CLINT EASTWOOD / THE WHOLE STORY
*This entry gathers all previous seven and in order, just in case someone wants to read them all together.
On the 31st of May (2024), CLINT EASTWOOD turned ninety-four years old. No less. It is common sense to think that, despite his legendary good health, is a very advanced age we're talking about and the inevitable could happen any given day and no one would be surprised about it.
But while Clint remains devoted to his craft (he's currently shooting his fortieth movie as a director, called JUROR Nº2) with an iron will (and I wish him at least ninety-three more years of work), I'm going to write about him and his monumental career.
As a fun fact, and simply for the sake of putting his age and his titanic dedication to work in context, when compared to some of his peers, I have to say that, while writing about Eastwood, I learn that PETER WEIR, the great australian filmmaker, responsible for flicks like MASTER & COMMANDER (2003) and owner of a pretty amazing career, has decided to retire from directing, because, in his own words, has run out of stamina. Nothing out of the ordinary or remotely blameable, given he's about to turn eighty this year. Right, but knowing quite well that everyone has their own ethic of work and is unique when it comes to their nature, is only right to say that good old Weir not only premiered his last film (the very good THE WAY BACK) in 2010, fourteen years ago, but also his filmography as a director does not even reach fifteen titles (leaving shorts, etc, aside) and he is fourteen years younger than Eastwood himself, besides not having ever worked as an actor. Food for thought.
This is about paying tribute to whom I think might be cinema's most iconic individual, going over his life (briefly), his career and all the movies he's been involved in.
This started, unintentionally, a few years ago, when I made up my mind about watching all the movies of his that I had not watched yet (as a director, actor or both) before he died. Said and done. As decently as I could, for there are still some very old flicks in which he was part of, very modestly and most of the times without been credited for it, that I could not find, besides some TV stuff. If I haven't watched all those ones yet is because they are very difficult to find.
What I've just said places me in a suitable position to talk about his work, having seen almost all his movies (there is no movie of his that I have not seen after 1960), which comprises his most relevant work as an actor and, of course, his entire career as a director (barring a little TV foray).
*It needs to be highlighted that when I talk about his filmography I do it taking the famed reference web INTERNET MOVIE DATABASE (IMDB) into account. I guess that, in principle, there is nothing more reliable than that.
But before that, there are a couple of things that need to be addressed. The first one is that I don't know about filmmaking. I love cinema and I resort to it quite often, and I've seen lots of flicks. That is true. But I know nothing about the technical side of it and I could not talk about cinema in those terms. I'm a fan and that's all, and I talk about this subject as such, always based on what I like and what I don't. I can value some virtues in a movie (or that's what I think), but if said movie brims with technical virtuosity to end up being boring, that virtuosity is going to amount to nothing to me. A piece of work (be it a book, a movie or whatever) can go far beyond simple entertainment, by virtue of being thought provoking, conveying a message or stirring the audience's awareness one way or another. And in the proccess, it can be amazing when it comes about those technical mannerisms. But if said work does not do anything to entertain me, this is what is going to count for me, and not the previous stuff. That's why my opinions, as I've already said, are based on the fun I get from watching a movie (in this case), and from that on, I'll value the other stuff, if I can. But I won't say a film is good only because of its photography (if I can observe that).
And the second is that, regardless of how much I admire Eastwood, it needs to be made clear that his filmography is not perfect. Not even close. It's quite long, to begin with, what makes more difficult to keep a very high level. He's not the usual filmmaker keen on perfectionism, who shoots a movie every ten years (quite the contrary) and has a short and well respected filmography, like STANLEY KUBRICK, just to name one, and I'm not implying there are no better directors than him out there. Or actors for that matter. This is all about personal tastes. My point is that Eastwood's dimension goes beyond his work as a director or as an actor (great in both cases), spanning his influence, his charisma, his place in popular culture and, it goes without saying, the usual nostalgia factor. All those things which go hand in hand with the term icon.
His work has some minor entries (both in front of or behind the camera), and that does not mean they are not good (many of them are, and then some), but only they haven't achieved the status others have. Some of his movies are decent, at least when it comes to talk of good fun (only watching him on screen is already an asset, but somehow they end abruptly and not as coherently as expected. And is only fair to say there are some forgettable movies as well.
My intention is to go over all of them, chronologically, and to say something about them, besides giving my own opinion and telling my own stories about them. And in an unbiased way, if possible. I'll have to go back in time in many cases, and also provide me with some info (this is also about giving important info and there is much that I don't know), because there are many movies and some of them were seen a long time ago.
 |
| Like a kid with a new toy during the shooting of his latest film, Juror Nº2 |
Clint Eastwood was born on the 31st of May, 1930, in San Francisco, California. He never enjoyed studying and, despite being aware of his physical condition (mostly displayed at swimming) and his musical talents, he was interested neither in team sports, nor in music bands. He wasn't even attracted by acting at school's plays, individualistic as he was and mostly enthusiastic about (in his own words) fast cars and easy women. But he ended up learning about aviation mechanics and to play the piano. As for this last bit, he even has his own discography and has composed the score of some of his movies.
It is unlikely that he finished high school and he was drafted at the beginning of the fifties. During those days he visited the californian town Carmel By The Sea for the first time, and he said he wanted to live over there one day. He did much more than that, for in 1986 he became the town's 30th mayor, keeping the job during two years.
 |
| A very young Clint |
During the first half of the fifties he combined some jobs and studies with his relentless and quite famous passion for chasing skirts. He married for the first time in 1953, while being involved with other women and being one of them pregnant, something he supposedly did not know at the time and which meant that the baby was given in adoption. That baby girl, first of Clint's enormous offspring (that we know of), was called LAURIE and she eventually met her dad like six years ago, starring in a story worthy of a movie.
Concerning his acting career, the most remarkable thing is that, also during this time, he met director ARTHUR LUBIN, who soon after would give him some of his first roles. Lubin admitted being impressed by Eastwood's appearance, but his demeanor in front of the camera (unlike what he usually showed when with women or in some physical brawls) was poor, not very much inspired and laconic. Quite amateurish. That led Clint to take some acting lessons. He tiptoed unsuccessfully over some auditions (including one for BILLY WILDER's very famous hit, THE SEVEN YEAR ITCH, 1955), until director JACK ARNOLD gave him his first chance in REVENGE OF THE CREATURE (1955). Later I will list all the movies he took part in during the fifties that I haven't been able to watch, just for information sake. But I have to say I could watch one of them, called TARANTULA (1955), also directed by Arnold, in which Eastwood plays an uncredited pilot. That one is an horror flick which may even look childish for today's standards, given the means of those times, and which I saw only out of curiosity for Clint's role, although you would not even notice him if you did not know it was him the one on the screen. Probably, the best thing he took away with him from this decade was an ongoing learning, also behind the camera. Eastwood himself deemed the end of this decade the worst moment of his career and a very gloomy time, having even considered to call acting quits.
His luck was finally about to change, thanks, once again, to his looks, because his height was noteworthy to some executive, who got Eastwood a screen test which landed him his role as ROWDY YATES in the TV show RAWHIDE, which started shooting in 1958 and ran from 1959 to 1965, give or take. Clint was not as happy with his role, or at least with its features as expected, because Rowdy was a young, clumsy and foolish kid (although he got tougher) whom the actor embodied already in his thirties. And also, his tenure in this show did not mean an improvement in his acting, according to critics and fellow actors, who remarked his lazyness, his lack of enthusiasm and depending too much on his appearance. Be that as it may, the show was a hit (although very demanding phisically) and also allowed him to direct some of its trailers (he could not convince the producers to allow him to direct an entire episode). Although it has nothing to do with his developing as an actor, it was during this time when his passion for music (mostly jazz, but blues and country as well) was born, and led him to starta a musical career which does not need to be told in detail. But those who struggle picturing Eastwood as a musician, let alone a singer, have to know that he is, and profesionally since the end of the fifties.
 |
| The bumbling Rowdy Yates in Rawhide |
But Eastwood's career really starts (so to speak) thanks to the trilogy which was never meant to be one, comprising the three movies that italian filmmaker SERGIO LEONE directed between 1964 and 1966. Those movies established spaghetti western (subgenre found in Europe which goes against the current of the traditional american western, and which is moslty developed by italian people) as a subgenre of the tried and true traditional western and made the both of them reach stardom (although Eastwood was far from being the first choice for his role in the first movie). That trilogy would end up being known as THE DOLLARS TRILOGY or THE MAN WITH NO NAME TRILOGY and was composed of PER UN PUGNO DI DOLARI (A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS), PER QUALCHE DOLLARO IN PIÙ (FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE) and IL BUONO, IL BRUTTO, IL CATTIVO (THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY).
Clint was eager for a change, fed up as he was of playing a kind hero in Rawhide, and he embraced the chance as soon as he saw it, contributing to the global success of those films not only with his acting, but also being paramount when it came to create the features of said man with no name (Eastwood thought that, the less he talked and the more the character would be defined by sheer attitude instead of words, the bigger the attraction of the audience for him would be), a morally ambiguous antihero of the highest order, something more usual in this subgenre than in its older brother across the pond.
 |
| Sergio Leone with Eastwood on the film set of The Good, The Bad And The Ugly |
Regarding the lack of intention of these films to become a trilogy, Leone had not envisioned anything like that, but the success of all three and the shenanigans of the man with no name, who had the same looks and behaviour in the three movies, made american distributor UNITED ARTISTS invent those names in hindsight, so it could sell the three flicks as a trilogy. In fact, Eastwood's role has a name in all three, or a nickname at least, and is different in each movie, and there are alsoother actors who perform in more than one of these movies (some of them even in three), and they play different characters. This saga (I don't know whether this word is suitable in this context or not) does not even follow a chronological approach, although this is quite difficult to notice at first sight. Apparently, the european success of these films, and also the distributors fear of being sued by a certain japanese director concerning the first one (more on this in no time), led to a very late premiere of all of them in the States, already in 1967, with an enormous market success, mostly by the third one.
Legendary italian composer ENNIO MORRICONE scored all three films (the main theme of the third movie probably lives rent free in the head of every living human of a certain age), peaking with the marvelous piece L'ESTASI DELL'ORO (THE ECSTASY OF GOLD), which can be listened to in one of the most pivotal moments of the third film and which is one of cinema's best known pieces. Morricone's contribution to the legendary status of this saga is unquestionable and, as one of the many comments that can be read on YouTube about the previous piece says, said song is not only epic. It was made for epicness itself. It's almost impossible to not feel moved when listening to this, and the moment italian singer EDDA DELL' ORSO's vocals come up is gold.
Few things can be said about this involuntary trilogy that haven't been already said, for all three movies are cornerstones of the genre and cinema's history at large, capping the whole thing with the masterpiece that The Good, The Bad And The Ugly is. In the first one, the man with no name (known as JOE and Eastwood's first main role) gets involved in a violent fight between two smuggling families in a border town between Mexico and the States, and is an unofficial remake of AKIRA KUROSAWA's YOJIMBO, premiered in 1961. I don't know about Leone's motivations back in the day, but is very likely he was said about being a very good idea adapting that film to a western environment, and he followed suit. Even Eastwood himself admitted having identifies that movie when he started reading the script, besides having thought about the possibility of turning that film into a western when he saw it for the first time. This meant a successful lawsuit at the hands of Yojimbo's production company and money had to be paid (it is said that Kurosawa made more money with the lawsuit than with his movie).
As I said before, a few actors aimed unsuccessfully, one way or another, for the main role before Clint did (even HENRY FONDA himself as the first choice), until (after Clint's partner in Rawhide, ERIC FLEMING, rejected an offer as well) Leone set eyes on actor RICHARD HARRISON, who suggested Eastwood instead, and the rest is history. Later on, Harrison would joke about this, saying that said advice had been his biggest contribution to cinema's history.
 |
| Iconic pic, poncho included, of the actor in the legendary trilogy |
One of the biggest charms of those flicks, which also made them more appealing to the spanish audience, is the fact that they were shot in Spain (leaving interiors aside), and the first one, specifically, between Madrid and Almería. Concerning Eastwood skills as an actor, despite his contributions to the character, were not deemed as very remarkable. Leone himself, in the vein of what has already been said about those skills, said that more than an actor, he needed a mask, and the actor, according to him, only had two registers back in the day, with or without hat. Not too kind the italian director, but spot on and funny. He would not end up well with Eastwood. It's also true that Leone hardly spoke any english and the set was full of italians, so the communication between both parts could have been more fluent than it was.
The reviews were not exactly raving at first, but quick commercial success led to another movie, For A Few Dollars More (1965), which was again a coproduction among Italy, Spain and West Germany mostly shot in Almería. The main role's name was MANCO, being a bounty hunter who crosses paths with another, played by LEE VAN CLEEF. Italian actor GIAN MARIA VOLONTÉ stars again, and even well known german star KLAUS KINSKI got a secondary role. This second installment, was it thought as such or not, ups the intensity of the first one and has legendary moments, like that one regarding a wagon full of dead bodies.The plot is also better and more intricate, and everything about Volonte's haunting dreams is great.
 |
| Main role, Manco, who only uses his right hand to shoot |
The story was the same this time, with not very good critical consensus (quite the opposite), mostly focused on the violent nature of the movie, but with audiences welcoming it with open arms and from the get go. It did even better than A Fistful Of Dollars at the box office.
 |
| Gian Maria Volonté played El Indio |
So, all this led to the last movie, the larger than life The Good, The Bad And The Ugly (1966), much more ambitious concerning its shooting (Almería and Burgos) due to the involvement of more scenery and situations. The plot takes place during the american civil war and the man with no name (the good one off the title and called BLONDIE this time) makes a living together with his partner in crime TUCO (ELLI WALLACH), the ugly one. They will have to face some guy called ANGEL EYES, again played by Lee Van Cleef, who will be the bad one. Stress on violence, even gratuitous one, carries on, and also the antihero subject, which become three in this movie, after being one and two, respectively, in the previous two films. They are greedy here, and even cruel, unlike those in the american westerns of the day. But at the same time there is an unconcealed repulsion towards war and all that it means.
 |
| Lee Van Cleef, pictured here as colonel Mortimer in the second installment, played a very different role in The Good, The Bad And The Ugly |
This movie ended up being deemed as a game changer within the genre and its quintessential expression and, despite the usual lukewarm initial reaction, became another box office success. The amount of great moments and tall tales in this production, both in and out the movie itself, is enormous, and adds to its legendary status (an 8,8 rating on IMDB, after more than eight hundred and thousand votes is not something many movies can boast about). From the feelings about war that the almost non speaking Manco shares with Tuco, to Wallach's dangerous moments while shooting the film, going through Clint's memories of said shooting (related, I guess, indirectly, with Spain's dictatorship at the very moment and the country's image abroad), everything pertaining the famous bridge in the film and the tense relationship between the star and the always perfectionist Leone, with whom he would never work again.
But nothing like the unequalled final scene at Sad Hill cemetery (built in the north of the spanish province of Burgos by several hundreds of spanish soldiers), combined with Morricone's unbeatable song I mentioned before, which is one of those great moments in all cinema. On top of that, said location underwent a few years ago a careful rebuilding by the locals, something which was brilliantly documented in GUILLERMO DE OLIVEIRA's essential documentary film called SAD HILL UNEARTHED, from 2017. I visited Sad Hill (it has since become a touristic attraction) once, at the end of 2021, and I can say is touching to be there. I went over there after I had already watched the documentary and I watched it again as soon as I could.
 |
| Sad Hill. I took this picture myself |
And all this without even mentioning the film's impact on populat culture (who does not remember Eastwood's funny statement about people being divided in two categories, those with loaded guns and those who dig), plus the importance of the trilogy itself as a whole (with its very peculiar depiction of a desolated and unfriendly west) and the roles played by Eastwood in particular, to the whole western genre.
 |
| It does not get more iconic than this: the threes guys enjoying themselves at Sad Hill |
I've said before that these films, besides not being a proper trilogy (or at least not one conceived as such at first), don't even follow a chronological order. I also said this fact is difficult to notice and I, for one, did not know about this and I have read about it afterwards. As much as you can notice that the main role has three different names, is also true that, at least in two of the movies, he's addressed with a nickname and not with a proper name, so you could think about him as the same person. But if it was like that, even if he really was the same guy, Blondie, the guy in the third film, little by little gets the looks he is shown with from the very beginning in the other two films. That would mean he's a younger person in the thrid film than in the other two. But more important than that, the third installment takes place during the american civil war, which lasted from 1861 to 1865, while A Fistful Of Dollars has a scene where the year 1874 can be seen on a tombstone. That's why the third movie would be (in the case that all three are considered a trilogy) a prequel, actually. If we take this fact as a starting point, and you are an historian or an scholar in certain matters, you can notice that the weaponry used in the first two films are more up to date than that in the third one. I am no expert, so I had to read about this to be aware. In fact, Lee Van Cleef's role in For A Few Dollars More, seems to be a veteran from the aforementioned war (which in the trilogy takes place in the next movie), something which reinforces this messy global vision of the trilogy. On the other hand, having several actors playing different roles in more than one of those movies, could be an indication (not a final one, of course) that not even Eastwood's role is the same person and these three movies are just isolated films which share some traits and take place in different times but very close to each other.
 |
| Tuco, a mexican bandit |
 |
| Wallach, who died in 2014, and Clint, reunited many years later. Van Cleef had passed away in 1989 |
Nothing I could say is going to add to these films' gigantic status, or do them any justice (they have to be seen) and, if I got so much distracted with them is because they are remarkable entries in Eastwood's filmography (I'll do the same with his most relevant flicks) and in cinema's history, besides launching Clint into stardom. Before shooting the third one, he took part in another italian production, LE STREGHE (THE WITCHES), premiered in 1967. That was an anthology comprising five stories, with italian star SILVANA MANGANO starring in all of them. Clint played CARLO in the fifth and last episode, called AN EVENING LIKE THE OTHERS, which was directed by VITTORIO DE SICA, and, despite not having anything to do with his Eastwood's usual latest roles, Carlo had the idea of disguising himself as a cowboy to try impress his bored wife (Mangano). I saw this film not a very long time ago, and yet I don't have many memories of. It was entertaining and I only saw it out of curiosity for Clint's role and, of course, to complete the viewing of all his movies.
 |
| An at ease Carlo and his uncomplaining wife, in a picture that, nowadays, would make some people's heads explode |
In spite of Leone's films and the sudden success, Eastwood carried on waging his particular war against the critics concerning his acting. Those films were improving in the eye of the critic, despite the performances of the actors, which were not praised at all.
His next film was the revisionist western HANG 'EM HIGH, from 1968, which also was the first movie produced by Eastwood's brand new film production company, called THE MALPASO COMPANY (today MALPASO PRODUCTIONS, also known by its almost exclusive relationship with major distributing force WARNER BROS. PICTURES ever since). Said company was founded, with the help of IRVING LEONARD, then Clint's financial adviser, thanks to the profits earned after Leone's flicks. Also in 1968, Clint starred in two more films, COOGAN'S BLUFF and the awesome WHERE EAGLES DARE, with him getting mad during the shooting of the latter due to what he considered a useless expenditure of money in big productions. That's why he decided to have his own production company, to gain complete control over his productions, and he's been known ever since for his tight shooting schedules and also for sticking to the expected budget, when he does not get to shoot under said budget or before scheduled.
The company's name is linked to some kind of creek called Malpaso Creek, which went through a property Eastwood had bought in 1967 in Monterey County (California), and with the fact that, when he accepted his role in A Fistful Of Dollars, his then agent had told him that that would be a misstep (english for mal paso) in his career. The rest is history.
Concerning Hang 'Em High, the plot is about the revenge exacted by a man called JED COOPER, who became sheriff after having been wrongly linched and left to die. It was directed by TED POST. Good flick, although my memories of it are vague, beyond Cooper's linching. I saw it during a time when I saw some more of Eastwood's westerns in a very short time and I think they somehow overlap in my head. It was a hit, in any case, being United Artists' most successful opening back in the day and getting very good reviews.
