try to further elaborate all this, pointing out those things which might ruin the plot to those who haven't watched the movie.

- As expected, most of the characters within the plot, and their names, are real, although some are an amalgam of several people. For example, those of Michael Kelly (detective LESTER YBARRA) and Amy Ryan (CAROL DEXTER in the fiction), with the latter created to give the audience some notion of what an independent and boundaries-pushing woman of the time was like. A woman like that could very often be unfairly committed in a mental institution.

- When writing the script, Straczynski included quotes and testimonies said on trial into the dialogues, so they could have a bigger impact on the veracity of the story. He even added to the script some photocopies of press clippings, when trying to sell it, so the potential reader did not forget that what they were reading had actually happened. In order to corroborate everything, this script was

re-examined by the legal division of Universal studios.

- There was a mistake though, for the game that we all know as Scrabble was mentioned, in a time when there were still two years left before said game began to be sold. That was solved changing Scrabble for crossword.

- Spoiler alert. SARAH LOUISE, mother of the culprit, GORDON NORTHCOTT', who had also taken part in his atrocities, was omitted from the plot, and so were all the rapings perpetrated by Northcott.

- The original title, Changeling, refers to children being changed by others, and comes from the creature found in western Europe folklore that the fairies left instead of human children. This title was thought as a temporary one, so connections with the supernatural could be avoided, but that change did not happen, although I don't know why.

- Hillary Swank was considered for Collins' role. I've already talked about what Eastwood thought of Jolie's face, and which eventually became one of her assets, but she was in doubt, as a mum, due to the storie's nature. She convinced herself because she realized that Collins had been someone capable of recover herself from adversity.

- Spoiler alert. Donovan, when playing captain Jones, quoted things this person had actually said. Donovan admitted being fascinated by his character and the power he had during those days. Let's keep in mind that this guy committed Collins in a mental hospital with no warrant, because he considered her problematic (the infamous Code 12, which later on was forbidden within the policing forces), and after she won a legal case against the LA Police because of that, he was forced to leave his post and pay Collins a fine, but he eventually recovered his job and never paid the money.

- With John Malkovich there was one of those cases of casting against type (for instance, the usual good guy portraying a criminal, for a change), because he is mostly known for his twisted and machiavellian roles and here he plays an accomplice of the main character.

- Spoiler alert. Actor JASON BUTLER HARNER, seen, for example on the famed TV show OZARK, played Northcott. Eastwood was shocked by the resemblance between the actor (after all the make up process) and his character, and by his ability to portray what Harner called a horrible wonderful guy with some traces of madness, but without reminding of madmen such as CHARLES MANSON.

You're not my son

- Eastwood, known for his speedy and austere filmings, turned up another notch on this, at least judging by what his actors said. He wants them to arrive at the shooting ready for what they have to do, and to do it, with no hollow flattery or stupid insecurities, and that's why guidelines are minimal (he doesn't even say action! or cut!), rehearsals and takes scarce, and the calm plentiful. Everything for the sake of performance's authenticity. Tom Hanks (an actor about whom I'll have to talk soon) funnily joked about this on the british GRAHAM NORTON's show, saying that Eastwood, after a whole life spent in some kinds of shootings, treated his actors as if they were horses, thus avoiding unnecessary screaming or some expressions by just saying to them All right, go ahead.

TOM HANKS ON CLINT EASTWOOD AND HOW HE TREATS HIS ACTORS

In this sense, Donovan said he had not received any instructions from the director, or even some feedback regarding his decision to play Jones with an irish accent (?), while Jolie admitted that Eastwood used demand from her that she performed her scenes calmly, as if they were just for him, while commanding the crew to start filming too soon, before she could even notice, in order to achieve that authenticity.

- The original editing was around three hours long, and was eventually edited to fit two hours and twenty minutes.

- Spoiler alert. As he had done in the past, Clint allowed ambiguity to play its part concerning the movie's ending, so it could be an open and thought provoking one for the audience. A very important role regarding this falls on the final scene and the uncertainty it brings. This scene was added after the film's premiere at Cannes (they had run out of time and, instead of that scene, the ending just faded to black) and is also a good example of everything I've said about the visual effects used in the movie. It means that the spectator feels the need to not remove themselves from the movie immediately, in an abrupt fashion, so they can think about what they've just witnessed and what the outcome could be. It also includes, I think, a key text before the credits. I do not remember anything about this. Maybe I was stupid enough to leave the theatre before it was shown.