This was the first time Clint produced a movie, something he carried on doing with Malpaso's films, although uncredited as producer until 1982.
 |
| Jed Cooper doing the math about how many blows he will need to hit to exact his revenge |
Coogan's Bluff was more important. Maybe not because of its qualities, but for the fact that it was the first of Eastwood's five movies with director DON SIEGEL, who he became friends with during this shooting. Clint plays WALT COOGAN, some kind of modern cowboy within the police force, who has to escort an assassin and put him back in custody. The film's name plays with the main role's own name and his penchant for bluffing, and also with the name of a very famous spot in New York city (where the whole thing takes place), called the same way as the movie. Eastwood's role is a brute like not many others (the film is quite violent once again) and it could be some sort of HARRY CALLAHAN in the making. I remember vividly Coogan's behaviour, and some of his lines, and they would shock today's stalest feminism, and most likely the most rational one too.Those were different times. I also remember Clint sharing some scenes (besides the ones he had with famed actress SUSAN CLARK) with a most gorgeous actress called MELODIE JOHNSON, a few years younger than him and whose acting career seemed to fade in the seventies.
 |
| Coogan notifies Millie (Johnson) the need for a more inclusive language |
Where Eagles Dare was a brilliant war flick with nazism as background, in which Clint (who portrays lieutenant MORRIS SCHAFFER) was directed (as a supporting role) by BRIAN G. HUTTON and shared the screen with no less than RICHARD BURTON, the very famous welsh actor whose name was so very much linked to ELIZABETH TAYLOR, the very well known actress he married and starred in CLEOPATRA (JOSEPH L. MANKIEWICZ, 1963) with. The film is based on a novel by ALISTAIR MACLEAN (published in 1966), who also wrote the script, and tells the story of an special group of parachutists whose mission is to infiltrate a nazi fortress called Schloss Adler (Adler is german for eagle, although the title is taken from SHAKESPEARE's RICHARD III) and rescue an american general. A most entertaining movie (enjoying today a classic status) overall, brimming with action, with the very remarkable cable car scene. It was a big success and even Clint's performance (among others) was praised, who benefitted from having beside him a fatherly figure with theatrical background like Burton, despite Burton's ongoing binge drinking, which got him away from the set for days on end. Clint asked to trim his lines (some of them ended up in Burton) because he thought there was an excess of rubbish, and Hutton focused on every star's best qualities. That's why, to cut a long story short, Burton did the talking and Eastwood and his usual quiet demeanor handled most of the physical action.
 |
| Schaffer and Smith (Burton) discussing how to infiltrate the nazis |
 |
| Eastwood with the bike he got as part of his deal with the film's distributor, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer |
The sixties finished for Eastwood with his involvement in one of the most peculiar movies of his whole career, PAINT YOUR WAGON, a likeable western musical whose main attraction (at least for me, despite being a good film), mostly in hindsight, was watching two of the toughest and angriest looking guys in cinema's history, like Eastwood himself and the great LEE MARVIN (there was only Lee Van Cleef left), singing, something they did themselves. And speaking of attraction, appealing as few was the third protagonist, french actress JEAN SEBERG, an idol in her country thanks to her participation in the movies of the very famous director from France JEAN-LUC GODARD.
This film, directed by JOSHUA LOGAN, was a very loose adaptation of a musical of the same name from 1951, and tells about a small town born out of scratch during the gold fever. Clint plays SYLVESTER NEWEL (nicknamed PARDNER, a role with some things in common with that of Rowdy Yates), who survives an accident and is taken under the wing of drunken and troublemaker gold searcher BEN RUMSON, played by Marvin. Any long lasting THE SIMPSONS fan could identify this movie, despite not having seen it, for being the starting point of one of the stories in the musical episode ALL SINGING, ALL DANCING (ninth season's episode eleven), first broadcasted on the nine of January, 1998. In said story, HOMER and BART, eager for strong emotions, rent the film expecting to find a violent western (given the two actors reputation, and even more when there is also someone who looks exactly like Van Cleef), only to end up shocked and discouraged every time the actors seem to be about to start a fight but they begin to sing and dance instead. That one is not Eastwood's only apparition in the legendary show, something which is not weird, given he is a character so iconic, american and, let's say, worthy of caricature.
 |
| Eastwood and Marvin annoying Homer |
It was an overall failed film, given the initial budget had to be doubled and the shooting was full of problems, and even if the figues were good, they could not make up for all the expenses. Musicals were also out of fashion during that time and the lengthy running time did not help either. Clint got fed up with the long delays, but the whole situation increased his willing to become a director himself.
There is something related to Marvin that needs to be remarked though, because this fella, involuntary actor and also known as one of the toughest guys in all cinema, had a performing chops inversely proportional to the ones he had as a singer. And yet, Logan talked him into singing in this flick, and the song he sang alone, WAND'RIN STAR, became a hit in several countries, something which astonished everyone, including Marvin himself, who competed in the charts with the most popular songs, bands and singers of the time. Journalist MANUEL ROMÁN told that Jean Seberg, when asked about it, always joked by saying that when Marvin sang it sounded as if his voice came out of a rusty pipe.
 |
| The leading threesome. What about Marvin's legendary sideburns? |
End of the first chapter
The next decade started with Clint working again with Siegel, in the film TWO MULES FOR SISTER SARA, and with Hutton, in KELLY'S HEROES, both from 1970. These two movies, although entertaining, are, in my opinion, far from being ranked too high in an hypothetical ranking of Eastwood's films. In the first one he plays HOGAN, a mercenary who joins a nun after saving her from some bandits, all this during Mexico's french invasion, which happened during the second half of the XIX century. This is a western with some action and touches of comedy whose main appeal is legendary co-star, SHIRLEY MCLAINE, who plays SARA, the nun. Apart from that it could pass as a much lighter and more comical version of Clint's usual westerns, with his character having pretty much the same features, a similar environment and tons of mexican people, although the amount of violence is nowhere near close.
I did not enjoy it very much, to be honest, and even less when compared to the adaptation to the big screen which the great RICHARD DONNER did in 1994 of MAVERICK, a movie which could be considered a distant descendant of Siegel's, but much better. Namely, the traits are similar (not the plot, though), for Maverick is another western with action and a female star (JODIE FOSTER), but unlike Siegel's flick, gets the best of its comical possibilities and the rapport between Foster and her male counterpart (neither Siegel, nor Eastwood, got along very well with McLaine), who is no other than MEL GIBSON, another one of this blog's idols (a pity him and Eastwood have never worked together). For similarities sake, let's say that Gibson meant to Donner (and viceversa) what Eastwood meant to Siegel. The five films shared by Siegel and Clint are replicated by the six Gibson starred in under Donner's direction. And there's more, for Gibson worked along Donner in the LETHAL WEAPON saga, while Siegel directed the first movie of the five Harry Callahan film. Each actor played in them a cop with his very own methods and little, if any, fondness for established rules.
But the reviews were mostly good, including Eastwood's portray of yet another antihero. As fun facts, Morricone did score this movie too, and this was the last time Clint was billed as a supporting actor in a movie (although this happened in the credits and not on the poster).
 |
| The nun and the soldier of fortune |
Much better is Kelly's Heroes, another flick with a comical touch (this time within a war environment) and loosely based on an actual event, in which some american deserters try to cross the german lines in France to rob a bank full of nazi gold. This would be the last film Eastwood was involved in which was not produced somehow by his own company, the before mentioned Malpaso. Clint plays private KELLY, and he is supported by a high profile cast comprising fabulous canadian actor DONALD SUTHERLAND (who got ill during the shooting with a life threatening meningitis), TELLY SAVALAS (correct, the one from KOJAK), comic DON RICKLES and even the great HARRY DEAN STANTON in a small role. I remember it as a fun movie, with good moments here and there, and I have to be in the minority here, for people seem to find it much better than I do, given its very remarkable 7,6 mark on IMDB, which is quite good. Oddly enough (no pun intended), I found Sutherland's ODDBALL, the spaced out tank pilot, a tad tiring, and he was supposed to carry, along with Rickles, most of the flick's comical burden on their shoulders. Not bad, but as far as I am concerned, and leaving Eastwood's films with Leone, because of being a landmark in cinema's history, Clint's already well established career was about to improve quite a lot, and at all levels.
An oddity? It was shot mostly in locations in the former Yugoslavia, only because of the fact that this country was one of the few whose army, still in 1969, was equipped with stuff (german and american) from WWII, which made logistics easier.
 |
| Kelly and Big Joe, played by Savalas |
There is something worthy of mention before I go on, because those two previous films were the first Eastwood movies in which the unforgettable and multifaceted CONSTANTINO ROMERO (who passed away too soon in 2013) lent his voice to Clint's spanish dubbing, starting a relationship comprising thirty three movies and which lasted almost steadily until 2012, no less. This person has dubbed a bunch of legendary characters to spanish, thus becoming a benchmark within the profession, but Clint Eastwood is the actor he's dubbed the most times. And wonderfully so. It is tough for the spanish audience to picture Eastwood without Romero's voice, to the extent that he is Clint's voice. I always try to watch movies in their original language (at least when it comes to languages I know, I'm learning or are close to me from a cultural point of view), because, among other things, I think that every actor's voices is part of their performance. But I don't mind making an exception with Eastwood's movies, and I even feel more at ease listening to him with Romero's voice, due to everything I've just said. His is a deep and quite imposing voice, which matches most of Eastwood's roles, and in contrast with the softer and more whispering voice of Eastwood himself, who is one of those people who always seem to speak in a very low voice.
I don't know if they ever met some time, or if the american is aware of what Constantino did with his voice as far as the spanish language is concerned (is quite unlikely that, one way or another, Eastwood had never listened to himself speaking in spanish), but I'm pretty sure that, hadn't he done it already, he would appreciate Romero's amazing craft.
 |
| Dearly missed Constantino Romero |
In 1971, THE BEGUILED, his third work with Siegel, was premiered. It was based on a novel from 1966 called A PAINTED DEVIL, written by THOMAS P. CULLINAN. In this film, Eastwood played corporal JOHN MCBURNEY, a quite injured Union soldier, during the american civil war, who is found by one of the young girls who live in a sort of ladies school in confederate Mississippi, run by Mrs. FARNSWORTH, played by GERALDINE PAGE. This flick is quite interesting. Simple, but interesting, because the usual action found in most of Eastwood's movies is completely replaced by the psychological factor and a constant tension, emphasized by the manipulating nature of Clint's role (within an environment of sexually repressed women) and by its twisted outcome. Note that the spanish title (the seducer) contrasts the original one, which refers to those who are seduced, in a passive way, and not the other way around.
This film, for some reason I do not know, was a hit in France, to the point it almost entered the Cannes Festival (something both Siegel and Eastwood agreed with, but was rejected by the producers), but apart from that, it did not do very good, leaving Eastwood angry because he thought that UNIVERSAL had neglected it when it came to its marketing (you only need to watch it and take a look at the poster afterwards to realize it). Eastwood had signed a long term contract with Universal, but terminated it in 1975, and did not work with them again until well into the XXI century.
The film's reputation among the critics has improved ever since, given its current status, but initial reactions went from lukewarm at best to irate, with accusations of misogyny included, although there were also some of them which saw some kind of feminist vindication by Siegel, in the depiction he did of women who had to face something they could have never thought of.
Now I realize there is a recent movie, from 2017, of the same name, and which uses the same source (I don't know whether the word remake can be used it here or not), directed by SOFÍA COPPOLA. I'll have to see it, for not only I usually enjoy Coppola's movies, but also there are some interesting names in it, such as COLIN FARRELL, NICOLE KIDMAN or KIRSTEN DUNST.
*Eastwood's spanish dubbing was not handled by Constantino Romero.
Eastwood's debut behind the camera would take place in 1971 as well, but related to The Beguiled, he directed a short film of twelve minutes about this movie himself, called THE BEGUILED (STORYTELLER). I haven't seen it yet and I guess it will be difficult to find.
 |
| Tension arises between Eastwood and Page in a foster home full of southern young ladies |
As I've just said, his long awaited debut as a director took also place in 1971, with PLAY MISTY FOR ME, a movie the already mentioned Leonard (deceased in 1969) and him had been thinking of for some time. In this film, Eastwood plays DAVE GARVER, a radio disc jockey who is constantly receiving live phone calls from some girl (EVELYN DRAPER, played by JESSICA WALTER, in his first role) who asks him to play MISTY, a jazz number by ERROLL GARNER, for her. It's not my intention to ruin the film for anybody, so I won't talk any further about the plot and I'll spare the reader its obvious comparison to a very famous later film (this is something I've just thought about but, said and done, it is so obvious that, taking a quick look around I realize I'm not the only one to think about it). This is an enjoyable film and little more, but this statement needs, as in many other cases, to be put into context. It's easy to be seen, and there's also Clint's different role in front of the camera and observing how he does behind it, but it's one of those movies about which I already said they are a little bit rushed and maybe hasn't aged that well. By this I mean I've watched it not very long ago but it was shot more than fifty years ago, so perhaps its viewing was much more enjoyable back in the day, and its twists much more effective than nowadays, when we've seen it all and the surprise factor is more difficult to get. In fact, it was a box office success and among the critics, with Walter being nominated to the Golden Globes, while there was also praise for Eastwood's work as a director.
There are some anecdotes about this film, and also some nods to popular culture. It was shot in Carmel itself, because Clint wanted it that way, and that made everything much more comfortable, with scenes shot at friend's homes and in the edition of 1970 of the nearby Monterey's Jazz Festival. Even the radio station was local. Don Siegel helped Clint in his directorial debut and even acted in it as a barman. The fim's title can be found in one song by BOB DYLAN and, just to name another one, a novel of the same name was published in 1972 (written by PAUL J. GILLETTE), inspired on the movie's script, which had been written by JO HEIMS, Eastwood's friend and co-worker.
 |
| Evelyn Draper (Jessica Walter), willing to listen to Misty once again |
 |
| Clint went from piling victims up to collecting albums |
At this point, Eastwood already had what he had always wanted. He was a renowned actor, even a star, and had made his debut at directing, besides taking advantage of all the benefits that having his own production company meant. And yet, the best was yet to come. Therefore, and still in 1971, he was gifted with what is, most likely, his best known role, and the one the whole world at large mostly identifies him with. That role is, and this goes without saying, the already mentioned Harry Callahan, a controversial cop who has his own modus operandi, and whose existence produced so big a fuss, so much gossip, so many anecdotes and left such a big mark on popular culture which is difficult to find something similar before or since. And granted, you just can't picture anubody else portraying Harry. This one has to be one of the quickest and most obvious affinities (if not the most) between an actor and a character in all cinema, in spite of the fact that Clint was not the first choice for it.
The film at issue was DIRTY HARRY, first of the five Eastwood played Callahan in and the only one in this saga directed by Don Siegel (who wasn't the first choice for directing either, but ended up working with Clint for the fourth time). The title itself, both the original one or in spanish, went far beyond cinema's boundaries at both sides of the pond to find a perpetual spot in the collective mind of a few generations, regardless of their interest in cinema or their opinion about the actor.
In this flick, Callahan is a San Francisco cop on the hunt for a psycho killer (SCORPIO, played by ANDY ROBINSON) loosely based on the famed real life criminal known as the Zodiac Killer, and on several traits of a few others. There's nothing I can say about Dirty Harry that hasn't been said already, because, on top of it raging fame, is one of those films that has been seen by almost everyone. There's action, a controversial and charismatic main character, lines which are in the minds of almost every movies fan (that one where Harry aims at a robber and asks him Do I feel lucky? and which belongs to this entry's main pic), zero political correctness, non existent attention to fit the usual hero mold (quite the opposite) and violence. Tons of it. To the point that was the reason why the script did not turn into a TV show and also why some actors rejected the main role. Again, nothing shocking by today's standards I guess, but this was 1971. People were not used to certain stuff.
 |
| They may call me dirty, but I'm a perfect gentleman |
Finding a suitable leading role was a tall order. The script changed hands and was modified here and there, but Callahan still had to be someone in his mid fifties, in principle. The role was offered to JOHN WAYNE, and FRANK SINATRA even came on board when Warner purchased the script, together with a director called IRVIN KERSHNER. When Sinatra left, so did Kershner. Enters BURT LANCASTER, who rejected the role for being too violent a story, in which the end seemed to justify any means, something which was against his beliefs. That's when some younger actors were considered, and STEVE MCQUEEN, when approached, refused to star in another cop's movie after having been recently seen in BULLITT (directed by PETER YATES, in 1968), and PAUL NEWMAN himself, who, believing the role was too far right for him, rejected it as well, but not without suggesting Eastwood for it (?). Clint said yes, on the condition of using the first script (leaving the age issue aside, of course).
Scorpio was not that difficult to find, although not an easy task either, for the actor first chosen, AUDIE MURPHY, died before he could make up his mind about it, and JAMES CAAN came next, but only while Sinatra was aboard. Eventually, unknown actor Andy Robinson landed the role, after having been suggested by Eastwood himself, who had seen him on stage. Siegel accepted because of the choirboy face Robinson had. The funny thing was that he turned out to be a commited pacifist who hated firearms and had to be tought to fire a weapon properly.
 |
| Choirboy Robinson confesses hating firearms to Siegel |
The film was controversial, no doubt, but also a resounding box office success (Siegel's best in that department). It was also pretty much welcomed by the critics, despite said controversy.
Concerning anecdotes and similar stuff, there are many. Some of them to be found here:
- In the beginning of the movie, Eastwood's own Play Misty For Me can be seen announced on the marquee of a theatre. Dirty Harry is also mentioned in DAVID FINCHER's ZODIAC, the 2007 flick about the Zodiac Killer.
- Eastwood directed one scene in which a person tries to jump off a bulding with suicidal purposes, and he also managed to shoot a dangerous scene, like the one in which he jumps on a bus from a bridge, without a stunt.
- The film's main controversy has a lot to do with Callahan's attitude, who's even described as a criminal with a badge, relentless when it comes to get what he wants, no matter how. His goal is protecting the victims of violent crimes, and even avenging them, and rules or even ethics amount to nothing when it's time to achieve it. He has his own personal notion of justice. That's when matters such as police brutality or how far can one go to protect themselves and as a part of society arise, in a time of a high criminal rate. A very dangerous message to many, to sum it all up.
- While Eastwood's acting was praised, there were some who branded it as fascist. This, the way that I see it, might bring subjects related to double standards to the table. Callahan crosses the line, sure, and his deeds are not always right. But he achieves what he wants. What would we all do in his place? Despite knowing some things are not right, are we not tempted to do them or even feel ourselves jealous when we see someone else do them? Some critics said this movie could make you feel uncomfortable once you realize that you really enjoy it. The next installments tried to tone down certain issues and the bad guys spanned different scopes of the ideological spectrum.
- Some crimes were committed, allegedly influenced by what had been seen in Dirty Harry.
 |
| I am in command in San Francisco |
- Apparently, Robinson, during the shooting of a scene in which he's in front of Eastwood, came up with a line of his own (My, that's a big one), related to the size of a gun. The crew bursted into laughs due to the obvious double meaning and the take needed to be redone, but the line stayed.
- A bunch of feminists marched in protest outside the DOROTHY CHANDLER PAVILION, during the 44th ceremony of the Academy Awards, with banner which read Dirty Harry is a rotten pig.
- Eastwood and Siegel did not give a flying fuck about the whole controversy. The former denied the film being right wing and pleaded that what was being aimed at was the judicial system. The latter explained that he felt himself as a liberal leaning to the left wing, while Clint was more conservative, but they had not talked about politics at all and he did not make political movies. It was only the story of a tough cop after a killer. Only that said cop could be, his own way, as harmful as the killer.
- Callahan, in principle, works within the homicides department, but he's always waging a constant war with his superiors, whom he deems as incompetent, and that's why he's transferred to minor departments in other films of the saga.
- Robinson's portray of a killer was so convincing that he even got death threats himself.
- It is implied that Callahan is a widower. I do not know anything else concerning this, but this fact could shed some light on the obvious bitterness of the character and that I do not give a crap attitude of his.
- This film, and Callahan's larger than life lines, helped boost the popularity of the gun used by the cop (a SMITH & WESSON 29, powered by a MAGNUM 44 cartridge), which Callahan describes as the most powerful handgun in the world, and whose sales increased considerably after the film.
- Needless to say, Callahan became the blueprint for every trigger-happy, unscrupulous cop to appear in subsequent movies and, as a matter of fact, the Dirty Harry nickname is common slang to describe them.
- The film gives some loose explanations about Callahan's nickname, and he uses to say that he is assigned to every dirty job that comes along. His partner CHICO has a few funny ideas of his own about the nickname, though.
- Concerning Callahan, no matter which movie of the saga we're talking about, it needs to be said that he enjoys working on his own (obvious), but he usually has a partner who's assigned to him, to his very much undisguised chagrin. Apart from that, his sunglasses differ from one film to another, he enjoys playing pool and seems to live only on fast food and sugarless black coffee. To order the coffee he always says the usual. He also enjoys being fit.
 |
| Do I feel lucky? Well, do you, punk? |
- The Simpson, to the surprise of no one, parodied Callahan's role through another fictitious inspector called MCGARNAGLE, starring in a TV show who gathers all the traits of a tough cop who portrayed Callahan. Neither Eastwood or Callahan are mentioned, but the looks, the voice and the behaviour leave nothing to imagination. Although not the only episode he stars in, his most remarkable appearance takes place in THE BOY WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (season five, episode twelve), where he shares the screen with a child who's pretty much in the same situation BART is, in the episode's plot.
 |
| McGarnagle |
The hypothetical reader might has asked themselves at some point how come someone like Eastwood, with a personality as an actor always linked to the tough guy profile, and with some roles he's played throught his acting career, has not ever played JAMES BOND, the ultimate secret agent. He's not british, of course, although some exceptions were made with Australia's GEORGE LAZENBY and Ireland's PIERCE BROSNAN. Those two could be understandable though. But the thing is that, after everything a movie like Dirty Harry signified (with a character which ended up being legendary), that role was offered to him. He politely rejected it saying That was someone else's gig, besides expressing his respect for SEAN CONNERY and even stating that role should be for a british actor. I have some doubts here, for I don't know whether the part was offered to him after Connery's first renounce, after the second, or both times. Because the dates are correct if we talk about 1971 (when Dirty Harry premiered), given that was the year when Connery's last flick as Bond, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER (GUY HAMILTON) had also been premiered. But Sean Connery had already previously renounced in 1967, after YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE (LEWIS GILBERT), and in the meantime the producers decided to be more open minded and offered Lazenby the role for his only time as 007, in ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE (PETER R. HUNT), premiered in 1969. When was Clint offered the part, in 1967 after his success with Leone's films, in 1971, after portraying Callahan, or both times?
Whatever. The next step for the actor, and already director, was JOE KIDD, directed by the great JOHN STURGES, which became Eastwood's only filming gig in 1972. This is another revisionist western in which Clint plays an ex bounty hunter (KIDD) who goes back to old habits, and in which he shares the bill with no less that ROBERT DUVALL, who had stood out (and how) that same year as consigliere TOM HAGEN in THE GODFATHER (FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA).
The plot was based on a real life activist called REIES TIJERINA, who fought for the hispanic to regain the land that one day had belonged to their ancestors. That person would be LUIS CHAMA in the movie, played by JOHN SAXON, while Duvall would be the wealthy landowner who hires Kidd to keep order. It is told that the actors were so starstruck by Sturges (I won't even bother to mention any of his essential movies) that they struggled to pick up their paces.
 |
| Eastwood and Duvall, patroling |
Joe Kidd was quite successful, box office wise, and, despite the fact that I sometimes struggle trying to remember all Eastwood's westerns post Leone and differentiating one another, if I trust my memory, this is the best one out of all I've reviewed so far. Very fun to watch, although the critics did not think likewise and the reviews were lukewarm, aiming at the lack of identity granted by the script to the umpteenth relentless, almost speechless gunman played by Clint, and also at his motivations, which were far from obvious.
Let's also say that he went through a nightmarish filming, with panic attacks and symptoms of what seemed to be a bronchial infection.
 |
| Clint will never turn his back on a good western |
1973 was another busy year for Eastwood, premiering his sophomore directorial effort, another western called HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER, which he also starred in. He played a misterious character who arrives at Lago, a border and quite corrupt mining town, to make sure order is kept. But there's much more than meets the eye and the right thing is saying nothing else about it, to prevent the viewer's perspective from being spoiled. But, at the same time, this makes much more difficult commenting the film, for Eastwood's standpoint as a director implies that everything is an allegory, something not very explicit which favors the viewer's own point of view. At the same time, this goal was hampered by the dubbings, Spain's included.
But again, let's say nothing else. The movie was, overall, praised by the critics and was a box office hit, and I remember it as quite good. Confusing, but most likely better than previous westerns (leaving Leone's aside and, if memory serves, even better than Joe Kidd). According to scholars, Eastwood mixed what he had learnt from his most obvious mentors at the time, like Leone and Siegel were, with a noteworthy dosage of violence, his own sense of humor and his personal vision of society. I've said it before, but this is another role quite removed from the usual hero and concerning whom, one could be as judgemental as with Callahan. Mostly when is time to tell both characters from their antagonists. They may wear a badge (in this case, no badge whatsoever) and they may not kill for pleasure or own profit's sake, but what they do is more than questionable. In this regard, I remember one scene, probably very unjustified, as well as awkward, involving one of the ladies who lives in Lago, about which one wished to know what makes Eastwood tick. Does he really want to create leading roles who become so despicable?
 |
| This does not look good |
Is best to watch the flick and draw one's own conclusions. Clint left a nod to Siegel and Leone in the shape of two tombstones with their own names in one graveyard that can be seen in the movie. A real small town was also built (forget about scenery), using a lot of wood, which included a two-storied hotel, so all the interiors could be shot without decamping to somewhere else. Not everyone enjoyed this peculiar film, of course, and Clint found a very distinguished naysayer in JOHN WAYNE himself, who aparently wrote a letter to him stating that that wasn't the spirit of those who settled in the United States and made the country great. I have no idea about Eastwood's reaction to the missive, but I can picture him not being very worried about the DUKE's opinion.
*Eastwood's spanish dubbing was not handled by Constantino Romero.
 |
| The stranger |
The next movie would mean a new step as a director and, for the first time, Eastwood relinquished acting and gave others the spotlight in a flick as odd (at least to his own standards) as BREEZY. It tells the unlikely relationship which arises between a fifty-some and a teenager, played by one of the greats, and big star during the fifties, WILLIAM HOLDEN (FRANK HARMON in the film), and KAY LENZ (an almost unkown young actress who played BREEZY and got nominated as best new actress at the Golden Globes thanks to her role in this movie).
Is quite remarkable that Eastwood dared to tackle something like this, removing himself completely out of his comfort zone, only in his third effort as a director. I really loved this movie, because of everything I've just said and because I think Holden is exceptional (Lenz did not allow herself to be left behind either, being a surprise and for all the good reasons), but I guess this film is in risk of being labeled as the usual after lunch movie, or even a womanly one, aiming at the female audience due to the initial romantic subject. Pretty much what would happen again to Eastwood with a film he would star in many years later. But, in my opinion, this one is much more than that. This is a film in which a fifty five years old hooks up with a lady who's seventeen in the film (Lenz was nineteen, give or take, during the filming), to begin with, with everything something like that entails from an ethical point of view. Not to mention all the scenes in which Lenz has to get naked. Concerning this there were critics who said the sex scenes were too soft for such an outrageous relationship.
 |
| Clint instructs Kay Lenz, with Holden waiting in the background |
And there's also the most noteworthy matter of the story, because Harmon is a person who has already been through it all, while Breezy is quite the opposite (besides going through some circumstances which pretty much turn her into a homeless person), so one could expect Harmon to teach Breezy one or two things about life, given she doesn't know anything about it yet. No way, for Harmon is a disillusioned and bitter person and she's the other way around. Harmon will learn much more from her than the other way around. In fact, her name (or nickname) alludes to this and I think that is something deliberate, no matter said nickname reads like her second name's diminutive. Hence EDITH BREEZERMAN becomes Breezy, which comes from breeze and refers to the carefree and happy nature of a person.
 |
| Eastwood and Holden |
The film knew no success and Eastwood himself admitted that, despite loving the challenge, this was a risk with little or no chance of success, and Universal only allowed him to do it as a favor. The advertisement was almost nonexistent, but the film little by little managed to regain what had been invested.
And there are also the stories to be told that everyone loves to know about.
- Holden had not worked in four years and was so happy for being approached that he accepted to work with no wage in return, only in exchange of a percentage of the profits. Given there were no profits, the Actors Guild made Eastwood pay him the minimum wage.
- Holden's own son has a little role as well. He wanted to become an actor and this was his last try.
- As many other times, before and since, and loyal to his reputation, Clint finished the shooting before scheduled and under budget.
- Clint met actress SONDRA LOCKE during the filming of the movie, and she would become his romantic partner (a relationship not alien to controversy, starting with the fact that both of them were married back in the day) and worked with him in as many as six movies. She was in the casting but, despite her deceiving looks, was too old for the role.
- Eastwood gave Kay Lenz the power to decide about her own nude scenes. No take she wasn't happy with would make it into the film.
- Aforementioned Jo Heims wrote the script and wanted Clint to play Harmon, but he said no for being still too young for the role. That's why Holden was chosen and Eastwood directed, and it has been said that Holden told Eastwood that he had been that person, alluding to Harmon, to what Clint replied that he supposed it.
- Clint can be seen in the movie, uncredited, leaning on a banister while the starring couple walks past behind him.
 |
| Breezy and Harmon |
This flick was more successful than the first one, money wise, although the reviews were not as good. Sometimes I have a hard time telling all five films from one another, beyond the first and the last one, which I remember more vividly, and this is why I did not remember what Magnum Force (undisguised reference to the main role's weapon) was about until I saw the picture of the motorized policemen once again. With this in mind I can say I liked the movie, and neither I ask or expect exquisiteness in an action flick starred by Clint Eastwood. As I said, that alone is enough incentive. In fact, and concerning this, there was a critic who said that Eastwood wasn't a bad actor, because in order to consider someone bad at something, that someone has to perform that something first, and Clint did not in the movie.
 |
| Trust no one |
After all the controversy brought by Dirty Harry, the intention was makink look like a better guy. The vigilantism thing is discarded and, in fact, there are meaner cops than him. There was even the reasonable shock due to the idea (it was Eastwood's, after the gazillion letters he was sent by women demanding a female character who chased Callahan) of someone as antisocial and lonely as Harry is, teaming up with a woman (SUNNY, played by ADELE YOSHIOKA). So far, so good. But there was also the moral conflict that some critics remarked, when they said this new and moderate Callahan, who chases vigilantes instead being one of them, turns out to be little trustworthy when he always devotes himself to grabbing his gun as if it was an extension of his manhood. Same old, same old. In the end, he may be a trigger-happy cop, but he gets the job done when it comes to stopping the bad guys (no matter their political leanings), because he shoots the right people. Deciding whether that's the most ethical thing to do or not is another story.
This film also meant some sour grapes between Post and Clint. Post might be the official director of the movie, but Eastwood pulled the strings his own way too, and that led to some clashes between the two of them. Clint wanted things as spontaneous as possible, but that and some of his decisions, according to Post, were the outcome of both ignorance and an enormous ego. JOHN MILIUS, screenwriter and also director, who had written the first movie, did not end up happy with the whole thing either, and said that, out of all the projects he had been involved in, this was his least favourite, due to all the changes in the script and the female companion of Callahan.
To top it all off, there was a crime related to one of the scenes, in 1974, which meant horrific publicity, although when caught, the criminals said that hadn't they seen the film and thought about a certain way to do their deeds, they would have thought of any other they could have seen in another flick.
*Eastwood's spanish dubbing was not handled by Constantino Romero.
 |
| A new, more prudent Callahan? Don't think so |
In 1974 Clint was directed (although, as Ted Post had already stated regarding Magnum Force, Eastwood's shadow was a very big one to be overlooked) by novice director MICHAEL CIMINO, who had taken part in magnum Force's script (and would also direct a few years later the formidable THE DEER HUNTER), in THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT, a great movie which spanned several genres and in which he played a seasoned thief (THUNDERBOLT) who was joined by a young con man called LIGHTFOOT. In this movie Eastwood shared the screen with young, up and coming actor, soon to be a prodigious performer, JEFF BRIDGES, one of the best actors ever, to put it simply. Some other well known names to star in the film were GEOFFREY LEWIS and BILL MCKINNEY, who would join Eastwood, one way or another, in several films of his, a young GARY BUSEY (the dangerous bad guy in Lethal Weapon's first movie) and, above all, legendary actor and Academy Awards recipient, GEORGE KENNEDY.
The very famous and succesful (a fact difficult to stomach, in my opinion) EASY RIDER, premiered in 1969 and directed by DENNIS HOPPER, had made road or buddy movies very popular. Those are movies in which the action develops along a trip, with special focus on the rapport between the main characters. Clint wanted to do one of those and, given he had enjoyed this script so much, he wanted to direct himself. But he gave Cimino (who made his debut here) his first directorial chance instead. Cimino expressed his gratitude, and later on said that had not been for Eastwood, he would have never had a career in this industry. In any case, and as we already know, Eastwood's opinion still mattered, despite not being the director. And a lot. He was well known because of his austeriry when working and his dislike for shooting too many takes, favoring a bigger spontaneity. Thus, an enthusiastic Bridges would ask Cimino to do another take, and Cimino would divert him to Eastwood, who always had the final answer.
 |
| Eastwood and Bridges getting ready for a new heist |
This movie, leaving aside the several genres it spans, explores the comradeship between two men, and there were talks about a dormant homosexuality hidden within a male friendship. I saw this film many years ago and I don't remember anything of the sort. or at least not as something obvious, beyond having Bridges dresses up as a woman, if that has anything to do with it. It's kinda weird, for this film was also tagged as homophobic. I don't remember the ending properly, but I do remember something unpleasant related to it.
It was a mild success but the reviews were good (Cimino was even approached to direct the already mentioned The Deer Orden, a cinema achievement of the highest order), even praising Eastwood's performance. But nothing which could come close to all the praise Bridges got for his, something that got him a nomination at the Oscars, as the supporting actor. Apparently, this upset Clint, who felt himself eclipsed by the young actor (a more prestigious performer than him, in the long run) because he thought he was also worthy of some recognition in this department. All things led to him swearing not to work with United Artists again, whom he accused of a subpar promotion of the film.
 |
| No comment |
This project had no connection to Eastwood's camp at first, and had Paul Newman as the main star, but he left the film because of his disappointment with the script and the violent nature of the story. And that was (at the end of 1973) when Clint was asked and, in spite of not being interested in the spying subject and finding the script faulty, said yes because he saw the flick as a chance to end his contractual relationship with Universal Artists (unhappy as he was, again, due to the lack of promotion Play Misty For Me and Breezy got, and also for the little promotion this film would get) and be able to join Warner Bros. (a relationship still underway), and also because of the chance to work in Switzerland, away from everything and with a few people. Eastwood asked for the script to be changed and trusted that everything related to climbing and the breathtaking locations could make up for its flaws, given he wanted to shoot in the specific locations which had been chosen, and not in a movie set. And as for himself, without a stunt double (although the experts and his shooting peers dissaproved on this). Soon after he was appointed as the film's director as well.
 |
| Listo para la acción |
It is quite easy to picture a very difficult shooting, given the kind of film. There was trouble. And then some. Clint, being forty four at that time, and having almost no background or experience as a climber, had to work hard to shoot his own scenes. But in Switzerland things got even more difficult, and experts in the issue were needed, because the Eiger's north face is close to four thousand meters tall and is known as the Mordwand or murder wall, having claimed the life of several climbers. Unfortunately, it would claim one more this time, that of a climber called DAVID KNOWLES, who was struck by a rock after the shooting of a scene. Eastwood proceeded to call the whole project quits but was talked out of it by the rest of the climbers, fully aware as they were of the risks of their trade, to prevnt's Knowles death from being in vain.
Apart from that, there were also scenes shot in the middle of Zurich and in the States, including the famed MONUMENT VALLEY (where JOHN FORD filmed a few of his westerns), for one scene atop of the column known as the TOTEM POLE, where the leading roles did their workouts.
The commercial success was moderate and the critics mostly praised the action and the difficult climbing scenes, while aiming at some flaws within the plot, although they remarked that the former made up for the latter. This film has improved its reputation in the eyes of the critic as time has gone by. I think is quite entertaining, and besides some dizzying climbing scenes, it has some spying ones, in Zurich, which are fun to watch. But one of the things I remember most vividly is one scene which, had it been filmed nowadays, it would have caused quite a stir. In it, an exhausted Eastwood admits to Kennedy that he can no longer go on with one workout to get in shape for the mission. Enough is enough. What Kennedy does is saying that he is going to give him some reasons to go on. And that's when an attractive, indian looking female appears on top of the hill Clint was supposed to climb, and out of the blue, she gets naked from hip to head. Needless to say, he ran uphill as soon as he saw her, as if that was going to be the last thing he ever did. She was (is) BRENDA VENUS. There was some criticism as well, due to the fact that the bad guys were an homosexual and a disabled person. Clint managing to feed the controversy. Once again.
 |
| Hemlock and Bowman (Kennedy) thinking about how to motivate themselves |
Next on the list is THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES (premiered in 1976), another revisionist western which was again based on a novel and with had Eastwood behind and in front of the camera. That book was THE REBEL OUTLAW (JOSEY WALES), published in 1972 and written by FORREST CARTER, alter ego of ASA EARL CARTER, an ex activist who championed segregation and was linked to the infamous KU KLUX KLAN. A true diamond indeed, but his true identity wasn't made public until some years later, after the success of both book and film. Clint plays Wales, who, seeking revenge after the assassination of his family by Union soldiers during the american civil war, joins one confederate guerrilla. In the movie also star the already mentioned Sondra Locke (in her first movie with him and playing a character ten years younger than her real self), Bill McKinney again, JOHN VERNON and RICHARD FANSWORTH, among others. DAN GEORGE, á multifaceted indian chief who, among other stuff also acted, starred as well.
 |
| Lone Watie (George) and Wales |
Another very entertaining (and, of course, violent) flick, commercially successful and embraced by the critics (who saw in Eastwood's role a certain likeness to The Man With No Name). It needs to be taken into account that the western genre was a little bit in the doldrums. Clint himself deems this film as one of the highlights of his career, at least when considering his forays into this particular genre.
But being Eastwood who he is, this flick wasn't alien to controversy, one which this time even meant a turning point within the industry. As had happened with other movies, he wasn't the person who was supposed to direct the film, but this task was in the hands of the famous screenwriter and director PHILIP KAUFMAN. But Eastwood and him clashed, because Kaufman wanted to preserve the book's essence, but toning down certain stuff, because that book had been written by a fascist (apparently, the world at large did not know yet who the actual writer was, but the crew did; otherwise, this fact would not make sense, for, allegedly, the writer's identity wasn't made public until some time after). Clint, who was going to produce, refused. He even gave orders to shoot some takes when Kaufman was absent. But the most important thing for the two of them to lock horns was that they both liked Locke, with Kaufman's subsequent jealousy once Eastwood started a relationship with her.
 |
| Eastwood and Locke during the shooting |
All this led to Kaufman's sacking, which caused quite a stir within the directors guild, having Kaufman worked hard in the movie before being fired. When Eastwood and Warner refused to back out, they got fined, and the previous guild created what was called The Eastwood rule, according to which, no director could be fired from a movie, to be replaced in that task, by any actor or producer. I don't know whether that meant never or just under the risk of being fined. Granted, Eastwood ended up directing the flick.
Years later, Clint reflected on the nature of war in relation with this movie, saying that as pathetic as war is, it works as a bridge between countries and boosts mankind's creativity (concerning weaponry, etc), although he admits this assertion speaks too badly of humanity.
 |
| Eastwood, dressed as Wales and embodying the worst nightmare of rebellious directors |
Eastwood rejected some roles during these years, being the most notorious one what would become MARTIN SHEEN's part in APOCALYPSE NOW, by FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA, no less. The famous movie was eventually premiered in 1979 and its shooting was a nightmare. The reason Eastwood gave to not take part in said film was that he did not want to spend several weeks working in The Philippines. Instead, he starred in THE ENFORCER, third installment of the Harry Callahan saga, which saw the light of day in 1976. According to the outcome, this was not a bad choice, because this film became Eastwood's most successful (at the box office) flick to date.
It was directed by JAMES FARGO and in it, Callahan and his partner KATE MOORE (TYNE DALY), had to face a terrorist group called the PRSF (PEOPLE'S REVOLUTIONARY STRIKE FORCE), which had some resemblance to the far left terrorist organization known as the SLA (SYMBIONESE LIBERATION ARMY). JOHN MITCHUM (ROBERT's brother), who had already worked in some other Eastwood movies, including the previous one, repeated here for the third and last time as inspector FRANK DIGIORGIO. Clint wanted to direct, after having clashed with Ted Post in the previous chapter and the Kaufman controversy, but precisely because of that Kaufman thing, he ran out of time and Fargo, his usual assistant, made his debut as a director. As expected, Clint had the last word concerning some choices but the closer bond between the two men meant a troubleless shooting.
 |
| Eastwood in the usual poster picture |
Oddly enough, as much as some memories of the movie come back to me when writing about a terrorist group, what I do remember the most about what is likely to be Callahan's weakest movie, is Daly's role and Callahan's reaction when it comes to his work partner. I might be in the majority this time, for she got the best praising from the critics, who even welcomed the fact that Eastwood had left his ego at the door to give way to a role like hers. On the other hand, he was nominated as the year's worst actor by a humorous magazine and the critic, which was kind of indifferent towards this film, spoke of indications of tiredness concerning his role and criticized that the script had forgotten about the outrage which guided Callahan's actions, only to focus on the mayhem he generates. So it comes as a no surprise if I say that violence stood out once more. Another focal point of criticism was the absence of more credible villains, as Scorpio had been.
As fun fact, it deserves to be pointed out that the script (with some changes, of course, for Clint thought there was too much talk and it focused too much on the relationship between both partners, meaning a detriment to the action) was initially written by two film students who managed to reach Eastwood. Apart from that, Daly rejected the part as many as three times before she said yes, because she wasn't happy with the treatment her role got in certain scenes, and because she was not sure about her relationship with Callahan (she eventually was given the power concerning the development of her role, but ended up shocked by the level of violence all the same).
And also, Clint wanted this film (which was going to be called DIRTY HARRY III) to be the last of a trilogy, and this was the only Callahan movie in which the score was not composed by LALO SCHIFRIN, being JERRY FIELDING the person who took over this task.