- Spoiler alert. Some of the film's main themes are female vulnerability back in those days, prejudices against women, and the relationship between all this and psychiatry. That's why Collins, a wounded woman in search of justice and freedom, is perceived as a problem for men, and if  necessary, her mental bearings will be manipulated to crush her will. And this would be done with police cooperation, when needed. Watch out, for Clint Eastwood is back to his feminist leanings! But more than a pamphlet on feminism, the critic saw this (as it did with Million Dollar Baby) as the respect strong women are deserving of. This story is set soon after women started to being able to vote and become more independent, and the male powers-that-be, or patriarchy, as it is usually called, began using psychiatry as a mean to take power away from them. But anyway, the electroconvulsive therapy seen in the movie was not used in those days.

- Spoiler alert. The Great Depression is the name given to those years right after the financial collapse that occured in 1929, and that's why the expression The Roaring Twenties was often used to allude to that previous decade, but this flick forgets about any remains of romanticism and glamour of any kind, to focus on the despotism, the corruption and even the sadism and complete absence of mercy of some authorities. Eastwood compared that to current times and admits not having ever acknowleged any golden time in the LA area.

- Spoiler alert. Violence against children, considered by Eastwood as the ultimate manifestation of such, is the film' main theme though, which links it to Mystic River. Clint goes as far as to say that human cruelty never ceases to amaze him, and that a crime like this one is, in his opinion, on top of all the reasons the capital punishment could be justified why. Northcott was hanged in 1930, and according to Eastwood, a person who champions for said punishment, might think that in a perfect world, someone like Northcott is the perfect fit to receive it, after such a crime. Regardless of the opinions on this, the cruelty that a penalty like that means, is exposed thanks to a hanging scene craftily made on purpose so the audience can be repulsed by it (it needs to be seen to realize this), and Clint said that, no matter how much justice could be done when presenting the relatives of the victim with the accused (the time's customary process) in a moment like that, he doubted that the family could find any peace after witnessing something like that.

- After Mystic River's participation at Cannes, a few years earlier, and its subsequent success, Eastwood tried his best for Changeling (whose participation was not scheduled) took part as well, expecting the same kind of positive feedback.

- Given Angelina Jolie's profile as a star during that decade (she still is, but does not look as active as of late), and to cash in on it, a big premiere in every major city across the country was first considered, opting later for the usual strategy of some other Eastwood movies, which is a more modest premiere before the big one, hoping that more seasoned and loyal movies fans could make a good publicity via the usual word of mouth.

- This film marked the first time since Absolute Power (1997) in which Clint did work with a studio (Universal) which was not Warner.

- Changeling was, out of all the films that Eastwood had directed so far, the one with the most successful opening in Spain, even ranked number one during its first week (end of December, 2008) and making two million dollars, which amounted to eleven after five more.

Movie poster

Clint still had a lot to say and a handful of films left ahead of him (some of them quite good), but in 2008 he directed and came back to acting in what is likely to be his last great classic, the awesome GRAN TORINO. Considering its fabulous 8,1 on IMDB (eight hundred and thirteen thousand votes, no less), this film not only is one of his last great achievements, but also one of his best movies ever, for that score (matched by Million Dollar Baby) has only been surpassed by Unforgiven's 8,2 (as a director), as well as by For A Few Dollars More (8,2) and The Good, The Bad And The Ugly (8,8). Just in case that score was not enough, it has to be said that this movie meant the best opening weekend of his entire career, money-wise, and the overall numbers reveal that it is one of the two most successful movies of his career in that regard. And all this, with the disadvantage of having been premiered a meagre two monts after Changeling. There's some adjustment to be done, inflation-wise, but Gran Torino has to be in an hypothetical top ten of his most successful movies and also his most praised ones. And is Clint Eastwood who we are talking about, which is saying a lot.