*Eastwood's spanish dubbing was not handled by Constantino Romero.
 |
| The rapport between Moore and Callahan and an increased sense of humour in the dialogues are some of the most remembered things about The Enforcer |
Clint went back to direction with THE GAUNTLET, his only work premiered in 1977. He played BEN SHOCKLEY, an over the top cop who has to scort a prostitute (GUS MALLY, played by Sondra Locke) so she can testify against the mob. This is another fun and violent (it's getting tiring to pint this fact out all the time) action flick, but little else. I remember it as a good example of what I said about movies which seem to end abruptly, and, if memory serves, this is likely to be one of the most forgettable films (together with Two Mules For Sister Sara) that I've talked about so far. It could be a fourth and completely deranged Callahan movie, but worse, and without Harry Callahan. Even the film's poster, showing a comic aesthethics, went too far, showing a beefed up Eastwood as if he was trying to survive some kind of apocalypse.
 |
| Clint and Locke, comic heroes |
Little else can be said, to be honest. People liked it and was a moderate success but the critic thought otherwise. The best reviews praised the action and the sheer fun (fast, furious and funny) that the flick provided the audience with, but remarking that it had little brains. You just don't believe it, but allows you to have some fun.
MARLON BRANDO and BARBRA STREISAND were the actors who were supposed to star in the film in the first place. Yes, that feels weird indeed. Brandon was replaced by Steve McQueen, who did not get along quite well with Streisand, and that led to the both of them leaving the movie, which ended up in Eastwood's hands.
 |
| On the run |
Eastwood put his directing career on hold during a couple of years and his next role was playing PHILO BEDDOE in EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE (1978), the first of the two comedies in which he was accompanied by CLYDE, the famous orangutan (who was actually called MANIS). James Fargo directed again and the flick tells the story of said character, a trucker who wanders along the american west (the movie traverses rural landscapes and depicts the usual customs of the time's working class) together with his brother (and his girlfriend) and said monkey, looking for a former love interest (Locke), while taking part in fights and encountering all kinds of individuals, each of them more comical than the previous one. Well known names from the Eastwood movies of these years, like Geoffrey Lewis and Bill McKinney, show up again.
Clint, completely out of the blue, became infatuated with this project and wanted to star in it, against the advice of the majority of his co-workers, to increase his appeal with the audiences and to be seen in a different light. The critics butchered the movie and seemed to be hell bent on finding new and hilarious ways to butcher Eastwood as well. They said that the orangutan could be forgiven, for he could not read the script, but what was Eastwood's excuse? They also said Clint seemed to be using this film to find out how bad a movie he was related to could get. And one of my favourites: the fact that someone with his power chose to fill the screen with rubbish that way could only mean either that he despised his audience, or a complete display of masochism.
But god works in mysterious ways, or so they say, and people loved this film, which became a blockbuster. So much that it became Clint's biggest commercial triumph to date. One can perfectly picture him while laughing out loud (if he is capable of such thing) at the critic after this surprising turn of events.
 |
| A power couple and a forever friendship |
And there's more. The resounding success brought the expected sequel, a few years after, which I think is better than this one. But this one is fun in its own right, even if it's just for the ridiculous context and the funny situations, and also because of the change of tone. And it is not that Eastwood hadn't flirted with comedy, one way or another, before this movie, it's only that the guy is friends here with a monkey! Concerning Manis, Clint said he was a natural actor, but his scenes needed to be shot quickly, for his tolerance to boredom was scarce.
There's also something to be said regarding Sondra Locke (then Eastwood's girlfriend) and this flick, but I'll leave it for later, for her relationship with the actor was also controversial.
It needs to be stood out JOHN QUADE's hilarious role as CHOLLA, as the leader of the bike gang called THE BLACK WIDOWS, which always tries to avenge the constant humiliations they get from Beddoe. In fact is the whole gang which stands out. And also has to be said that ECHO, ORVILLE's girlfriend (Orville was Beddoe's brother) was played by a young BEVERLY D'ANGELO, a long running and experienced actress who may be better known to the broad audience because of her portray, years later, of EDWARD NORTON's long suffering mother in the brutal AMERICAN HISTORY X (TONY KAYE, 1998).
There's a song on the soundtrack which is called the same way as the movie, but the name actually comes from a line found in SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT (HAL NEEDHAM), a similar flick starred one year earlier by BURT REYNOLDS, who would soon cross his path with Eastwood's. PHIL EVERLY, half of famed musical duo THE EVERLY BROTHERS, sings in the movie, although uncredited.
 |
| The magnificent four: Echo, Orville, Clyde and Philo go across the west |
Eastwood's last films after The Outlaw Josey Wales had been successful, but no critic darlings whatsoever, although that was going to change in 1979, thanks to his last work with Don Siegel, the great ESCAPE FROM ALCATRAZ. This movie is based on the book of the same name from 1963 (written by J. CAMPBELL BRUCE), which told the real story that took place in 1962, of inmates FRANK MORRIS (played by Eastwood) and JOHN and CLARENCE ANGLIN, and their attempt to escape the famed prison. This fact led to the prison's closure (which is currently used as a museum) in 1963. Morris' pals were played by FRED WARD and JACK THIBEAU, respectively, and this film was also the acting debut of DANNY GLOVER, who soon after would get really famous as Mel Gibson's partner in the already mentioned Lethal Weapon. And there's another thing related to Gibson, for Alcatraz's warden was played by PATRICK MCGOOHAN, the sadistic english king EDWARD I, antagonist of Gibson himself in BRAVEHEART (Mel Gibson, 1995). As the reader can notice, there's no shortage of fun stuff related to the tandems Siegel-Eastwood and Donner-Gibson.
Maximum security prison Alcatraz, as everyone knows, was (is) located on the island of the same name, and was considered one of the most famous and safest in the whole world, due to the almost complete impossibility of escape. Because that island is in San Francisco's bay, two kilometers away from the coast, give or take, a fact which is joint by the cold temperature of the water and the strong currents. This led to some speculation, back in the day, concerning the veracity of the actual fact the film is based on, and the movie plays the hypothesis card towards its audience, so it's best to not say anything else. There are faults in some dialogues as well, concerning actual characters who were related to the prison.
 |
| Alcatraz Island, home to the famed prison |
There were many pros in regards to this movie, but one con was that Eastwood and Siegel argued (concerning stuff related to rights and the film's production), and, while is true that the two of them agreed on what was necessary to finish the flick, they would never work together again. Siegel would make two more movies after this one and would pass away in 1991.
The reviews were good this time around, with the movie and also with a convincing Clint (you know, his usual role of a man of few words who does more than he says). This film was also a box office success, although far from the previous film's figures. It is very good and is ranked really high among the best prison flicks ever. That is a very harsh movie genre, so there is no shortage of violent moments and tension. There was even a scene which matched an unpleasant actual fact which had happened during the thirties, when an inmate, in an attempt of seeking some attention, cut some of his fingers off and was taken to another prison.
Mind you, a hard work needed to be done, for the prison had remained unused for quite a long time. It had had its own power plant, which no longer worked, so three kilometers of electric wire needed to be laid to connect the island with San Francisco's electricity, besides spending a lot of money to prepare the prison.
 |
| Morris getting fit in order to escape |
 |
| But first, we need a proper plan |
With the dawn of the new decade Clint went back to directing with BRONCO BILLY (1980), a very likeable movie about a traveling, Wild West-themed circus that he also starred in (playing BRONCO BILLY MCCOY), along with some usuals like Locke, Lewis or McKinney. A minor entry in his filmography, no doubt, but I find it funny and accomplished. It's your run of the mill, after dinner movie, with almost no ambitions in which action, comedy and some drama merge. Eastwood himself went so far as to name it one of the most satisfying films of his career, because, despite not doing very well at the box office, the filming was very smooth (saving time and money, as usual) and it conveyed quite well things he had always wanted to say as a filmmaker. He also sang on the soundtrack.
 |
| Eastwood and Locke, one more time |
Unlike some other times, the commercial success was scarce, but the reviews were quite good, focusing on Eastwood's ability to join the american west's past and present, and also on the self references to be found in the main character.
Many years later, in 2019, a stage musical based on this movie was created.
*Eastwood's spanish dubbing was not handled by Constantino Romero.
 |
| Eastwood and the movie poster |
That same year 1980, and on time to be premiered in Christmas and obliterate the box office (and breaking some records in the process), arrived the sequel of Any Which Way But Loose, called ANY WHICH WAY YOU CAN and directed by BUDDY VAN HORN, with whom Eastwood would work again in the future. The cast of peculiar misfits is pretty much the same as in the first film, featuring Clyde once again, this time played by two different orangutans, BUDDHA and C.J. (Clyde Jumior), for Manid had grown too big, and once these animals reach a certain age stop being that docile. There was also Cholla (together with his embarrasing Black Widows), besides the new character played by WILLIAM SMITH (who portrayed JACK WILSON, Beddoe's antagonist and the reason why he will come back to fist fighting).
Not much else to say, for the outcome was similar as that of the first movie: ravid success and little critical acclaim, although there was not so much fuss about it this time around. The critics talked about entertainment and that's it. Better than the first one and I agree.
The song played by GLEN CAMPBELL, which was called like the film and appeared on the soundtrack, was a hit on the country charts. Eastwood sang on the album as well, and so did Sondra Locke.
 |
| Clyde, the third brother |
There was trouble concerning the orangutans and the filming (although the whole thing does not seem to be clear), and famous zoologist JANE GOODALL (together with someone called DALE PETERSON) published in 1993 a book called VISIONS OF CALIBAN, on which was told that Buddha had died due to the abuse inflicted by his trainer, and C.J. had only shown up for publicity reasons, once the movie had been filmed, because of Buddha's death. At first it was believed that this information was about Manis and not Buddha, but no. As I've said, some members of the set denied all this and I'm not certain about what Eastwood had to say in this regard.
Strangely enough, Goodall and Clint seem to be very good friends and recently (on the last 24th of March) joined forces at an environmental event.
 |
| You just have to laugh |
 |
| Goodall and Clint, together |
For the first time since the beginning of the sixities, and almost since his career as a low life actor in the middle of the fifties had begun, a whole year (1981) went by without anything from Eastwood to be premiered. The waiting was over in 1982, when two new films of his got the spotlight: FIREFOX and HONKYTONK MAN, both quite removed from one another and starred in and directed by him.
Although its filming had ended before, Firefox was premiered after Honkytonk Man. It was based on a 1977 novel of the same name, written by CRAIG THOMAS, and Eastwood portrayed MITCHELL GRANT, a Vietnam veteran on a mission to steal the plane the movie is named after from the russians, amidst the Cold War.
 |
| Another over the top poster |
I don't have much to say about this film, for it offers little despite its ballooned budget (at least by the standards of the day, and spent on new photography techniques and special effects instead of on improving the plot, aparently), the biggest one Clint had enjoyed so far. It doesn't even offer another relatively known or memorable cast member.
The reviews were not very good, and there's one I like because it encapsulates quite well the rest of them all: watch the trailer, read the book, play the game (there was one as well), just avoid the film. Or never before had the Eastwood director served the Eastwood actor so badly. A very long flick in which everything looks far fetched and yet, you know how is going to end. I remember it as a very dark film as well, kind of claustrophobic. And little less. No wonder this is the only Eastwood related project, since those from the fifties in which he barely appeared, to not reach a six mark on IMDB to date. Quite forgettable.
Apart from the videogame thing, it has to be said as trivia, that the action takes place during the Cold War and the movie was filmed while said war was still on, so it could not be shot in Russia, as expected, and Austria was chosen instead, when it came to east Europe.
This film marked Eastwood's debut as a credited producer.
*Eastwood's spanish dubbing was not handled by Constantino Romero.
 |
| Mitchell Grant |
Much better, although far from belonging among his best works, was Honkytonk Man, a film much more in vein with Eastwood's usual self in front of the screen, for as much as he could be mostly considered as an action movies actor so far, those movies used to had their feet firmly on the ground (and I'm not talking about the fact that he was flying a plane in the previous one, but about its futuristic and sci-fi vibe). In that sense, the role of RED STOVALL, a sour and ill singer (loosely basde on musician JIMMIE RODGERS) who wanders the american west (again) in search of his big chance, fits Eastwood like a hand in a glove. As if he was a modern day cowboy (the plot takes place in the thirties, during THE GREAT DEPRESSION) playing a guitar instead of firing a gun. He is joint by his nephew, played by his own, real life son KYLE (a renowned jazz musician and film score composer), and it also stands out VERNA BLOOM's presence, who had already been seen in High Plains Drifter.
This film was based on another book, called the same way as the movie, written by CLANCY CARLILE and published in 1980.
 |
| Stovall before the microphone |
A good, low profile flick, with some amusing moments and the distress that comes with knowing the inevitable. It had little success, being the movie that made the least money during its first weekend in all Eastwood's career, and overall his least commercially successful movie in more than a decade. In return, the critics have been good to it, and for some strange reason it was very well received in France (as it had happened with The Beguiled), being compared to THE GRAPES OF WRATH (1940), by JOHN FORD. I haven't seen that movie yet and I guess I will have to so I can find out about that comparison, although I guess is all about both plots time in history and some subjects, but not about the whole thing, for that film is deemed as one of the greatest movies ever made, a status quite removed from the much more modest one that Eastwood's flick enjoys.
Clint sang in the film and also on the soundtrack.
There was also a role for the young and promising actress ALEXA KENIN, who unfortunately died soon after. The famed teenager film PRETTY IN PINK (1986), directed by HOWARD DEUTCH and prototypical of the teenager's cinema of the eighties, was one of her last roles and was posthumously dedicated to her.
*Eastwood's spanish dubbing was not handled by Constantino Romero.
 |
| Clint together with son Kyle. I think the girl on the right is Alison, his daugther and Kyle's younger sister, and Alexa Kenin is on the left |
In 1983 SUDDEN IMPACT, fourth installment in the Harry Callahan saga (and the only one directed by Clint), saw the light of day. It would also mark the last time when Locke and him shared the screen and her last film to be premiered in theatres. The film tells the story of the vengeance that one woman exacts after having been gang raped years before, and this story had born as an idea for a movie starred by Sondra Locke, with nothing to do with this saga.
Another blockbuster, more little enthusiastic reviews, which stated that this fourth chaper was far from being the best of the saga and I, for one, don't know what to say. I should see all five films again to have a more focused opinion. I do remember it as a film which gives every Callahan fan without having a great knowledge about cinema and without being as ridiculous and pretentious as some critics are, all they are expecting, meaning action, violence (maybe the most violent one) and those little things here and there that will make people chat about for years on end.
Mixed feelings in the end. Good Eastwood chops at directing in a film which is sub par when compared to his directorial skills, a villain as great as Scorpio was is still missing, lack of coherence when telling the story (for it has too many leaps), Callahan always seems to be in the right place at the right time and, to make some room for controversy, the film was accused of racism as well, given that Harry has a black partner and said partner has little screen time. On the other hand, there was praise from, of all things, the feminism movement (I wasn't expecting something like this, to be honest), thanks to the study the film does on the aftermath of a rape. Clint Eastwood, and even more, Harry Callahan, being praised by feminists. What's not to like?
 |
| Someone is asking for a hole in the head |
It's also funny to witness the clash between Harry, a cop who even though is not against the law (obviously), does not hesitate to make use of it no matter how, even if that means violating some civil rights (something that has earned the saga the usual epithet of fascist), and someone who does pretty much the same as him but without being allowed to. Callahan is not allowed to either, of course, because he happens to be an enforcer of the law and not an avenger, but you know how things work with him.
Sondra Locke, a woman who looked much younger than she actually was, could portray women younger than her, and that led to several anecdotes in this film, because she was older than some characters who were older than her in the plot. There was an scene in which some man even treated her as a child when that actor was only seven years older than her in the real life.
But anything that could be said about this film pales when compared to the fact that this is the film within the saga (I have to point this out because people tend to believe this happened in Dirty Harry and that is not correct) in which Callahan uttered, early in the plot, the legendary line Go ahead, make my day, attributed to the aforementioned John Milius (uncredited in this movie), CHARLES B. PIERCE (who wrote the story) and JOSEPH STINSON (screenwriter), without being clear who of the three exactly came up with the idea. This happens during a robbery which takes place at Harry's usual diner. Once three of the four robbers (all of them black, by the way) have been mercilessly shot down, the fourth and unfortunate thief shields himself behind a waitress. Callahan could not care less, and he aims at him while daring him to do something stupid, because he will be more than happy to make him end up as the other three, even if the place is already surrounded by the police. Callahan says something similar later in the film.
 |
| Callahan, right after saying the sixth most famous line in all american cinema's history |
Eastwood, or rather his character, has his fair share of great lines in this saga, but this one in particular trascended the seventh art big time. In 2005 a ceremony was hosted in which the AMERICAN FILM INSTITUTE unveiled a list with the hundred most famous lines in all american cinema, taking their legacy and impact in popular culture, and this one was ranked sixth. If that ranking wasn't enough to picture the gigantic dimension of the sentence, let's say that something as completely legendary and well known as Bond, James Bond was ranked twenty second. In fact, another very famous one from 007, related to how the secret agent likes his Martini was ranked ninetieth. There's another one by Eastwood (also Callahan's), the already talked about Do I Feel Lucky?, which was listed as fifty first.
Just in case someone's interested, the first one was the Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn which CLARK GABLE, playing RHETT BUTLER, said to VIVIAN LEIGH (SCARLETT O'HARA) in GONE WITH THE WIND (1939), directed by VICTOR FLEMING.
And even more. It's been used in songs and music albums have been named after it, and it's been heard in more films and TV shows (let alone some other situations of everyday's life). But even RONALD REAGAN himself, then president of the United States, used during a speech concerning I don't know which taxes, in 1985. And Eastwood promoted his run to ´mayor's office in Carmel using stickers which read Go ahead, make me major.
*Eastwood's spanish dubbing was not handled by Constantino Romero, depriving us of the chance to listen to the legendary catchphrase with his voice, but Harry's spanish dubbing was taken over by HÉCTOR CANTOLLA, most likely Eastwood's second most usual voice in Spain.
 |
| Cinema's icon |
TIGHTROPE was one of the two movies which were premiered in 1984. Clint played WES BLOCK, a cop who chases a crazy killer and rapist with sadomasochistic tendencies. RICHARD TUGGLE, who had worked in Escape From Alcatraz, was credited as director, but truth is, this film is listed on IMDB among Eastwood's works as such, although uncredited. Apparently, Clint did much of the work, unhappy as he was with how Tuggle was handling things. Clint's daughter ALISON (who had also been in Bronco Billy and Any Which Way You Can, with no credit to her name either) is in the movie, as well as the very young actress JENNY BECK (she and Alison play Block's daughters) and canadian actress GENEVIÈVE BUJOLD. There's also some screen time for the famous actor DAN HEDAYA.
The plot takes place in that very peculiar city which New Orleans is (it seems like the script was based on some written pieces about an elusive rapist who terrorized San Francisco's bay, but the action was taken somewhere else to prevent this film from being compared to the Callahan saga) and I have memories of a very dark film with some twisted scenes, given the nature of the crimes and due to a great deal of the investigation being conducted at brothels and, of course, by night. Hence the R rating which adorned the film, the second highest rate when it comes to explicit content, only second to adults only. A good and entertaining thriller, even more if some of the movies Eastwood was related to during this decade are to be taken into consideration. It was successful and the critics liked it, deeming it more ambitious than the Callahan flicks. They even ranked it close to the top of his directorial achievements. The standpoint on the abuses perpetrated to women was stood out, and also the fact that a tough guy like Block knew how to treat and respect a lady (as if both things could not go hand in hand although, truth is, some of Clint's previous works had not been the most uplifting thing in that sense). It has to be noted that Block is divorced and lives with his daughters, to begin with.
 |
| Eastwood with her daughters in the movie, Jenny Beck and Alison, his real life daughter |
 |
| A perfect gentleman |
CITY HEAT, directed by RICHARD BENJAMIN, was also premiered in 1984, but it did not fare as well, despite having been written by the very famous BLAKE EDWARDS and the fact that Eastwood was joined by no less than BURT REYNOLDS. It tells the shenanigans of MIKE MURPHY (Reynolds), an ex cop turned privaye investigator, and lieutenant SPEER (Clint), in a nameless city (if I remember properly, although it could be Kansas City, if we keep the title of Edwards' original script in mind) during the Prohibition. There's a small role for actor JACK NANCE, DAVID LYNCH's usual collaborator, who had starred in the completely atrocious cult movie ERASERHEAD,by Lynch himself, back in 1977.
Reynolds needs no introduction, being (among other things) a former sex symbol who made a living for himself portraying charismatic and arrogant louts, in flicks which used to be comedies and/or action ones, and with lots of fame and commercial success. He had just had a couple of great triumphs with Smokey And The Bandit (1977) and THE CANNONBALL RUN (1981), both directed by Hal Needham. Pretty much in the vein of what Eastwood had done together with the orangutan a few years prior, and I guess the intention was putting two mega stars together to create something similar.
 |
| Former friends |
But this film not only failed to live up to its own expectations (it again falls short of a six out of ten on IMDB, so people did not like it very much) but also failed to obtain the success at the box office which was expected, given the raw materials. It did not leave any of the main stars happy with it either. Edwards was supposed to direct, in principle, but was dismissed, and in spite of staying as the screenwriter, ended up disgusted by the final product. Reynolds summed all up stating that, if only the trailer could be watched, but not the movie itself, this would become the most succesful ever. He said he did not think Eastwood saw his role as Edwards did, although he explained Clint was hurt by Edwards dismissal as the director. To add insult to injury, Reynolds had an accident during the filming which led to bloated speculations from the media.
This movie was not something to write home about, as I recollect. I saw it not many years ago and I don't remember much, so I guess that speaks volumes of the little enjoyment I got. You would expect a dim witted but funny flick, but it did not achieve even that, despite having the two main men rivalling for the attention of the same woman within a comical environment and stuff like that.
Too much ado about nothing, although Eastwood played the piano on the soundtrack at least.
 |
| A bitter memory, mostly for a Burt Reynolds riddled by the critics |
In 1985 Eastwood directed one episode of the TV anthology AMAZING STORIES, created and produced by a certain STEVEN SPIELBERG, being this, if I'm not mistaken, his one and only incursion into the direction of televised fiction. In said chapter, to which I'll go back later on with a list of all the Eastwood works I haven't been able to see yet, HARVEY KEITEL and Sondra Locke are the starring couple. Again, I haven't seen it so I won't say anything, although its 6,4 grade it has on IMDB comes across as surprisingly low, considering everything this episode could offer.
Also in 1985, Clint went back to his roots with another western, PALE RIDER, one of his best and most popular films from this decade. He directed and starred, and the plot focus on a mysterious rider who comes out of the blue to help some miners out, because they are being terrorized by a thug during the Gold Rush. It seems to be based on another western from the fifties, SHANE, directed by GEORGE STEVENS and premiered in 1953. As I gather some info, I read it is even considered as a new version of the same film, which I guess is the same as considering it a remake, but is not clear and I don't remember having seen Shane to give an opinion of my own.
This flick uses to be related, within Eastwood's filmography, to High Plains Drifter, not only because of its starting premise, but also due to its very own idea of justice and some supernatural and religious flair to it. Because Clint's role, known only as THE PREACHER, due to him wearing a clerical collar, comes out of thin air after one of the characters starts to pray for a miracle. No one knows about him and the ambiguity permeates certain matters, which are left to the audience's interpretation, same as in the previous mentioned film. The movie is named after one of THE FOUR HORSEMEN, who rides a pale horse and symbolizes death, and some biblical references can be found in the movie, starting with said sudden apparition of the main character.
 |
| The Preacher |
The western genre was far from being fashionable during the eighties, and light years away from its popularity during its heyday, besides being a genre deemed as doomed, after the enormous flop that HEAVEN'S GATE (1980), by Michael Cimino, was, but Eastwood's film meant a new lease on life for it and the movie became, most likely, the most successful western from the decade. The reviews were good and there were people who said that, while Clint seemed to have improved with time, the audience at large took very long to value his virtues as a filmmaker. This seems to be true if we take another reviewer into consideration, who went as far as saying that 1985 would be rememebered as the year in which Eastwood eventually won his respect as an artist. If you ask me about that assertion I have to say that many people seemed to be late to the party. You know, scholars stuff. The film critics are quite particular in this sense, for they devote themselves to dissect something they are supposed to love, at least in principle, but almost never seem to be happy with, not to mention the times when they completely butcher or treat it with disdain.
I'd like to see this movie one more time, now that I've read certain things, so I can appreciate it better. It is a highly esteemed movie but I don't remember to enjoy it as much as it seems to deserve. Mind you, what I remember the most about it (because I talked about it with some friends) is that it reminded me completely of the square one of any episode from the A TEAM, the very famous eighties TV show which had begun been aired in 1983, in the sense that someone with a mysterious and dark past, whom no one knows about, comes out pretty much of the blue to help someone who's being helplessly oppresed by some despot.
And it's time now to say a few words about LENNIE NIEHAUS, a jazz saxophonist whom Clint had known during the military service and who shared his musical preferences. He had already worked with Clint before, but Pale Rider marked his first time as the composer of the entire soundtrack of an Eastwood flick, a feat he will repeated several more times after, as well as taking part in some others, one way or another, winning quite a few awards in the process. Niehaus died in 2010.
 |
| God works in mysterious ways |
1986 brought one of the roles Eastwood is best known for by the public at large, sergeant HIGHWAY, from HEARTBREAK RIDGE. Highway is a decorated and veteran marine who is in charge of a platoon of useless youngsters, whom he will have to get ready for one last mission during Granada's american invasion. The title refers to one battle in the Korean War after which Highway had been decorated, and Eastwood does his usual treble of directing, acting and producing. He was joined by MARSHA MASON and a young MARIO VAN PEEBLES, as one of the duffers of the platoon.
Before commenting trivia stuff I have to say that my memories of this film bring back a very funny movie during its first half, or at least during everything that takes place before the military conflict itself, but not as good when it comes to that conflict. But who cares? Military, historical, you name it, inaccuracies aside, this flick is gold only because of the hilarious dialogues, with Clint Eastwood turned into a verbal machine gun bent on uttering one atrocity after another. It's classic Eastwood, with some lines destined to offend every possible group. Something quite difficult to replicate in this dat and age, as we all know, although anyone rational enough, willing to do some thinking and with enough analytical skills, might realize that, as much as many of Highway's lines (and not only his) can be reprehensible, their intention is not offending just for the sake of it, but this is about people of past generations and different values, expressing themselves without beating around the bush and within the proper context. All this is magnificently supported by Constantino Romero's spanish dubbing, with that voice of his which is one of a kind, always, but finds here the perfect symbiosis with the actor. How many times have been Eastwood movies talked about, only for people ending up saying something about the things he says in this flick? And I think that, as far as Spain is concerned, Highways' most vitriolic lines are even more popular than Callahan's.
Let's judge for yourself:
 |
| Eastwood, closely followed by a suffering Mario Van Peebles |
Clint got infatuated by one script which told the adeventures of a Korean War veteran who handed the baton over younger soldiers, and he asked the Army for permission to shoot in one of its premises (Fort Bragg). The Army said no, necause it did not like neither the profile, nor the methods of the main role, not to mention his language. It considered that old fashioned and not something it wanted to be related to. Clint insisted precisely because of that, the contast between generations and the fact that he believed there were values worthy of keeping in the way the american army from the forties and the fifties proceeded. The Marines supported the film, and that's why Highway's character becomes one of them, although a late one, for he had been before in the Army, which was the one that mainly took part in the battle the movie takes its name after, so contradictions could be avoided. Later on, the Marines rejected the film as well, and many of them who saw it quoted some inaccuracies (something similar happened with the Ministry Of Defense), but Eastwood carried on with the flick, and thanks mostly to a great deal of the filming having been done within premises belonging to the Marines on the west coast.
 |
| War hero |
The public welcomed the movie and it was another triumph at the box office, besides having overall positive reviews (also for Eastwood's acting), and you could say this film has aged well in that department. Those reviews focused positively on the dialogues and the relationship between Highway and the young men he instructs. There were accusations of sexism though (how could not?), and also of imperialism, which stated that the film depicted the facts as another military win for the Unted States with no information about the historical or political context whatsoever.
 |
| I am gunnery sergeant Highway |
Nothing to be reviewed in 1987, and once in 1988 along came Clint's final portray of Harry Callahan in THE DEAD POOL, directed by Buddy Van Horn. The title refers to some kind of game which consits in guessing when someone will die. That game seems to be conducted by a serial killer and it contemplates a few well known names from San Francisco's bay area, including Harry. The main cast is completed by some famed actors, such as Northern Ireland's LIAM NEESON, PATRICIA CLARKSON and a very young and then almost unknown JIM CARREY.
Eastwood said about this last installment that it was fun to play Callahan once again. Pretty much like being reunited with an old pal some time after. He made clear after the film that he was not interested in a sixth movie, and joked about a retired Harry who devotes himself to fishing and catches the bad guys with a walking frame.
 |
| Liam Neeson plays a film director |
This last chapter not only is the shortest one, but also the least commercially successful one and the one which got the worst reviews, although there are some for every taste. On the con side it was said that it could not help looking like a mini film when compared to the legendary first movie, that it was for Callahan's die hards only and that it was not a fitting ending to the saga. On the pro side, there were some critics who put this film at the same level as the first flick, or at least only one step below.
As some other times before, I don't remember much about it, for I saw it when I was still at school. But, unlike with some others, I do remember I enjoyed it quite a lot. I saw it more than thirty years ago, because it was on the telly one day, during the time when the megafamous hard rock band from California, GUNS & ROSES, was at the absolute top of their game. They were ubiquitous back then, and the movie shows the very young musicians in some scenes (I won't talk about them so I don't spoil anything). I guess the main reason to give them some screen time was to take advantage of their appeal among the younger audience, because when the movie was premiered they were on their meteoric rise to stardom, one year after having released their APPETITE FOR DESTRUCTION (1987), which I think is (among some other feats) the most successful debut album in all music's history. Needless to say, the fact that they were in the movie was thorougly discussed the day after at school.
 |
| Axl Rose, Guns & Roses vocalist, first on the left, top row |
That's the most prominent fun fact to be told about the film, but there are some others. It stands out the fact that this was the flick where Callahan left another one of his most memorable lines: Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.
The film also features some car chases through the very steep streets of San Francisco, much in the vein of what was seen in the famed BULLITT (PETER YATES, 1968), with Steve McQueen. Those scenes were quite difficult to shoot, with some streets whose traffic needed to be cut and, above all, jumps between distiricts which meant continuity flaws within the plot, although these are not easy to notice, due to the action's speed. Nothing that I knew of until now.
I have to mention as well that this is the only movie in the saga in which actor ALBERT POPWELL can't be seen, one way or another. Having the same actor (or several) in more than one film of the same saga, playing different roles, was nothing new (Eastwood and some others did it in Leone's films), so this information would not be even worthy of mention wasn't it for the fact this actor was the one who was lying on the ground in Dirty Harry while Callahan said the Do I feel lucky? line to him. Honourable mention to him, but I did not know anything about this either and right now I can't even picture him in any scene apart from that.
 |
| A very cool poster indeed |
Also in 1988, Eastwood took a turn to the unexpected in his career, when he remained solely behind the camera (first time since Breezy, where he only did a cameo, and leaving that episode of Amazing Stories aside) to join cinema and his passion for jazz, and direct BIRD, which would become the first of several biopics to be directed by him. Bird was starred by FOREST WHITAKER, portraying the very well known jazz musician CHARLIE (BIRD) PARKER, and depicts moments of Parker's life since his childhood to his untimely passing, besides focusing on important relationships in his life, like the one he had with his wife and some professional ones with fellow musicians.
Clint had been fascinated with Parker almost his entire existence, and he even saw him playing live in 1946, so he kept an ongoing fight for Warner to buy the rights of a script based on the memoirs of CHAN PARKER, Parker's widow, which had been written in the seventies by screenwriter and director JOEL OLIANSKY. When he got what he wanted, RICHARD PRYOR, the actor Oliansky had always had in mind, had gotten uninterested, and hence Whitaker's involvement, to whom this movie meant his discovery. Eastwood even asked Chan for her contribution, and she accepted, lending some private recordings. In order for that music to be suitable to be used in the movie, Parker's solos were electronically isolated and some renowned musicians were hired to play nd record the backing parts.
 |
| Whitaker together with actor Samuel E. Wright, who portrayed another one of jazz's music greats, Dizzy Gillespie |
Quite respected by the critic (and with some praising by the recently deceased CHARLIE WATTS, famed THE ROLLING STONES drummer and jazz aficionado, to boot), this flick even triumphed awards-wise, but failed commercially, becoming Eastwood's worst film in that regard since Breezy. Clint attributed it to an increasing indifference in jazz music by the black citizenship. I remember this film too long and dark, and not specially remarkable. I don't dislike jazz music (I know nothing at all about it) when it comes to hear it without actually paying attention to it, but I'm not into it as much as being the main reason to see a film like this one. I'm not this movie's best possible target, but I guess that people who dig jazz, and Parker in particular, will find it much more interesting. I saw it because it is Clint Eastwood who we are talking about, although I think it has been the penultimate film of his that I've seen, no less, and I did it not long ago, therefore Forest Whitaker had already become a very well regarded actor for many years now to become another incentive.
A good film for a different kind of audience, hence the good reviews which, on the other hand, were not shared by also actor and director SPIKE LEE, son to another jazz musician, who said that this film had not succeed in understanding neither the essence, nor Parker's sense of humour. I think he also wondered why a white man was involved in a movie like this (bullshit of the first oreder, if you ask me, and even more so coming from someone who is notorious because of his commitment against racism). Apparently there has been no love lost between him and Eastwood for many years now (I'm not sure about the hatchet being already buried or not), since Lee denounced the lack of black actors in a couple of war movies that Eastwood filmed in the current century (and which will be reviewed later on) and Clint told him to shut his mouth, that he wasn't going to play equality's game only for representation's sake, if that was going to lead to some historical inaccuracies. He also said that, had he had to do a movie with a high percentage of black people because that was what reality demanded, he would do it, as he had done in Bird. And this is when Clint unleashed another blow, when he said that he had been the one to film Bird because nobody else had, and he wondered why Lee, after all his babbling about Eastwood's ways, had not done it himself back in the day if he was so annoyed by someone like Clint doing it. Because he was worried with some other stuff. A bitter pill to swallow, Spike Lee.
 |
| Another controversial (unintentionally though) movie |
Concerning the awards, the best thing to be told is that Whitaker won the best actor one in Cannes that year, besides earning a nomination to the Golden Globes as the best leading actor. Eastwood won said Golden Globe as best director and the movie won an Oscar in the best sound category.
 |
| Whitaker being instructed by Eastwood |
Clint would wrap the eighties up with his acting in another Buddy Van Horn's flick (his third and last with him), PINK CADILLAC, an action movie premiered in 1989 and which is the very last Eastwood film that I've seen so far, thus coming full circle. I was aware of its scarce merits and that fact got confirmed after watching it, being not only one of his least appreciated movies (his worst on IMDB, in fact, after becoming a movie star, and tying only with one of those flicks from the fifties), but also, most likely, the worst one I remember having seen with him involved. He plays TOMMY NOWAK, a bounty hunter who chases a woman (LOU ANN MCGUINN, played by BERNADETTE PEERS), while facing a bunch of loony nazis. This far into his career it was difficult to stomach the fact that the leading role in this film was played by the same person behind things like Bird, Breezy or some of the already mentioned westerns, but taking into account the vast majority of the films Clint would take part from then on, this feels even more weird. I have no idea about Eastwood's motivations to be involved in some projects, but reading about some of the figures he earned for his films, it would be really shocking that those motivations were economical. Who knows? I guess sometimes is all about taking part in something funnier and less demanding.
 |
| Peers betting with Clint |
The soundtrack of the movie was even more succesful than the movie itself, because the reviews were mostly bad (although there were some critics who praised Peers' job in making Clint's role more human) and the figures were not good either (it went straight to the videoclubs in the UK, with no showing in theatres whatsoever). One of Clint's career lowest points.
As fun facts I have to mention that Jim Carrey has again a very small role in this movie, and another canadian celebrity (not that much then), rocker BRYAN ADAMS, appears playing a gas station attendant. On the other side, this was Van Horn's last effort as a director and the last movie with the slightest comedy trait in which Eastwood would take part in.
 |
| With Bryan Adams |
End of the third chapter
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.
End of the fourth chapter
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.
 |
| 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.
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-
 |
| 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.
*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
Eastwood and Damon paired again to shoot one of the most underrated and overlooked films in the former's entire career (this is, as usual, a personal opinion), the very interesting HEREAFTER, premiered at the end of 2010. Clint resorts to the supernatural once again, and the plot revolves around three intertwined stories about people somehow damaged by death and their own connections to dead people. Matt Damon plays GEORGE LONEGAN, a clairvoyant who loses interest in his gift, and he is confronted by beautiful belgian actressun CÉCILE DE FRANCE, who portrays MARIE LELAY, a french journalist who, while in India for work, survives the brutal tsunami who took place in the Indian Ocean in December, 2004. Other performers are BRYCE DALLAS HOWARD, the well known daughter of the already mentioned Ron Howard, and JAY MOHR.
This movie was shaped after an improvised script written by the renowned londoner screenplayer and playwright PETER MORGAN, who wrote it out of the blue, without it being assigned by anybody. The script reached the attention of a Clint Eastwood drawn to the idea of filming a movie with some supernatural traits and to how Morgan had included actual facts in the fiction.
 |
| The film poster, showing a premier date already in 2011, as it happened in Spain |
Pretty much as in Invictus case, Hereafter had little trouble to loosely double its original budget, but unlike that one, the critics were mixed and I liked it a lot. I found remarkable the scenes shot in London, for I think this film is the only one, together with Million Dollar Baby, in Eastwood's filmography, in which said city is shown (Maggie and Frankie travel to Europe so she can fight and I think there are some combats in England, because I remember having seen the Union Jack somewhere). Be that as it may, I like the two main roles and Damon's and De France's performances. And like a film like THE IMPOSSIBLE (J.A. BAYONA, 2012) would show soon after, all the scenes concerning the tsunami are quite striking. But above all, I'm drawn for once to the movie's relationship with the supernatural and the hereafter, and the unscrupulous use that some people make of it to cash in on the powerlessness, the good intentions and the ignorance of others.
The critics did not agree with me, but Roger Ebert was pleasantly surprised due to the kind treatment that, according to him, the flick provides that hypothetical life beyond death with. But the good reviews were in the minority (the usual websites do not show a lot of enthusiasm by the audience), with the critics stating that the premise is good food for thought, but the plot is not on par with it. Some say the film sometimes even crosses the line towards embarrassment (I do not remeber anything of the sort, although some years have gone by and I have not revisited this movie), although everything is balanced by some thrill, a peculiar sense of humour and a realistic take on the supernatural, if something like that makes sense. At the same time, this movie is sometimes pigeonholed with titles like THE SIXTH SENSE (M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN, 1999), etc, and I don't think that's right.
 |
| De France and Damon sharing a scene |
Hereafter got an Academy Awards nomination, for best visual effects, but it did not win.
Clint Eastwood wrote the score, once again.
Regarding the trivia, it needs to be said that Clint Eastwood had been pleasingly impressed by Matt Damon's work in Invictus, to the extent he even rescheduled the shooting, so that a very busy Damon (already filming THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, by GEORGE NOLFI, 2011) could fulfill his responsibilities and take part in Hereafter as well. But before the two of them reached that agreement, Damon himself adviced Eastwood to give his role to someone else, being CHRISTIAN BALE, one of my favourites, a candidate. Eastwood did not want to and they agreed on stopping the filming for around two months, until Damon could be available again.
 |
| Eastwood instructs an attentive Cécile De France |
In order to portray the two english twins, JASON and MARCUS, Eastwood preferred kids with no acting background than experienced ones. Those kids, siblings FRANKIE and GEORGE MCLAREN, played one twin each, although they ended up playing both of them the same one.
The filming took place in several countries (France, England and the States), but the whole project had its base in the United Kingdom, due to british funding and tax benefits.
And as a very dramatic and unlucky coincidence, it has to be mentioned that this film was premiered in Japan at the end of February, 2011, but only a few days later, on the 11th of March, took place in the japanese region of Tõhoku, the most powerful recorded eartquake (together with a tsunami) in Japan's history (since modern seismography began, at the beginning of the XX century, and fourth ever). Around twenty thousand people lost their lives, leaving missed and injured ones aside, besides the enormous damages caused by the disaster, so Hereafter was removed from the japanese theatres before due time, because its horrific scenes depicting 2004's tsunami were not the most suitable ones to watch at that time.
 |
| Lonegan tries to move on with Melanie (Howard) |
During a career like his it makes sense that Clint Eastwood gets to work with some of the most prestigious actors and directors, and his next film, the biopic called J. EDGAR (2011), was going to add another big name to that list: no other than the one and only LEONARDO DICAPRIO, arguably one of the most relevant american actors of the last thirty years. DiCaprio portrayed the controversial J. Edgar Hoover, famed FBI's first director, in this movie, in which also took part the currently fallen from grace ARMIE HAMMER, the always great NAOMI WATTS, the nowadays ubiquitous ADAM DRIVER, who made his debut here with a very small role, and the more than prestigious english actress JUDI DENCH. Another high profile cast which was completed by the very well known LEA THOMPSON (LORRAINE in the BACK TO THE FUTURE saga, by ROBERT ZEMECKIS), another contribution by Jeffrey Donovan, JOSH LUCAS and DERMOT MULRONEY.
J. Edgar uses a nonlinear storyline and the plot shows Hoover's work when trying to establish the FBI, his subsequent effort to save this office from what he perceived as threats, and his own recollections, already as a retired old man (Hoover passed away in 1972), about what happened during the early years of said office.
 |
| Di Caprio together with Clint at the shooting |
Although it was not meant to be, Eastwood's collaboration with screenplayer DUSTIN LANCE BLACK, a champion for gay rights, was seen by the critics as surprising. Black had written the script for MILK (2008), GUS VAN SANT's triumphant movie about politican and gay activist HARVEY MILK, who was the first openly gay person to be elected for a civil service position in California. That flick got a handful of nominations at the Academy Awards and also got Penn his second Oscar as a ñeading actor and another one for Black as scriptwriter, whom was assigned a script for a movie about Hoover soon after, which ended up in Clint's hands. That could be the reason why the film hints at the alleged homosexuality of the main character (that fact is not clear anyway, although Hoover was someone who lived with his mother past his forties and was known as someone who used to threat anyone who expressed any insinuation about him being gay), focused on the relationship between his right hand and subsequent heir CLYDE TOLSON, played by Hammer.