Named after the Ford Torino so much cherised and tresaured by the main character, this movie tells about said character, WALT KOWALSKI, a widower and ex Korea combatant, full of prejudices and angry at a society he no longer recognizes, who ends up becoming friends with a young Hmong neighbour (an asian ethnic group which, in USA's case, inmigrated mainly from Laos) called Thao (played by BEE VANG), after he catched him trying to steal his car. Most of the cast (and the crew as well) is comprised of members of said ethnic group (mostly inexperienced and some of them without being fluent in english), because the plot focuses on Kowalski and them, although Scott, Eastwood's son, makes another minimal and quite unfortunate appearance, for his dad makes him look like a piece of shit in the fiction. In fact, it is his father who embarrasses him thoroughly.

Walt Kowalsky, the neighbour of your dreams

NICK SCHENK (who would work with Clint again) was in charge of the script, familiar as he was with the Hmong people since long ago, due to his own circumstances. He wanted to write a story about the cultural clash between a Hmong family and someone like Kowalski in an american neighbourhood. He was adviced against it, for he would not be able to sell a script starred by and old man with racist leanings, but it was Eastwood himself who saw the positives, saying that it was never too late to learn. He decamped the whole thing from Minneapolis to Detroit (Michigan had begun encouraging the film industry with some tax benefits, something which made everything smoother as far as the relationship with Warner was concerned), but apart from that he did not change the original script at all, something unusual, but which began to be customary for Eastwood when he filmed Unforgiven. He thinks too many changes castrate the product. Warner eventually secured the script and Clint took advantage of the delay in the shooting of what would become his next film to concentrate on this one.

As it has been said before, despite the lack of acting background of most of the cast and their poor skills with the english language, the guidelines were few (Eastwood won't even say nothing at all if he likes one take), and Clint choosed to be patient with his actors, to tell them to improvise a little (the script was in english, to begin with, so they had to improvise what was spoken in their own language, something which resulted in a difficult translation, subtitles-wise) and for a pace which did not allow them to think too much, just for the sake of spontaneity.

Kowalski with Thao, kis new and unlikely friend

I already mentioned the film's impact on the box office, making almost thirty million dollars in its opening american weekend, and a total of two hundred and seventy millions worldwide, as estimated in 2021. I think it was paramount for that success the fact that a great deal of young kids who first knew who Eastwood was thanks to this flick, provided it with enormous popularity. The critic was very good too, as the scores on the main webs show, although I'm shocked that a website as famous as ROTTEN TOMATOES is, labels this film as a minor entry in Eastwood's filmography.

The critics talked about Kowalski being some kind of blend of Eastwood's most famous characters, meaning William Munny, The Man With No Name and above them all, Harry Callahan, whom was said to be hovering over the entire film, as some kind of ghost, being Clint's rocky face the most obvious signal of this. It was also said, as many times before, that it was impossible to envision this movie with another actor, and the fact that Eastwood could sound and look menacing at almost eighty years old back then was worthy of praise as well. In this sense, this film has a few lines worthy of joining the already bulky list of Eastwood's great movie lines, propelled by the masterful spanish dubbing of the almost ubiquitous Constantino Romero. The go-to Eastwood critic, Roger Ebert, summed up quite properly the spirit of the movie and a great share of the positive reviews it got, saying that this was about the late blossoming of one man's best nature in the XXI America, where several different races cohabite and get closer and closer among them.

In spite of all this, the Academy forgot about Gran Torino and it only got one minor nomination, which stirred some controversy. But there were awards and accolades, of course, such as the best foreign movie at the César Awards, in France, or a nomination for the best original song at the Golden Globes. That song, called the same was as the film, was composed by Eastwood, his son Kyle, a certain MICHAEL STEVENS (Kyle's usual co-worker, with whom he had alreasy worked in Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby and Letters From Iwo Jima) and english singer JAMIE CULLUM, who performed it, although there is a longer version in which Eastwood sings (or, let's say, recites) the first part. This tune is a sad piano song which, in my opinion, feels like a farewell, pretty much as does each one of the increasingly rare showings of Clint Eastwood in front of the camera-

GRAN TORINO / FILM VERSION

GRAN TORINO - JAMIE CULLUM

Eastwood with Ahney Her, who portrays
Sue Lor, Thao's older sister. What the hell
do these people eat?