As most of Clint's recent movies had done, this one did also well at the box office. One of the main reasons for him to be hired was his famous efficiency as far as time and budget are concerned when filming, and he lived up to his reputation one more time, finishing the flick with less money than expected, while making more than double the money of the initial budget.
To no one's surprise, the critics were very enthusiastic concerning DiCaprio performance, about whom it was said that he managed to shed some light on some Hoover's traits that were little known, maybe even by himself. But the overall product was not as well received. The depiction of the character's most controversial facts, public or private, and even how pathetic some of them were, was praised, because it was done in a very measured way, without the film indulging itself in some sensationalist stuff. But it was also said that the movie was pompous and had some narrative issues, as well as lighting and makeup ones.
 |
| An irate J. Edgar Hoover |
I've done the maths and I think that, out of the eighteen films that Eastwood has directed in the XXI century, I've seen eleven of them at the theatre, but J. Edgar was not one of them. In fact, I do not have any recollections of this movie being on the billboard and I do not remember myself thinking about going to see it, something which is weird, because when an Eastwood movie is the matter at hand I just go see it without any further thinking. It just slipped under my radar and I saw it long after with a certain amount of caution and a lot of lazyness, being this flick about the life of someone I knew little about, no matter how famous he was, and also about someone who was a politician and a bureaucrat. But it was Clint and DiCaprio who were involved, and the outcome was much better than expected, to be honest. As one review said, a biopic about someone as powerful as Hoover was, had to have something which showed what made that person tick, his motivations, or just give up and let the audience see that the shenanigans of that job were much more appealing than those of Hoover himself, and this movie was not able to come up on top of this quandary. I won't go that far, that's too big an analysis for me, but it is true that Eastwood shows a very often overwhelmed Hoover, thanks to a flawless DiCaprio, and I don't know whether the affairs related to the FBI of those days were more interesting than Hoover's, but the film really is interesting. And there's also everything concerning Hoover's sex life, something he was also said to be completely alien to. It had to be tough to have certain leanings and deal with them, being who he was in America halfway through the previous century.
 |
| Di Caprio with Hammer and Judi Dench, his fictional mother |
It was said that DiCaprio, already a star in his own right, accepted to lower his salary from the usual twenty million dollars to only two, so he could take part in the movie. I do not know the reasons why or even if this was true at all, but if it was, this detail would be remarkable, although I do not think it had anything to do with Eastwood, because, as appealing as working with him may be, had DiCaprio actually lowered his salary, that happened before Clint took over. Be that as it may, perhaps DiCaprio might have regretted his decision of working alongside Eastwood, and not precisely because of the endless and uncomfortable makeup sessions needed to portray an aged Hoover. It's been already mentioned (several times) that Clint is an austere director and he doesn't like to repeat takes, and that might have clashed with the intensity and perfectionism of DiCaprio, who was probably accustomed to something different. There were no comments regarding this issue, but it seems that the relationship between director and actor got cold, which, together with the not very enthusiastic reviews the film got (leaving DiCaprio aside), make this collaboration between these two stars, most likely, the first and last.
 |
| I'll do as many takes as I please, Clint. Just wait and see, kiddo |
HELEN GANDY, the (according to Hoover himself) indispensable and long lasting secretary of the main character, was played by Naomi Watts, but not before another star, CHARLIZE THERON, decided to not take part in the project. And before Watts, Eastwood considered the also great AMY ADAMS, with whom he'd work soon after.
Clint wrote the score again and his son Kyle was also involved, even acting as a member of a music band, and, concerning the awards, Di Caprio got a prizeless nomination in the best leading actor category at the Golden Globes.
As for the historical accuracy of what is told in the movie, J. Edgar hits bullseye when presenting Hoover as a reformist, who tried to make his department a more modern and professional one with the implementation of scientific methods, but the narrative trick which shows him dictating his memoirs is fictional. As it also seems to be fake the story, told by the plot, about him and a letter addressed in 1964 to MARTIN LUTHER KING, aiming to blackmailing the latter using some sexual indiscretions of his. King understood that was a warning for him to committ suicide, although it was also said that that was an effort to prevent him from accepting the Nobel Prize For Peace, which he eventually won, later that same year. Whatever. That letter existed, but it seems unlikely that it was written by Hoover, like the flick shows. There is a chance that maybe he told someone else within the FBI to do it. which is pretty much the same, isn't it?
 |
| The movie poster |
Eastwood went back to acting in the baseball related movie TROUBLE WITH THE CURVE, premiered in 2012, and for the first time since In The Line Of Fire (I'm not counting his cameo in Casper) he acted under the direction of someone different than himself. In fact. I think I remember having read something about him planning, thas deep into his career, not only to not act under the direction of other directors, but also, after Gran Torino, to not act at all anymore. That's why this film was not supposed to cast him at first, but he accepted to work in it as a personal favour to its director, because this film ended up being directed by his usual co-worker ROBERT LORENZ.
Eastwood plays GUS LOBEL, a veteran scout for the ATLANTA BRAVES, who suspects his job is on the line for being considered a dinosaur incapable to cope with the new methods of his trade. Lobel gets himself absorbed in what could be his last assignment as a scout, in which he will be helped by his daughter MICKEY, a lawyer with whom he was a strained relationship (played by Amy Adams). Mickey gets involved because Pete (JOHN GOODMAN), good friends with Gus, ask her to, given that he suspects that Gus has health issues.
 |
| Goodman, Adams and someone who does not ring any bells |
Scott Eastwood has a role as well (ball player BILLY CLARK, probably as a tribute to a former player for the Braves), and I could do without someone like JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE, who plays JOHNNY FLANAGAN. Namely, and to be honest, cheesy singers turned actors or viceversa are, in principle, not worthy of my trust. But you gotta give credit where credit is due, for I've seen more films with him in them and I have not been bothered by his presence a single time. This one is no exception and the film, being as it is, a predictable and little ambitious flick about sports, provided me with a great time. It's good fun, despite we all know what is going to happen, one way or another, and Lobel's character fits Eastwood like a hand in a glove, being (and this is just my own idea) a non violent answer to Gran Torino's Walt Kowalski, save for some differences, of course. The world that Kowalski does not recognize anymore becomes here the sport Lobel has gotten along all his life with, and good old Lobel, an untrusting and reluctant to some things person himself, will have to learn to deal with them.
And I just can't help it, I'm a big fan of Amy Adams and I must admit I love to see her alongside Eastwood. Like Hilary Swank and her role in Million Dollar Baby, I do not care what else could Adams do, because she will always be the star in ARRIVAL (directed by the great DENIS VILLENEUVE, 2016). Dhe's got many other roles worthy of mention, also on TV shows, but as far as I am concerned, Arrival suffices.
 |
| Clint Eastwood getting younger by the minute, together with Amy Adams |
You just cannot expect big headlines or raving reviews from a film like this one. It is what it is and it won't go down in history because of its remarkable artistic value, but people liked it (it boasts a respectable 6,8 on IMDB) and besides, who cares about that at this point? The critic said it was a predictable movie, and not very much impressive regarding its dramatic intentions, but lifted by Clint's charisma and his chemistry with a lovely Amy Adams. What's not to like?
It did well at the box office at first, but lost steam afterwards. It made almost fifty million dollars worlwide, not even recouping its own budget, and becoming the second lowest money-making movie by Clint as an actor, only behind (by a big margin) Blood Work.
The film is named, if I'm correct, after the issues which the batter whom Gus and Mickey have to scout, has to hit a ball with a curve.
 |
| Lobel with his daughter and Flanagan, played by Timberlake |
And one last thing, not a negative one, but sad: this was the last movie in which Constantino Romero lent his voice to Clint Eastwood. As it was said, the famed and multifaceted Constantino untimely passed away in May, 2013, and only then it was known that the reason after his early retirement (the previous December), and cause of his premature passing, was ALS, which he had been diagnosed with a few months earlier. As much as it's true that Eastwood was the actor he dubbed the most times, his filmography as a voice actor includes legendary flicks in which he dubbed to the spanish language performances by ROGER MOORE, Sean Connery, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, CARL WEATHERS, MR. T, DONALD SUTHERLAND, JAMES EARL JONES, JAMES COBURN, DAN AYKROYD or RUTGER HAUER, among others. Damn, he even dubbed PELÉ himself in ESCAPE TO VICTORY (JOHN HUSTON, 1981) and took part on the very famous cartoon show MAZINGER Z!
One of the greats. Rest in peace.
 |
| One of the movie's posters, this time focused only on Eastwood, instead the usual one with all three main characters |
Next came the premiere as a director of JERSEY BOYS, in 2014, a flick about THE FOUR SEASONS, a vocal foursome from New Jersey. I can see this film is often mentioned as a musical one, and I don't think that's correct. It has to do with music, obviously, and there is singing, but the songs are not part of the narration and the main characters do not sing or dance (instead of talking) to carry out their performances, as it is customary in the films of the musical genre. At least that's what I recall. In fact, this movie was based on a musical play of the same name, premiered in 2004 and exhibited on Broadway until 2017 (with some tours aborad), whose authors also wrote the script for the film.
The three years gone between J. Edgar (2011) until this film, are the biggest gap without Eastwood directing anything since the three years that, in turn, went between The Gauntlet and Bronco Billy, at the end of the seventies. And that was the only other time in which Eastwood had stopped directing for so long, since he made his debut behind the camera with Play Misty For Me. As many previous times, he wasn't meant to direct the film in the first place, and once he took over, he, as an exception, asked for the script to be rewritten (instead of using the first draft), because, according to him, there were many things missing.
Apart from the very well known CHRISTOPHER WALKEN (who plays mobster GYP DE CARLO), the rest of the cast is completely unkown to me. Furthermore, a great deal of the main cast is comprised of the actors who took part in the different incarnations of the musical play. Clint explained that he had been pressed to cast much more famous and appealing actors, but he has rejected the idea, because he thought no one could do the part better than those who had already played it hundreds of times on the stage. There's also a little role for two of Eastwood's daughters: the already mentioned Francesca, and Kathryn, another member of the numerous clan.
 |
| The Four Seasons: Valli, Gaudio, Massi and De Vito, in no particular order, for I do not remember who is who |
This story spans from the early fifties, when these four kids meet and start The Four Seasons, until the band's induction in the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame, in 1990, and the plot includes something related to actor JOE PESCI, although I must admit I've done some reading about it, for I do not have vivid memories of the film, even if I saw it not long ago. Because, if J. Edgar was a film I just did not notice about, this one was more of the same, and even more, and when I decided to see it I just wanted to do it for completion's sake, to get to see all Eastwood's films. I was beyond lazy when I made up my mind because, let's be honest, the story full of songs of a cheesy vocal band from decades ago has to be one of the last things I'm willing to devote my time to. And yet, even if it did not impress me, this film was much better than I had given it credit for, because I wasn't expecting any connections to the underworld of crime and all that. It's not GOODFELLAS (the very well known and iconic movie by MARTIN SCORSESE premiered in 1990), mind you, but the plot revolves around those kinds of atmospheres, and what I thought it was the rise to stardom of a boring band and not much else, is a much more dramatic and meaningful story. Apparently, there are some inaccuracies between some aspects within the plot and the characters real life, but those, If I'm not mistaken, are deliberate and come from the screenplay of the musical play itself.
Spoiler alert.
I do not think this can be tagged exactly as a spoiler, for it does not tell anything about the plot, but I want to warn the reader just in case they want to watch the movie, so that I don't spoil this little surprise at the end of it. The thing is that, as much as this is not a proper musical film, there's a musical performance when the film ends, in a fun fashion, which, if memory serves, it has to do with the cast and not with their characters. A dancing Christopher Walken (someone who was circa seventy years old when the film was shot) is something to behold.
 |
| Eastwood with two of the actors |
Jersey Boys surpassed its budget thanks to all the money made worldwide, by a small margin, and the critics were not very enthusastic. The music was praised, but at the same time there was criticism due to the fact that, in order to enjoy a worthy moment of the plot, you had to sit through minutes and minutes of brawls and arguments. Some of the best words were aimed to Walken, while it was also said that an hypothetical more important role for him would have benefitted the flick.
FRANCIS VALLI, one of the band's real members was really loud concerning his criticism towards the movie. He said it had not been done properly and that maybe Eastwood was not the right person to direct it. He said it wasn't bad, but could have been much better and, given this flick was all about real people and those people were available, they could have been asked for their input, in order to achieve a better outcome.
A weird move in Clint's career, but, as far as I am concerned, much better than expected.
 |
| Jersey Boys, a rarity in Eastwood's filmography |
Also in 2014 was premiered the controversial and very successful AMERICAN SNIPER, which told the story of CHRIS KYLE, the very decorated and US army's most lethal marksman after four tours in the Iraq war (2003-2011), and how his military success took a big toll on his private life (he was honorably discharged in 2009). This film was loosely based on the book that Kyle himself wrote (together with Scott McEwen and Jim DeFelice) in 2012, called AMERICAN SNIPER: THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF THE MOST LETHAL SNIPER IN U.S. MILITARY HISTORY.
Kyle, who passed in 2013 at the age of thirty eight, was portrayed by the famous BRADLEY COOPER, in his first collaboration with Eastwood, while the spectacular SIENNA MILLER played TAYA STUDEBAKER, Kyle's wife.
 |
| Bradley Cooper, on the left, dressed as Chris Kyle, who is shown on the right with a copy of the book the film is based on |
Some names were considered once Warner had gotten the rights to the book in 2012, because Cooper (one of the producers) wanted CHRIS PRATT to play Kyle (they look relatively alike too), but Warner stated it would only be part of this project was Cooper the leading role. At first, director DAVID O. RUSSELL, who had had a good string of successes, was to direct, but I don't know whether Kyle's sudden demise brought some opportunism (besides the inevitable increase of interest in this story) or what, because the next thing it was known was that a higher profiled director such as Spielberg, no less, was going to be the person behind the camera. Spielberg aimed for a more psychological approach, and his vision took the project to a point in which the whole thing exceeded the budget Warner had in mind, and that is why he stepped down a project which Eastwood would join during the summer of 2013.
The initial budget of less than sixty million dollars was extensively surpassed by the almost five hundred and fifty the film made worldwide, something which meant that American Sniper became not only Eastwood's most commercially successful film ever (and also his most successful one in each of the countries it was premiered), but also the most commercially successful war film ever, beating the record that Spielberg himself had since 1998 with SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. And that, among other records, because, for instance, being a contender for best movie at the 2015 Academy Awards, it had made as much money at the box office as the rest of the candidates put together had.
 |
| The american sniper targeting the box office straightaway |
The scores on the usual webs show a good reception (7,3 on IMDB), and the film was praised as an explicit tribute to the real story it's based upon. The film was welcomed by the critic at large, as Clint's direction was, and also an enormous performance by Cooper (another example of a good looking actor who came out of the blue and showed much more than he was expected to, to eventually end up as one of today's most important male performers), but this movie, being all about a subject like this, stirred a great deal of controversy.
Spoiler alert.
Before I start commenting a few things on what was said about the film, I have to say that, as usual, I went to the theatre to see it and enjoyed it a lot. I know I may be biased and look at everything pertaining Eastwood with a different mindset, but that is something he's earned. I remember this flick as quite tense and sad, for Kyle had to cope with the memories that are supposed to haunt someone who, although within the context of a war, has killed dozens of people. This led to him, once he had been discharged, having issues to deal with a civilian's everyday life. However in the movie, after a shrink had asked him whether he felt haunted by everything he had done while on duty, his response was that it was thinking of those he could not save what haunted him, and that's why he was adviced, as a therapy, to help and be by the side of those severley injured and with similar issues as himself. This helped Kyle's mind to, little by little, adjust to his new reality, until he was murdered (together with a friend of his) by one of those people (someone affected by post-traumatic stress) he was helping.
As for that tension I explained above (not to mention its brutal impact), a stand out scene is that one in which Kyle must terminate two people, presumably mother and son (I've read the boy was an addition to the film and did not exist in real life), because they were going to put an american tank at risk with an explosive artifact. Kyle just stares at the boy's dead body through his lens, aware of what he's been forced to do, an reacts in a disdainfully way when his partner congratulates him. And even more striking is another one in which the main character takes down a guy with a rocket launcher or something similar, and right after that, a very young kid arrives where the dead man is and with so much effort gets to raise the weapon with the intention to use it. Kyle mutters the words Don't pick it up several times, and when he has given up and realizes he's going to have to kill the kid, who is already targeting something, said kid eventually gets rid of the weapon and runs away. Cooper's face goes further beyond relief, given its anguish. Brutal.
 |
| Clint and a bulked up Cooper |
The critic was welcoming to the film, describing it as tense, sad and heartbreaking, with a lot of praise for a muscled Cooper. The film critic DAVID DENBY wrote one of the best things that could be said of American Sniper, saying that it was both a devastating war flick and an antiwar one, a dim celebration of one soldier's skills, and also a lament for this person's isolation and eventual sad luck. Strangely enough, there was criticism about the film not taking advantage to get deeper into the toll that war has one those who fight and live to tell, and it was said that Kyle's missions and targets lacked a context.
There was a lot of talk, of course, about the patriotism implicit in the movie, remarking that the film payed tribute to the patriotism of texan Kyle just by not discarding neither all the main character's doubts and anxiety, nor the ultimate price that he had to pay. It was said this was a warning for the United States, given the enormous toll on the combatant's lives, regardless of the goal. It's all about preventing war from happening, not glorifying it.
 |
| Miller and Cooper |
But it was also said that the approach of the film was decontextualized and showed no middle ground pertaining the Iraq war, as it was just another story of good guys against bad ones with distorted facts and focused more on the physical side of it than on the ethical one. The fact that, according to some critics, the Iraq folks were portrayed as savages, with an obvious fear and ignorance, was criticized too. I remember my pal Ramón (already mentioned) saying that Eastwood had let him down that one time, because he believed that Clint had just exhibited a pro-war story (or something similar), and a very patriotic one. I had to disagree. For starters, those who are in charge of telling a story give said story the approach they deem convenient. And besides, we should not forget that this is a real life account, and if it looks patriotic, or Kyle is depicted as patriotic, is because he most likely was. As Eastwood had already said in regard to his character in the Harry Callahan movies, he tells a story and moves away from it, something that means not having to agree with what it's been told. After all, no one thinks that the person behind a movie in which a robbery is successfully accomplished is a burglar or something similar.
It is funny that, in this sense, the republicans praised the film for being patriotic, republican and for its support of the war on terror, to which Eastwood replied saying that was bullshit, and that this movie had nothing to do with political parties, while the democrats accused Clint of being a warmonger and the film as republican propaganda. Eastwood had to tell them that it was just an antiwar statement.
This is a tricky matter, any way you look at it, and Clint defended himself saying that American Sniper was about what war does to those who survive it and their families, something which, in his opinion, is definitely antiwar. Cooper said that a great deal of the criticism towards the flick ignored the fact that the movie was about negligence and oblivion concerning the war veterans, being remarkable the amount of them who decide to take their own lives. He said that, instead of criticizing someone like Kyle, people should criticize first those who put him and many others like him in their situation.
 |
| Chris Kyle |
American Sniper got a handful of awards and nominations and, despite not being a factor at the Golden Globes, it received up to six nominations at the Academy Awards (including film, leading actor and adapted screenplay, by JASON HALL), although it only took home one Oscar for Best Sound Editing.
There are some inaccuracies in the movie though, in regard to what Kyle wrote in his book, but I don't know whether they were done on purpose or not, and there are also some made up characters. A great deal of what is told actually happened, but sometimes, Kyle's involvement in some events was conveniently exaggerated.
The sad thing about this film is that many of its virtues, or even the whole debate about itself, were eclipsed or directly forgotten due to the ill-fated and inappropiate use of a doll in the film, in order to (if memory serves) make it look like Kyle's newborn baby in Cooper's arms. Truth is, I don't remember what I thought when I saw it, and maybe I did not even notice, but this matter caused bouts of laughter in theatres all around, due to the shabby nature of this episode. It also meant negative predictions concerning the awards season, and the feeling that something like that was going to haunt the whole movie forever. You know, that one film in which there was a doll. Jason Hall, screenwriter, explained that the first baby actor had a fever and the second one was not available, and that's why fast and efficient Eastwood demanded to be handed a doll. If this is true, that's no relief, let alone a valid excuse.
Clint wrote the song TAYA'S THEME for the movie, and he even appears in the film, uncredited, as someone who attends a mass.
 |
| The picture that was usually used as the movie poster |
No new movies in 2015 and back to business in 2016, with the premiere of the again successful biopic SULLY. As I said when I reviewed J. Edgar, in regard to Leonardo DiCaprio, it makes sense that Clint Eastwood surrounds himself with the most prominent names in the industry, and that's what happened one more time with Sully, in which he got together with no other than Tom Hanks, who portrayed CHESLEY SULLENBERGER (nicknamed Sully), the pilot who, in 2009, was forced, due to the circumstances, to successfully land an airplane (a commercial flight) on New York's Hudson river, preventing both passengers and crew from getting hurt. Said plane, an A320 Airbus, which was supposed to fly the very usual 1549 US Airways route, from New York, and with Charlotte and Seattle as destinations, had left La Guardia airport on the 15th of January, 2009, with one hundred and fifty five passengers aboard. While gaining height, it hit a flock of birds and, as a consecuence, both engines got seriously damaged. Due to those damages and the distance between New York and the nerarest airports, Sullenberg considered that landing on the Hudson was the best thing to do, and he nailed it in less than four minutes since the plane had hit the flock, and with no serious injuries to anyone on the plane. This was deemed litlle less than a miracle (MIRACLE ON THE HUDSON). The film also depicts the aftermath of that event, as far as the lives of those involved were concerned, and the subsequent investigation which was conducted.
 |
| Hanks in an advertising image |
Hanks paired here with the very underrated actor AARON ECKHART (who played JEFF SKILES, Sully's copilot), and there are roles for ANNA GUNN (very well know due to her involvement on the glorious TV show BREAKING BAD) and, listen up, Laura Linney once again. There are many performers who have worked with Eastwood more than once (being directed by him or as co-stars), such as Gene Hackman, Matt Damon, John Malkovich, Marcia Gay Harden or Donald Sutherland, but I believe that, leaving family members aside (among whom I'll include Sondra Locke), some actors who played different roles in the Leone or the Harry Callahan films, and usual supporting actors very often named here, like Geoffrey Lewis, Bill McKinney, etc, only Morgan Freeman and her have worked as many as three times with him. Linney played LORRAINE, Sully's wife.
 |
| Eastwood and Tom Hanks, one of the most reknown and accomplished actors of the last forty years |
This film is based on Sullenberger's own autobiography, called HIGHEST DUTY: MY SEARCH FOR WHAT REALLY MATTERS, written alongside writer and journalist JEFFREY ZASLOW and also published in 2009. The script was developed by playwright and novelist TODD KOMARNICKI, who admitted that the most difficult part of this task was not describing the landing, but the investigation which came after it, for the person who was perceived as a hero in the eyes of the whole world might be seen some other way by those in charge of that investigation.
It did well at the box office, despite being premiered in September, a month that new films have traditionally struggled in, due to the beginning of the school calendar and the usual avalanch of new TV shows. But good reviews and word of mouth helped, and the money made worldwide was the initial budget of sixty million dollars fourfold. There were lots of nominations too (most of them unlucky though), among them stands out one at the Academy Awards, for Best Sound Editing.
The critics liked Sully as well, praising its tribute to the typical (or not so typical) everyday hero, sure of themselves, but humble at the same time, and who would never deem themselves as such. Be it for the appeal of the actual story, or for the names attached to the project, people liked this film, and the opinion regarding Sully was even better than that of American Sniper. It rained compliments on the performance of an inspired Hanks (as usual, being one of those actors capable of saving a film and making the audience keeping its attention on it only because of his presence), and there were praise for Clint's direction as well. Eastwood's role behind the camera was compared to Hank's in front of it.
 |
| Eastwood with Linney, who had already played his daughter in Absolute Power almost twenty years earlier |
I found this flick (once again as part of the audience in a theatre) brilliant and nimble, with a story worthy of telling and with all the ingredientes needed to be told in a convincing manner. I remember that I even noticed some documentary traits in it, because of its way to tell things, and its less than a hundred minutes of running time (short by Eastwood's standards) just flew away. It has to be one of Eastwood's shortest movies ever. It is difficult to not feel powerless when confronted with the investigation I already mentioned, because anyone can realize that Sullenberg acted like a hero, so, why treat him as the opposite? I might understand all this better if his doings would have resulted in human casualties, but, given that that wasn't the case, what are the reasons behind an investigation like that, not to mention the understandable persecution by the media. I guess there is just more than meets the eye.
In fact, this film caused some controversy due to the description it makes of the NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD (NTSB), which was in charge of said investigation, as an ultraconservative and antagonistic to Sully entity, eager to find mistakes in what the involuntary hero did, and to force him to admit them. It was criticized that the movie distanced itself, in tone and substance, from what was recorded in official registers, to the extent that some former members of that board voiced their concern for this film to make the board look as an incompetent one.
 |
| Eastwood trying to find Aaron Eckhart behind the latter's humongous moustache |
Sully left quite a few anecdotes and fun facts, and some other disturbing stuff:
- In the ending credits, the real Sully and Lorraine are shown while giving a speech to those who were aboard the plane on that very day.
- Some of the people who were involved, one way or another, in this event, play themselves in the film. There's even footage of the very famous host DAVID LETTERMAN interviewing members of the plane's crew, who were digitally replaced by their film's counterparts.
- Sully himself did a cameo at the end of the comedy film DADDY'S HOME 2 (directed by SEAN ANDERS and premiered in 2017), when he appears playing the new love interest of one of the two main character's mum, BRAD (played WILL FERRELL). The other one, DUSTY (MARK WAHLBERG), is delighted to realize who his friend's mum new boyfriend is, he says he's a hero, that Clint Eastwood made a movie about him which him and Brad had seen together (Brad remembers Tom Hanks was in it and he had liked the film a lot), and that maybe they could get free flying coupons (LMAO). Brad seems to agree at first, but when Sully is about to shake his hand he just runs away screaming to the whole airport they were in that he did not care about how many lives Sully could have saved, because he could never replace his dad. Very funny.
And by the way, right before that moment, Mel Gibson shows up, being as he is, one of the characters of the flick (Dusty's dad).
- Warner had considered premiering the movie around Labour Day (first Monday of September), but that would mean coinciding, more or less, with September's Eleven fifteenth anniversary (apart from its premiere at one festival one week earlier, the official american premiere date was September, the 9th). This fact made some executives reluctant, because in the plot Sully has a nightmare in which the plane he was flying crashes right in Manhattan, with all that it means in relation to the terrorist attack from fifteen years earlier. Eventually it was decided to stick with that first date, because Sully was a story about hope and a hero who does what he has to. Be it as it may, it seems like everything was just a coincidence, and premiering Sully around the 11th of September had never been in anybody's head.
- Related to what has been said in the above paragraph, it has to be said that some airlines rejected to include this film among those which could be watched during their flights, out of fear of it unsettling their passengers, but Virgin Atlantic, for one, did play it, as a tribute to the pilots.
- Sully marked the second best opening Friday of an Eastwood movie in the States, only after American Sniper, and it did very well at IMAX theatres (those which very big screens and stadium-like stands), having been completely filmed in that format.
- Eastwood wrote the song FLYING HOME (THEME FROM SULLY).
 |
| Sully and Skiles, reality and fiction |
- Back to the aforementioned controversy. I've already said that some members of the NTSB showed their concern pertaining what the movie's audience and society at large could think of this board. As if this flick was going to be made clear that it was a useless and incompetent tool. They said the investigators did not want to ashame anybody and that the film had removed itself from what had really happened (for example, the plot shows the investigators providing the investigation with simulations which made sure that landing on some other airports, or even flying back to La Guardia, would have been feasible, something which would've exposed Sullenberger's negligence, while the actual investigation had not guaranteed the sucess of said moves at all), to the extent that some even said some lines had been crossed to reach a bitter lack of fairness.
Hanks himself admitted that Chelsey Sullenberger was concerned by what was told in the fiction and asked for the investigator's actual names to be removed from the film, because they did not behave as prosecutors in real life, and that was the way the movie had made them look like.
No matter how much I enjoyed the film, I find this worrying, because I do not understand, neither the reasons behind an hypothetical twisting of reality with mean intentions, nor how the flick could have benefitted from something like that. If everything was about protecting Sully's integrity as a hero in order to publicize the film, I don't think neither him, nor the story or the film needed it. All this is also concerning because, as ROBERT BENZON (one of the investigators) said, the pilots who found themselves involved in flying accidents from then on, were going to expect an unfair treatment by this board.
The only thing I know that Eastwood said about this issue was that the NTSB had tried to prove that Sullenberger had not done the right thing.
 |
| Heroes without a cape |
Already in 2018, the somehow a tad disappointing THE 15:17 TO PARIS, was premiered. And it was disappointing because, despite telling another heroic real story, it could have been much better. Not in vain, its score on IMDB (5,3) is the worst of any movie to be reviewed here before or since, together with that of Pink Cadillac.
The script (by newcomer DOROTHY BLYSKAL) was based on the book called THE 15:17 TO PARIS: THE TRUE STORY OF A TERRORIST, A TRAIN AND THREE AMERICAN HEROES, published in 2016, where it is told how theree young americans helped to avoid a slaughter on a high speed train Thalys which traveled the distance between Ámsterdam and Paris. This happened on the 21st of August, 2015, and those young men were ANTHONY SADLER, SPENCER STONE and ALEK SKARLATOS, who also wrote the book, along with JEFFREY E. STERN. But there's more about it. I've already talked about Eastwood's understandable inclination to be surrounded by the greatest directors and actors, but it's also true that, both for spontaneity and authenticity's sake, his castings have relied (a fair share of them or in their entirety) on unknown performers quite a few times (as it's been the case in Jersey Boys, Gran Torino or Letters From Iwo Jima). Well, in this movie he even outdid himself concerning this matter, because, although it had not been what he first had in mind, he ended up choosing those three previous men as main characters, who obviously had no background as actors because they were no actors, to begin with.
Some other actors, apart from those three, also played themselves (including french-american MARK MOOGALIAN, another one of the heroes, who got injured), and the plot follow the three main characters through their boyhood and so on, until it reaches the event at issue. Better known actresses like JUDY GREER or JENNA FISCHER (the likeable receptionist on the american remake of THE OFFICE) played two of the main roles' mums.
 |
| Publicity poster |
This movie was close to double its budget, which is good (far, of course, from the figures of some other recent films directed by Clint), but the reviews were poor, stressing the mistake that casting the real heroes to play themselves was, despite the film's good intentions as a tribute. Not everything was bad, but overall it was said that there was too much filler, and some lines did not help the inexperienced actors either. There was praise, mind you, for the scenes which depicted the event at hand, which was what really mattered about the movie and the fact it was focused on.
I agree, basically. As much as something like the main event has to be inevitably tense and distressing, and the film hits bull's eye concerning it, the rest of the movie looks expendable. I don't know whether professional actors could have prevented this from happening or not, but this film looks like intentionally bloated (despite even being two minues shorter than Sully) with moments of the main characters' childhood, their friendship and teenager's stuff which lack substance and just wander aimlessly. It feels as if the main event was not enough to fill one hour and a half of running time, and a lot of previous moments had been used (some of them were necessary though, in my opinion) to finally arrive to what really matters. I believe that something like that is Eastwood's to blame, and not the kids.
On the other hand, imagine being an essential part of such an act of heroism, which understandably is going to change your life, and being called by Clint Eastwood himself to star in a film about your own deed afterwards.
 |
| From left to right, Skarlatos, Sadler, Eastwood and Stone |
What these people (together with some others who also took part) did was, in few words, to stop a terrorist called AYOUB EL KHAZZANI (who had been helped by some other people as well), who would later admit wanting to kill americans in retaliation for the american intervention in Syria. I do not know what the odds of finding americans on a train which travels Europe are, but who cares?
That guy locked himself up in the bathroom to get ready and, when one passenger realized that he had been in there for very long, went to the gents to find out what was going on and all hell broke loose, resulting in, luckily enough, only a few injured people, including the motherfucker at issue, when many people could have lost their lives. After injuring a couple of passengers, the terrorist tried to open fire, but his weapon failed. That's when, after having heard one shot (the one which had hit the above mentioned Moogalian), all three american young men (two of them off duty soldiers themselves) took action, with Stone getting injured by a knife. Stone himself performed a stranglehold on the terrorist, Skarlatos got hold of his weapon and began hitting the man, while Sadler and some other passengers helped rendering him unconscious. After that, Skarlatos checked the whole train thoroughly, armed with the useless rifle, in search of some other hypotheticals assailants, and Stone, a military doctor himself, did his best to stop Moogalian's haemorraghe, who was successfully evacuated towards Lille, once the train got eventually detoured to the also french city of Arras, where the remaining passengers were identified and searched. There were more than five hundred aboard.
Among other honours, the three main characters were awarded with the french nationality and, alongside a british man called CHRIS NORMAN, who also helped subduing the terrorist, they got the famed French Legion Of Honour (funnily enough, Eastwood had also already been awarded with it, back in 2007) through the then french president FRANCOIS HOLLANDE. The subsequent investigation proved that the assailant carried a lot of ammunition, and that the odds of his rifle failing and getting stuck were less than one among a thousand, not to mention that said failing was very unlikely to happen in favour of an Spencer who had headed headlong towards El Khazzani through a train aisle.
I cannot think, for the life of me, what could be in somebody's mind to, at any given moment, risk their lives that way, but this is indeed thrilling, and I'm already willing to see the film again, to find out if I find it better that second time. Because, as I said at the beginning of the review, the whole movie does not live up to the intensity of such an amazing story.
 |
| Stone and Skarlatos during a scene on the train, little before the event which would change their lives |
Clint went back to acting in THE MULE, also premiered in 2018, in which he played EARL STONE, an old man who becomes a mule (someone who gets paid by a drug lord to smuggle drug, thus minimizing the risk) for a cartel, in order to earn some money and be able to face his monetary problems. Eastwood's role is based on LEO SHARP, a WWII veteran who, past his eighties, became a mule for Sinaloa's cartel, until he got arrested in 2011. Nick Schenk, who wrote the script for Gran Torino, created this one after one piece that journalist SAM DOLNICK wrote in 2014 for THE NEW YORK TIMES, called THE SINALOA CARTEL'S 90-YEAR-OLD MULE.
Bradley Cooper and Lawrence Fishburne come back to Clint's fold, respectively playing COLIN BATES, an agent within the DEA (DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION), and his supervisor WARREN LEWIS. ANDY GARCÍA, DIANNE WEST (as MARY, Earl's wife), MICHAEL PEÑA (TREVINO, Bates' partner) and TAISSA FARMIGA (GINNY, Earl's granddaughter) can also be seen. And there's a role for Alison, Eastwood's daughter, playing his fictional daughter (IRIS) as well.
 |
| In command |
Cooper's role was based on JEFF MOORE, responsible of Sharp's arrestd, who was interviewed by the previous newspaper regarding the already mentioned article. The rights of said writing were sold soon after, but Clint was not the first choice to direct the film. Once again, this project ended up in his hands and he even brought himself to portray Earl and to produce (among other people) the movie for Warner and the firm which had bought the article's rights.
The Mule did well and received good reviews, besides being capable of recouping the fifty million dollars budget almost fourfold (this film became Eastwood's third most successful film as an actor ever, after its opening weekend). Those reviews spoke of a certain predictability (after all it is based on actual facts), but they were overall positive, praising the flick as a fitting and perhaps feasible swansong for Clint as an actor, was he to actually retire from acting.
 |
| I just carry fruit and vegetables, Mr. officer |
As for myself, I went to the theatre like so many times before, only to leave it gladly surprised by the fact that someone that old, who not only directs, but also acts, is capable of providing me with such good fun. It's a pity that the dearly missed Constantino Romero was not among us anymore, to lend Eastwood his voice (this was the only one time in which another veteran, ARSENIO CORSELLAS, who would pass away the next year, would dub the legend), and I remember that Andy García's role was a tad silly for my taste, but apart from that, this film, although far from going down in history as a masterpiece or anything remotely similar, is quite entertaining. It's funny how Eastwood throws himself into some kind of race against time to look like a cowboy (no guns or horse, but with a pickup truck) who does not know what tomorrow will bring, one more time. Earl's sense of humour in some situations (that one time in which is paired with a prositute so he can indulge himself) is worthy of account as well.
 |
| With Bradley Cooper during the shooting |
On the other hand, Eastwood plays again another antihero, for Stone not only ends up devoting himself to smuggling drug (although I don't remember whether the old man understood properly what was all about or not) and for the reasons explained, but also he's a very selfish person in his private life, and he does not hesitate to put his own interest before his family if necessary.
Predictable film? Yes. A flawed one? As well. Does it get the job done? More so than the previous two things combined, and above the average movie to be found usually on the billboard.
Clint Eastwood was eighty eight years old when this film was premiered.
 |
| No matter how old he gets; that face of his will always encourage people to attend a movie theatre |
One year later, in 2019, the excellent RICHARD JEWELL, his next venture as a director, would be premiered. This is another film based on a true story, which took place during the Olympic Games of 1996, hosted in Atlanta. JEWELL was a thirty three years old security guard back then, and he was on duty when, during a concert played at the Centennial Olympic Park on the 27th of July, dis covered a suspicious backpack under a bench. He alerted of it and, together with some other agents, vacated the area in order for an investigation to be carried out. There was an alarm phone call concerning the backpack, and, soon after, it exploded, killing one person (another one would die afterwards, due to a heart attack) and injuring at least a hundred more, but had Jewell not done what he did, the consecuences could have been much more disastrous. He was understandably hailed as a hero, because of the way he proceed during this incident, but in a few days it was revealed that, given his psychological profile, the FBI was going to consider him a suspect. He was never accused and three months later he was withdrawn of that status, but the in-between investigation and the populat trial against him took a severe toll on his private life.
This film was written by director and screenwriter BILLY RAY (who had been responsible for the script of recent hits such as the very good CAPTAIN PHILLIPS, by the also very good english filmmaker PAUL GREENGRASS, and starred in by Tom Hanks, by the way, in 2013) after an article by journalist MARIE BRENNER, published on VANITY FAIR in 1997, which was called AMERICAN NIGHTMARE: THE BALLAD OF RICHARD JEWELL (The Ballad Of Richard Jewell was supposed to be the film's title at first), and after the book which was written soon after by KENT ALEXANDER and KEVIN SALWEN, called THE SUSPECT: AN OLYMPIC BOMBING, THE FBI, THE MEDIA AND RICHARD JEWELL, THE MAN CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE (published in 2019).
The cast was, once again, a very high-profiled one, with all-round actor SAM ROCKWELL, legendary actress KATHY BATES (as Jewell's mum), a new performance by John Hamm under Eastwood's direction, and gorgeous actress and director OLIVIA WILDE, subject of some controversy (or rather her role) after her involvement in this film. Funnily enough, the main character was played by the multifaceted PAUL WALTER HAUSER, who I think I did not know at all.
 |
| Walter Hauser (left) and the real Jewell (right) |
This project had took off some years earlier, although alien to the Eastwood camp, when it was known that Leonardo DiCaprio and his pal JONAH HILL were going to be the producers and also the actors, with DiCaprio playing the lawyer Jewell was assisted by (this role would end up in Rockwell's hands) and the usually chubby Hill portraying Richard. The above mentioned Greengrass, who had already worked with the screenwriter, seemed to be the most feasible choice as a director, but the project, as it had been known so far, ended in 2019, when Clint took over, although Hill and DiCaprio remained as co-producers. I guess the latter's intention of not working with Clint anymore was restricted only to acting.
 |
| Eastwood instructing the fictional Richard |
And it seems like the average moviegoer and film aficionado enjoyed it as well, or at least that's what its score on the more usual websites indicate. Its more than good 7,5 mark on IMDB places it as the best Eastwood film in this regard since Gran torino, above Sully, Invictus and even American Sniper.
 |
| Rockwell, Bates and Hauser |
And deservedly so, in my opinion. I'm not implying this film is better than those three (although having seen this one and Invictus just one time, I think the former is much better than what I remember about the latter), but Richard Jewell has unquestionable merits, as far as I am concerned, even if I did not get to see it while on showing and it has been one of the very last Eastwood films I've ever seen (maybe the penultimate), although that makes sense given the year when it was premiered.
Clint resorts to an involuntary hero one more time, who sees how his life is turned upside down, beyond his own control, in spite of his doing something which is ethically correct and having done it right. As happened in Sully, the spectator helplessly witnesses the unfairness (flawlessly reflected on the sobbing of the brilliant Bates and on the main character's face of disbelief) which entails that someone who has saved so many lives doing what had to be done, is harassed that way, although I guess the investigation has to cover all angles and avoid judging the book by its cover. This is why I'm not sure if, when it comes to look for who's responsible of all this, the spotlight should be put on the investigation itself (Hamm's role as the FBI agent in charge of this case is, without a doubt, quite irritating and delivers as the antagonist, besides even doing things which are ethically reprehensible, although I don't know whether this happened exactly like that in reality), the media or just people themselves (even if there was no social media back in the day and things were much different than today).
If memory serves, you could see how a depressed Jewell (someone who, on the other hand, was a clumsy, dim-witted and chubby person who perfectly fitted the part of a loser) stayed home all the time because of all this. How can people go from hailing someone to lashing out at them overnight? Because it needs to be said that, even when the situation itself escalated out of proportions, Jewell was just a suspect and never something else. The spectator knows how the story ends, of course, but Jewell's face (the real one's as well) looks like that of a person completely devoided of evil and incapable and doing harm to anybody. And what's more, he even tells Rockwell's character that he chose him as his lawyer only because ha had been the only one who had not treated Jewell as someone inferior.
 |
| An annoying Hamm portraying agent Tom Shaw |
Be it as it may, this movie is quite good, although sad, and if each and every work of an Eastwood near his nineties has to be appreciated and needs to be taken into consideration only because of their mere existence, this one even more so. Great film.