As happened with many of the latest Eastwood movies, I went to the theatre to see this one as soon as it was premiered, and I immediately thought it was on par with all the good things that soon would be said about it soon. I found it sad as well, like that previous song. And, as much as some things about the movie related with multiculturalism are praised, I think Gran Torino itself is an eye opener concerning some cons of said multiculturalism which have a difficult solution nowadays.

But is impossible to overlook that glorious moment in which SUE, Thao's sister, is cornered by some black thugs and Kowalski comes along to save the day. Yes, that one in which Eastwood, after getting off his car says his legendary line Qué tramáis, morenos? At the risk of becoming annoying I have to once again mention Constantino Romero and his spanish dubbing, for this scene would not have the same impacy without him. As it's been mentioned, Eastwood's voice is a whisper when compared to Romero's and also, the spanish expression adds that racial, and most likely racist, ending, in compliance with Kowalski's nature, because the original sentence is What the hell are you spooks up to?, which, long story short, would be english for Qué tramáis, fantasmas? The intention is also offensive, or at least irritating, in spite of those thugs being who drew first blood mocking someone much older than them. But the morenos (blackies) thing brings a patronizing subtlety which something like negratas (niggers) or putos negros (fucking blacks) would have not had, which turns the sentence into something even more annoying and funny to be witnessed. Those thugs will soon realize Kowalsky is not the right person to mess with. At the same time, this is also the moment when Scott Eastwood makes himself look like a fool in the fiction, and a valid point when talking about all the cons I mention in the previous paragraph.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SPOOKS UP TO?

QUÉ TRAMÁIS, MORENOS?

*Needless to say, all the things in the preceding paragraph only make sense in an spanish context.

That previous line is joined by some others, such as I blow a hole in your face and sleep like a baby. Classic Clint Eastwood.

What the hell are you spooks up to?

It needs to be mentioned that the aforementioned decamping of the location of the plot, from Minnesota (where the Hmong folk are more present withinh the States) to Michigan, was due not only to the taxing benefits, but also because Kowalski is a former employee in a car factory and Detroit is where Ford was created. This change meant, according to the screenwriter, that some of the initial lines sounded out of place when said within the Detroit environment instead of the Minneapolis one, something which bothered him. For instance, some things said about baseball games which focused in principle on a Minneapolis team, lost their meaning when referred to a Detroit one, because in Detroit the fanbase was not the same or as devoted, and so on. I think this has an easy solution, but in either case, I don't consider it something as important as to make people change their overall opinions about the flick, and of course, that is something which can only be noticed by those familiar with the area and certain habits.

But the overall positive critical consensus could not be complete, of course, and much more important than the previous inaccuracy is the negative feedback because of the film showing some cultural ones concerning the Hmong people (who, on the other hand, mostly liked and praised Gran Torino for, not in vain, becoming Hollywood's first and most important depiction of the families of this culture), something that specifically bothered Bee Vang, to whom I'll come back soon. Those inaccuracies, and the relative unease that the Hmong could feel about them, focused on exaggerations and distortions of some attitudes with a dramatic or exotic aim, and on some members of the crew feeling uncomfortable because they felt their culture was being turned into a show.

I can understand some kind of discomfort by these people, and the fact that, despite getting paid for their work (obviously) and not having a say in the decisions taken (that was not their job, but one of the critiques was that it was all about their culture, but keeping the treatment given to it in mind, it could have been any other), they might want to refute some of the things which were being done and maybe wanted to express their opinions, for the sake of a product more accurate and fairier to their culture (for example, there were chinese names on the first draft, and they were corrected). But there are different kinds of inaccuracies. In this sense, I think it is important and worthy of correction, for instance, the fact that the Hmong showed hostility to related clans or commited certain atrocities within their own, which is something that could be seen in the film and was not accurate. But at the same time, I think that certain mistakes pertaining some basic habits which are completely unimportant, as far as the plot is concerned (clothes, etc), do not justify the criticism. Things such as the latter have happened many times before and will happen again, because, after all, movies do not usually try to be an exact science or a perfect depiction of what is about to be told by them, and those inaccuracies, unintended or not, are the order of the day, many times with the intention of achieving a more dramatic impact.

And, as expected, the white saviour trope that, according to some crics, hovered over the whole flick, was judged as something bad and criticized. Ok, whatever. Boring. This film put the Hmong culture on the map on a broad scale (not to mention the very welcome decision of hiring cast and crew members among these people, instead of some other asians who, somehow, could do an impression of the Hmong), dealt with overcoming prejudices, and carried an obvious message of inclusion and multiculturalism, and still there were people who thought that the only meaningful things in Gran Torino were the previous foolishness and the fact that the film could be offensive. All this without taking into account that, despite being Eastwood's movie with him as the main star, and one in which he is going to tell about whatever he pleases, because he is putting his money on the line here, Nick Schenk's script tried its best to depict the Hmong with as much sensitivity as possible.

There was even someone who created a blog to write in detail about all the inaccuracies that the film committed concerning the Hmong culture. I've tried to visit it, but it's gone.

Luckily enough, most people did not jump onto the goodism wagon, and there were people who thought that Clint had created something which was not the story of a white male saving the minority, but just a twist to the image of the white tough guy which Eastwood himself had helped create.

Culture clash beyond the screen. A good
amount of empty beer cans, by the way

What I find more surprising and sad is the extent Bee Vang voiced his criticism to, becoming the person who channelled most of the critics related to what it's been mentioned. This person, nowadays turned into a very occasional actor and social justice warrior (surprise), owns what little or big fame he may enjoy today, to his involvement in Gran Torino, and yet, besides contradicting himself concerning his feelings about the film back then, and what he's said about it afterwards, devotes his current everyday life to badmouth the movie and everything that links it to the Hmong culture. He admits that he has no regrets of having taken part in it, though. And for a reason: he repudiates it, but he still makes a living out of it fifteen years after.

AHNEY HER (his older sister in the fiction) and him, were questioned about if they had been offended by all the racial comments said in the plot (IN THE PLOT), and she answered that not at all, while he said he had been called many vulgar names, something which was not fine, but it was just a script. He'd soon change his opinion.

Soon after he was interviewed and said that Eastwood had not allowed the actors to change their lines, when he had stated himself before that the director had encouraged them to improvise. He said they had been treated unfairly (?) and Clint had not given them any indications to build their own characters. It's been already said that Eastwood wanted to get all the spontaneity he could from actors who mostly had no experience, and as for the alleged unfair treatment, maybe it was all about what he said of some other members within the crew, who somehow had not been very friendly to the Hmong, assuming that the latter did not speak english. If this is true, I'm buying it.

He also complained because, while the Hmong culture was supposed to be the one the plot focused on, that fact hadbecome irrelevant. And about this film being a white production, which meant the Hmong had no control over certain stuff. There were some Hmong consultants to ask advice from and who gave guidance and support, but the producers had only chosen the points of view given by them which were more suitable to expose all the stereotypes the film wanted to depict, despite the objections lodged by some Hmong who had taken part in the filming. As an example, Kowalski himself, who was said to having fought in Korea, and yet was incapable of telling the korean Hmong from other asian cultures.

You did not look that unhappy when you
were given the paycheck, boy

Another one of his complaints was that there were lines spoken by the Hmong in their own language which were not subtitled and that could be, according to him, misleading to the audience regarding its perception of the Hmong. Somebody should have told this guy that this was a movie, with an specific story to tell, and not a detailed study on his culture, something which seemed to be the only thing he got in mind. And also, if those lines were not subtiled. why people should think something wrong about his people and their culture, and not the other way around, given that what was being said could not be understood? You are not the belly buttom of the world.

And all this after having said, back in 2009, that the overall depiction that Gran Torino did of the Hmong culture was accurate, and that, given that was not a documentary on their culture, a complete correction is not to be expected. He also admitted being satisfied with the final product, only to take back those words years after, when he said that many Hmong were disillusioned due to some racist traits, and that is what they were letting him know at his conferences. He said he had had a duty as an actor which he had to be committed to, but as a member of this culture he did not feel as if he was the owner of his own words in the movie, besides feeling uncomfortable when facing the amused reaction of the audiences in the face of some lines and comments, something which made him ignore the white supremacy and the racism even stronger. I can understand the discomfort and I have to agree with him on that, despite being this only a movie. And precisely because of it, the second part is a certified nonsense. Another one. Laughing at a racist comment said in the fiction (perhaps even more for being rude than racist) when watching a film does not make anybody a racist, let alone a supremacist. I can refer to the aforementioned scene with the black thugs, just as an example.

But there's more. He starred himself in a YouTube parody of the film, by way of a deleted scene from Gran Torino, in which a different take on masculinity than the one in the actual scene from the film was given. It is called THAO DOES WALT: LOST SCENES FROM GRAN TORINO. I've tried to watch it, but it is just predictable bullshit, as expected.

Spoiler Alert

Another thing (which I'm pretty sure that the undeserving Vang conveniently overlooks during his meetingsque) is the fact that, at the very end, Walt inherits, as part of Walt's will, the car the movie is named after, During the plot, a very posh, selfish and despicable niece (if I'm not mistaken) of Walt, is seen showing her interest in the Gran Torino, something which Kowalski ignores, in favour of Thao, who is seen at the wheel during the ending credits. Thao's race is different than Kowlaski's, and yet he was chosen even before than Walt's own family, something which shows that Walt, not only had learnt from their neighbours, but also that he valued his friendship with Thao and his family, to the point of making the sacrifice he made and taken them in account as far as his own will was concerned. This, as I see it, knocks down every alleged racial prejudice Gran Torino could be accused of.

As I've said, a series of contradictions and comments which only goes to show the little or non existent gratitude this person has towards a movie which, basically, has made him all that he is. I do not know whether Eastwood, as he did with Spike Lee, said something about it or not, but the comments written by people on that YouTube video, besides questioning Vang's acting skills, show one that I like very much, and which says that Vang's next video might be about his own ineptitude to find a job (he has hardly worked as an actor after Gran Torino) and about the Hmong proverb which says that you won't bite the hand that feeds you. Brilliant. Maybe it can be applied to Vang what another Hmong (who opted for a role in the film and showed respect for the fact that many Hmong people had been employed by the production) said about the outcome: first things first: get your feet in the door and complain later. Quite graphic, to be honest, because Vang did his part, got paid for it, and got famous thanks to Gran Torino, but he went on to make a living for himself out of complaining about everything related to a film which changed his life for the better, and when he was little older than a kid.

A film for the ages, whichever way you look at it

The omnipresent Morgan Freeman came back to the fold to shoot INVICTUS, one of the biopics which have become customary in the final strecht of Eastwood's career, although, if I'm not mistaken, this was only the second one of his films within that category, after Bird. This time, the plot revolves around NELSON MANDELA (played by Freeman), but there is a sport nuance as well, because the film is about what happened in 1995 regarding that year's Rugby World Cup (the third one, and the first in which every game was played in the same country), hosted by South Africa and surprisingly won by the SPRINGBOKS, the host squad, which had just come back to the elite and got a spot only for being the event hosted by South Africa. In order to contextualize the whole thing, it needs to be said that Mandela had been fred in 1990 from a captivity which had lasted twenty seven years, and had been elected the country's president in 1994, becoming the first black president in South Africa's history. He just had a lot of work ahead of him, back in those days, mostly as far as racial division was concerned, and took advantage of the rugby event to reconcile the nation with itself.

The film was based on a book by JOHN CARLIN, from 2008, titled PLAYING THE ENEMY: NELSON MANDELA AND THE GAME THAT MADE A NATION, was premiered at the end of 2009, and the cast was completed with another big name, the one and only MATT DAMON, who portrayed FRANCOIS PIENAAR, the Springboks captain. Scott Eastwood also had a role, as JOEL STRANSKY, another member of the south african squad, and it seems like his dad showed some respect for him this time around, because I do not remember him being embarrassed as in Gran Torino. Quite the contrary, for Stransky scored all his team's points (including the all important drop goal) in Johannesburg's final against New Zealand, the Springboks greatest rival. I guess his dad had had enough of his pranks.

You again, man? I don't even need
to tell you what you have to do

Given the relevance of the people involved in this production, its subject, and the fact that it was mostly filmed in South Africa, Invictus became one of the most important movies ever made in that country. Even CHESTER WILLIAMS, one of the guys who became world champions in 1995 was in charge of lecturing the members of the crew who had not ever plyed it this sport about rugby, and he also trained Damon.

This film did quite well at the box office, doubling its own budget by little margin, and to no one's surprise, it was (is) the rugby related movie with the best opening weekend ever, money-wise. Its 7,3 on IMDB and what the scholars said about it suggest that Invictus was also a creative success, and yet I do not remember it as being that good. I went to the theatre with my pal RAMÓN, another movies scholar himself, and we both agreed, if memory serves, on the lack of that extra something which makes the audience tick (the last you would expect of an Eastwood film), taking all the film's assets into account. A good film, well done and well acted, but lacking of some kind of passion which took it to another level. The critics disagreed with us, remarking not only the main performances, but also scenes which were really touching (Pienaar's reaction when visiting Mandela's cell is a good example of that), the flick's historical accuracy and the message it conveys. I must have missed something out, so I'll have to see it again.

Nelson Mandela and Francois Pienaar

Kyle Eastwood and Michael Stevens handled the bulk of the score, and I think it was Clint Eastwood who wrote the song 9000 DAYS.

As for the awards, there were many more nominations than actual prizes, and the film went back home empty-handed from the main ceremonies. Freeman and Damon (as supporting role) were nominated at the Academy Awards, and more of the same happened at the Golden Globes, where their lack of success was joined by Eastwood's failed nomination as best director.

But there are some trivia facts worthy of mention:

- The scenes from the final World Cup game were filmed at Ellis Park Stadium itself, in Johannesburgo, which was the place where the actual final was contested in 1995.

- The word which gives the film its name is also the title of a poem, from 1875, by english writer WILLIAM ERNEST HENLEY, to whom the movie refers as well.

- I do not know to which extent had Eastwood been interested in hiring Damon to play Pienaar, or which ones the other casting possibilities were, because, as much as Damon is widely considered a more than capable and very seasoned performer (I did not like him at the beginning of his career, or was indifferent towards him, but he won me with time, thanks to a string of acting achievements and a bunch of very good movies to his name, so my opinion about him has long changed, and for the better), there are things which are beyond his reach. Because he is much shorter in real life than the person he portrayed in the fiction (1'78 and 1'91, respectively), and even more so when compared to some other members of the Springboks, something that I guess applies to the rest of the cast, beginning with Eastwood's son (1,8). That's why Williams' training tried hard to mitigate this fact, with a physical fitness worthy of a sport such as rugby.

A completely fit Matt Damon

- JONAH LOMU, the deceased new zealander played, who is considered as one of the best rugby players ever, and the first global star of this sport, is also portrayed in the movie, by another rugby player, ISAAC FE'AUNATI, from New Zealand as well. As I've already said, that 1995 final was played against a New Zealand squad in which Lomu (born in 1975) already was, despite having amassed only two international caps before that World Cup.

- John Carlin, the journalist and writer who wrote the book the script of the movie was based on, was born to a spanish woman and is fairly famous in Spain. He lives in Barcelona, in fact, where he met the people in charge of this production to discuss how his book could be adapted to the big screen. Most of his work, very often related to sport and politics, has focused on South Africa, having even received accolades from Mandela himself, who also wrote the prologue to a book in spanish language about Africa (HERÓICA TIERRA CRUEL), previous to the one the film is about. It was also very popular his collaboration with tennis star RAFAEL NADAL, the best spanish sportsman ever and one of the most accomplished ones in all history, to write Rafa's autobiography, titled RAFA (2011). Carlin went on to work on the spanish newspaper LA VANGUARDIA, after getting sacked from EL PAÍS (on which he had worked for almost twenty years) due to the controversy generated by a piece of his which was critical of the spanish government and the King of Spain in relation to the catalonian referendum for independence. Apparently, his relationship with the above mentioned tennis player has also gone sour in recent times.

Invictus poster. Taking a close look at
 Freeman is difficult to envision
 someone else portraying Mandela

End of the fifth chapter