Although with a very heavy weight on its shoulders, if you ask me, in the shape of a mistake derived from an absurd lack of sensibility. I'm talking about the controversy related somehow to Olivia Wilde's character I mentioned before. Said controversy had to do with the fact that her role, KATHY SCRUGGS, was the journalist (working for the newspaper THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION) who first unveiled the FBI's suspicions concerning Jewell, and who is portrayed by the movie as someone unscrupulous and even willing to exchange sex for information. Apparently, this last detail did not occur, and the newspaper's manager referred to this depcition of Scruggs as false and malicious, while employess of the same newspaper demanded that the movie had a warning which informed the audience that some facts had been made up for dramatic purposes. Needless to say, there was talk about the film perpetuating the sexist cliche pertaining female journos who sleep with someone in exchange of information.
Wilde herself denounced the fact that her role was criticized for doing that, when the male character she sleeps with did exactly the same. More controversy, because it was said that Scruggs was a real person while Wilde's role an amalgam of several others. This is, the way I see it, a hollow reasoning, because it makes no difference. In the event of Wilde's role not been real, what difference does it make concerning the controversy at hand? It was also reasoned that what really mattered was the harm done to Jewell, to what was answered that in doing what the controversy focused on, Scruggs was being hurt too. More on this below.
On the TV show MANHUNT's second season, Jewell's story is addressed, and Scruggs gets a similar treatment.
Mischievous Clint Eastwood. When, after so many years of chasing skirts and playing tough, sexist and unscrupulous roles, had finally gotten feminism to eat right out of his hand, he goes back to his old sexist tricks.
 |
| Olivia Wilde as Kathy Scruggs |
In October of 1996, the FBI stopped considering Jewell as a person of interest. I think this bureau even apologize to him because of the investigation. Richard carried on with his life and he got to become a policeman, besides getting married and having two children, but he prematurely died in 2007, at forty four, due to a cardiovascular issue related with his diabetes and his excess of weight. Sad, cruel destiny.
After some other terrorist attacks during the next two years, the police forces suspected of a certain ERIC RUDOLPH, who got arrested and ended up pleading guilty in 2005, in order to avoid being condemned to die. He's still in jail.
As for the previous controversy, is crystal clear that the worst part of this story was endured by Kathy Scruggs, who died in 2001 (after a medicine overdose) at forty two, alone, ill and shattered by the aftermath of this story. It's been already told that it was her who advanced that Jewell might be under the FBI's suspicion, and when Jewell's ordeal finished, hers began. Somehow, that same society which, based on Scrugg's article and the subsequent investigation, began suspecting and harassing Richard, turned its eyes on her for having written that. Because Richard Jewell's camp sued the newspaper she worked in for libel. She, despite getting convinced of the main character's innocence, never retracted, arguing that, when she had written that piece, Jewell was the FBI's number one suspect.
 |
| Real Kathy Scruggs, on the left, and Olivia Wilde |
What looked like a stroke of luck in the shape of a scoop, became too heavy a burden for her. She began being the eye of the storm and could not cope with it, to which her health issues joined (worsened by the unhealthy way of life she had), and also the monetary ones derived from her medical bills. And there was the shadow of jail hovering over her as well, because she did not want to reveal her sources, and this fact worsened everything even more. I've already mentioned how Scruggs got her information in the flick, which, in my opinion and knowing this woman's history, is an inappropiate move, because that was not true (and thus was reasoned by her closest friends). But it is more inappropiate because of the fact that she had already payed a high price while alive, than because of the sexism thing. Going through all she went through since the terrorist attack until her demise is more than enough, and her memory shouldn't have been tarnished that way by a dramatic licence, regardless, I insist, of the sexist controversy at issue.
The fact that it was yet unknown who the culprit had been, also tormented the journalist, who did not get to live to neither witness Rudolph's (whose deeds caused so much pain beyond the terrorist attack itself) confession, nor her own vindication while still alive, when, ten years after her passing, all the charges for libel were dropped. This is why this story about Richard Jewell is also Scruggs', and it would have been a good thing to avoid making this person look like someone she was not, only for, perhaps, the audience's attention sake (something the film does not need).
And it would have been even better had Eastwood thought about doing another film afterwards, Richard Jewell's companion piece, telling Kathy Scruggs' story. In fact, the paper she worked for published an article (in November 2019, I think) by journo JENNIFER BRETT, titled THE BALLAD OF KATHY SCRUGGS, clearly referencing the one which Variety had issued about Jewell, where the accounts of friends and relatives were gathered. What happened during the five years prior to Kathy's demise and this article could be a very fitting square one.
 |
| Promotional picture. Hamm can be seen (far left) behind Hauser, Bates and Rockwell , and also Wilde, behind Bates |
CRY MACHO is, leaving the premiere of Juror Nº2 aside (which is expected to be the legend's farewell film), Eastwood's last movie for the time being, and one which is more difficult to write about, because, most likely, it will become his last one as an actor. This, somehow, is a bitter pill to swallow, despite the fact that time waits for no one and a retirement makes perfect sense. He completely deserves it, doesn't he, but at the same time is hard to see him go and to deal with the fact that there won't be any more Clint Eastwood-acted movies. I had previously mentioned that, as far as I knew, he was already willing to say goodbye to acting with Gran Torino (and I'm not alone in this), to devote himself to directing (as he does here), producing and so on, and that if he had acted again after said movie, it had been unexpectedly and, either out of friendship (as the one he shares with Robert Lorenz, in the case of Trouble With The Curve), or because the possibility of telling a good story had arisen and he had realized he was the most suitable option for the role, as I think it was the case with The Mule, because he eventually took over the project and his age also fitted that of the already mentioned Leo Sharp.
And pertaining Cry Macho, I guess that the reason behind his coming back to acting was to take advantage of an opportunity which had been rejected long ago and thus, come full circle concerning a story which goes back to the seventies. And that's it. I do not think there will be any more movies.
It was premiered in 2021 and it is some sort of modern-day western set in the seventies in which Eastwood plays MIKE MILO, a former rodeo star who gets assigned the chore of taking a kid (RAFO, played by EDUARDO MINETT) from Mexico to the States, where Rafo's dad is. The cast is quite short and comprised of mostly unknown actors, at least for me, among whom the only remarkable name is the singer and actor DWIGHT YOAKAM.
 |
| Milo and a rooster called Macho |
As I've said, this movie's background goes back to a few decades ago, and I guess that's why the action is set in the late seventies. Back then, a script written by writer RICHARD NASH, was turned into a proper novel by Nash himself, after he had been incapable of selling the initial script. The book fared much better, and in light of that success, he retook the script and was able to sell it without changing a single word (?). Time went by and the intention of turning said script into a film never came into fruition. In fact, Clint was offered the main character in the late eighties and rejected it. I do not think the novel has a main character as old as current Clint is (what's more, I do not even think there is a lapse of time between Milo's retirement and the main plot, as there is in the film), but if it does, it makes no sense to me the fact of offering this role to someone who was in his late fifties, back in the day. As a matter of fact, after saying no, Clint himself suggested a veteran such as the legendary ROBERT MITCHUM, who had already left his seventies behind.
Year by year, some other ilustrious names were linked to the project, and it seemed like the one and only Arnold Schwarzenegger was going to be the one, already in the current century, but his involvement in californian politics, first, and a subsequent scandal related with a divorce, last, threw this project overboard one more time. Fast forward to 2020 and it became public that Clint Eastwood was going to take over on all fronts, including the contribution of the recurring screenwriter Nick Schenk (Gran Torino, The Mule). Filming finished in December 2020 and Clint, always true to his reputation, wrapped it one day before scheduled. It needs to be said that, when the shooting ended, Clint was already ninety years old, and, to his notorious efficiency at said very advanced age, has to be added his work as an actor, something which even included riding on horseback for the first time since Unforgiven (at ninety!). And all this, during a time marred by the pandemic (Covid 19) and its protocols and, despite how difficult it was, according to Clint, to film the rooster scenes, to which as many as eleven different birds were used.
 |
| Someone's upset |
One of the gestures to make the audience notice that this was going to be the last chance to see Eastwood on the screen, was a more remarkable than usual advertising campaign, which included premiering the movie's trailer, together with footage of Clint's career, as a tribute to him, besides messages from fellow actors like Morgan Freeman, Meryl Streep, Mel Gibson, Hilary Swank or Gene Hackman. All this, as much as, according to the critics, did not do a lot to increase the anticipation regarding Cry Macho, showed a proper appreciation to Eastwood which for sure was going to make Clint's fans tear up. Some said this film was going to be just a footnote, box office-wise (and they nailed it), for all that marketing was destined to run out of steam and lose its effect (I don't think something like that was the reason behind that flop). And also, besides the film' showing at theatres, HBO MAX offered Cry Macho as part of its catalogue during a whole month.
Money-wise, it did not perform very well, staying halfway of recouping the thirty three million dollars which were invested. Before it was premiered, it had been criticized, even from the studio itself, Warner's decision to fund the film, but they knew from the get go that it was going to be very difficult for Cry Macho to earn any profits. They just felt indebted to someone they had worked several decades with and who had been capable to steadily finish movies on time and under their budgets. Warner forgot to mention the fact that, overall, those films had been extremely successful. It's Clint Eastwood who we are talking about.
Truth is, Covid did not make matters better for anyone during those days, and besides, I don't know whether the more than one million and a half viewings through HBO which were counted in american households were taken into account when determining the whole amount of money made by the movie or not.
 |
| Milo and Rafo (Eduardo Minett), with one of the roosters used to play Macho |
As for the critical reception, I'll begin with my own opinion. Cry Macho is a weak movie, An average one. It's not bad, not at all. But it's harmless. It tells a story about the road and an unlikely friendship (in this concern it could remind people of A Perfect World, Million Dollar Baby or Gran Torino) which has been told many times before, but what is bad about it is that, in my opinion, it lacked power, and maybe some passion. Of course, after so many years and even a handful of really good movies during the most recent years, the artistic outcome of this film was what mattered the least and the fun relied on watching him one more time. One last time. But it makes me a tad sad that this last dance has not been a little bit better and more entertaining, as, for example, The Mule had been. In spite of all this, I think Cry Macho is spot on when showing an elderly Eastwood who does a performance in line with his age, no matter that the plot may be suitable to certain situations. Otherwise it had been shameful. But even so there is the riding on horseback thing (good old Clint admitted that the person in charge of the horses was a little bit concerned by this) and I also remember one guy getting sucker punched by the legend. Some things never change. The scene in which he dances with NATALIA TRAVEN (MARTA in the plot) works nicely as a beautiful and optimistic farewell.
I think Eastwood's spanish dubbing was performed by CAMILO GARCÍA.
 |
| Eastwood y Traven |
Concerning the reviews, not all was good, obviously. It was pointed as weird and clumsy the fact that Eastwood played the main character. I've already said that I think Milo is nowhere close Clint's age in the book. Schenk's script was said to be weak, although I think he only added a few things to Nash's work.
It was also said that the story was repetitive, with nothing new to contribute and similar to that of The Mule or Gran Torino. And contrary to what had seemed to be common ground about Cry Macho, THE NEW YORK OBSERVER said it was going to let the audience down, making it feel nostalgic about what once. Had this been one of his most recent films as an actor, maybe that assertion could have been true, but it's not when Cry Macho happens to be the last one. As far as I am concerned, an opinion like that makes no sense in light of Eastwood not ever acting again. Melancholy? Of Course. Disappointment? No way. Rather gratitude.
But I'll save the best for last. This flick boasts a discreet 5,7 mark on IMDB, something which sets it apart from the more than good (and really remarkable in some cases) marks which its fellow movies from this century have achieved (save from the one about the train to Paris), but the critic does remark Eastwood's charimatic presence and the charm that watching him once again entails, besides the unrushed and simple nature of the film. In this regard, there are some statements that I like a lot and summarize all that is good about this movie in a very accurate fashion:
- Critic GLENN KENNY, writing on the aforementioned Roger Ebert's website (once Ebert himself had passed away), said that the honesty of Cry macho concerning all the things in life that are worthy of living is the reason why this film exists.
- BILGE EBIRI (Vulture), journalist and filmmaker, wrote that Eastwood's sole presence was more than enough, and that the film worked when it had to, and so did the main character, whom we don't observe as an actor past his ninety, but as an icon who, instead of not getting older, is preserved in his own enduring glory. Cinema's eternal and tortured cowboy.
- DAVID SIMS (THE ATLANTIC) praised the fact that Eastwood used this movie as a tool to reflect on is own career, with a story about someone who still has something to learn.
- ANTHONY SCOTT (New York Times) considered Cry Macho a film to help pass the time, with little to prove and enough to say. His advice was that if the old man's (Eastwood) driving, get in and enjoy the ride.
 |
| If the old man's driving, my advice is to get in and enjoy the ride |
End of the sith chapter
SOMETHING ELSE ABOUT MOVIES AND TELEVISION
Chronologically speaking, this should be placed in the first chapter, for this is a list with all the Eastwood stuff I haven't seen yet, which, being mostly very old, belongs to the second half of the fifties almost in its entirety. With this short summary, all his career as an actor and director is covered. At least that I know of (see asterisk below).
As a director, the only thing that I'm missing is the already mentioned short The Beguiled (The Storyteller) (1971), related with Don Siegel's film itself. Apart from that, episode number twelve of the first season of Amazing Stories, named Vanessa In The Garden (1985), and the seventh and last episode of the documentary series (produced by Martin Scorsese), The Blues, titled Piano Blues (2003). It is public domain that Clint is also a pianist and a blues enthusiast, besides jazz music.
As an actor, the list is much longer:
- Revenge Of The Creature, by Jack Arnold (1955). Uncredited. He plays JENNINGS.
- FRANCIS IN THE NAVY, by Arthur Lubin (1955). He plays JONESY.
- LADY GODIVA OF COVENTRY, by Arthur Lubin (1955). Uncredited. As ALFRED.
- COCHISE, GREATEST OF THE APACHES, episode number sixteen of the second season of TV READER'S DIGEST, directed by HARRY HORNER in 1956. Clint is liutenant WILSON.
- NEVER SAY GOODBYE, directed by JERRY HOPPER in 1956. Uncredited. As WILL.
- MOTORCYCLE A, episode twenty seven of the first season of HIGHWAY PATROL, directed by LAMBERT HILLYER in 1956. He plays JOE KEELEY.
- STAR IN THE DUST. CHARLES F. HAAS (1956). Uncredited, as TOM.
- THE FIRST TRAVELING SALESLADY, again by Arthur Lubin (1956). He plays JACK RICE.
- AWAY ALL BOATS, by JOSEPH PEVNEY (1956); uncredited. He plays a corpsman.
- THE LAST LETTER, seventh episode of the fifth season of DEATH VALLEY DAYS, directed by STUART E. MCGOWAN in 1956. WIKIPEDIA mentions two episodes, in this case, but IMDB does not. Eastwood plays JOHN LUCAS.
- WHITE FURY, episode number twenty of the first season of WEST POINT, directed by JAMES SHELDON (1957). He is cadet BOB SALTER.
- ESCAPADE IN JAPAN (1957), by Arthur Lubin. Uncredited. As DUMBO.
- THE LONELY WATCH, episode seventeen of the third season of NAVY LOG, directed by SAMUEL GALLU (1958). Fun fact: famed classic actor JAMES CAGNEY also was in this episode. Clint has often named him as his favourite actor. Eastwood plays BURNS.
- AMBUSS AT CIMARRON PASS, by JODIE COPELAN (1958). Another fun fact: Eastwood himself said this was, most likely, The lousiest western ever made. He played KEITH WILLIAM.
- LAFAYETTE ESCADRILLE, directed by WILLIAM A. WELLMAN in 1958. As GEORGE MOSELEY.
- DUEL AT SUNDOWN, episode nineteen of the second season of MAVERICK (starred by a young JAMES GARNER), once again with Arthur Lubin as the director (1959). Eastwood is RED HARDIGAN.
- HUMAN INTEREST STORY, episode thirty two of the fourth season of the very famous TV show ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS, directed by NORMAN LLOYD in 1959. Clint played a newsman and shared credits with Hitchcock himself and also with STEVE MCQUEEN, no less.
- CLINT EASTWOOD MEETS MISTER ED, episode twenty five of the second season of MISTER ED, again by Arthur Lubin (1962). As himself.
- Last, but not least, the TV show he earned a name for himself in the business with, Rawhide, showed between 1959 and 1965, in which he played Rowdy Yates.
As it has probably been noticed, that person, Arthur Lubin, was a paramount figure for him during these years. He was known to be gay and MAGGIE JOHNSON, Eastwood's wife, was suspicious due to all the attention that Lubin devoted to her husband, but be it as it may, Clint owes him a bunch of roles and opportunities, thanks to a personal contract he had signes with him in 1954, not to mention the friendship between the two of them during those early years. When that contract expired, Clint struggled to carry on with his career, in spite of Lubin's help, even without said contract. However, when Eastwood began to have success, he stopped treating Lubin, until 1992, when Clint promised him to meet for a dinner which never happened. That's too bad, Clint.
I guess it can be said that Lubin was the person who discovered the actor within Eastwood. He passed away in 1995.
 |
| Rowdy Yates |
*I said it was IMDB the website I had taken into account, but I also have to say that there are a couple of things on Wikipedia that, had I stick only with the acting and directing IMDB credits, I would have overlooked: in 1955 he was seen in a TV movie called ALLEN IN MOVIELAND, directed by DICK MCDONOUGH, and already in 1991, he plays himself in a documentary by ROBERT GUENETTE titled HERE'S LOOKING AT YOU, WARNER BROS.
He played himself as well, as the narrator, in another documentary directed by RICHARD SCHICKEL, called GARY COOPER: AMERICAN LIFE, AMERICAN LEGEND (1989). In the same vein, although as one of the participants and not the conductor, he also appeared in KUROSAWA, LA VOIE (KUROSAWA'S WAY, 2011), a french documentary by CATHERINE CADOU.
And in Sad Hill Unearthed, of course, as I already explained.
I'm pretty sure to be missing some minor things out, here and there, in which Eastwood has somehow taken part. And there's also his musical career, that I'll soon talk about.
 |
| Clint Eastwood, circa the early eighties |
Concerning Eastwood as a director, it has been praised the fact that he is one of the few most renowned actors in all Hollywood to make a successful (both critically and commercially) move to direction.
One of the most important reasons why he created a production company was his getting fed up with the unnecesary perfectionism that he observed in the directors he had known. He made up his mind and chose to put his faith in austeriry and spontaneity, forgetting about every aspect he would not like as an actor. Hence his already talked about penchant for as few takes as possible, his rejection of storyboards and his famed inclination to avoid rehearsals, not to mention his efficiency while filming, something which has translated quite often into finishing films below the schedule and the budget initially planned. Another one of his usual traits is telling only what's necessary about the plot, and as little about the characters as he possibly can, so that the audience can use its imagination and get involved in the film.
On the other hand, said austeriry is also taken to his (few) instructions, the usually relaxed pace of his filmings, and even the lighting, which is soft more often than not. Eastwood seems to champion the expression More is less when it comes about his films.
As for the themes of his movies, some recurring ones are justice and morality, as well as one's own determination, family, loneliness, heroism and sacrifice. In all truth, many of the old subjects of the western genre can be seen in his movies, be them western ones themselves, or through a more modern context. But most likely, as I have read somewhere, our hero would said that is just bullshit, because he only wants to tell a good story.
Clint Eastwood has a very long and prolific career as a producer as well, although I have barely metioned it, for it's not something either I'm interested in, or that I know a lot of.
For the sake of completing this information, I have to say that Firefox (1982) marked his debut as a producer (credited as such, because apparently, and as I said before, since Hang 'Em High he began producing all the Malpaso films), and only The Rookie and A Perfect World have been directed but not produced by him, ever since. He also produced Tightrope, although he did not direct it (in principle, because it seems like, for almost all intents and purposes, he was the director too), and since The Bridges Of Madison County he has produced every single film he has directed.
He also produced the movie THE STARS FELL ON HENRIETTA (JAMES KEACH, 1995), and has taken part in some other projects as an executive producer.
CLINT EASTWOOD THE MELOMANIAC
Music has always been a very important part of his life, and something that he's been able to combine with his work within the cinema realms. It even was what he wanted to devote his life to at first. He's a jazz music and blues aficionado (mostly the latter), and, apparently, a very proficient pianist. Before getting famous he produced and sung on an album comprised of country standards and he even toured with some fellow actors from the cast of Raw Hide, under the name of AMUSEMENT BUSINESS CAVALCADE OF FAIRS.
As part of his deal with Warner, Clint has his own record company (it is called MALPASO RECORDS, and the studio which Warner owns in Burbank, and which is devoted to the recording of film scores, has been christened as CLINT EASTWOOD SCORING STAGE), with which he has released every single soundtrack of his films since The Bridges Of Madison County, some of which he has composed himself (he even wrote one for a film directed by someone else: GRACE IS GONE, directed by JAMES C. STROUSE and premiered in 2007), as it has been mentioned. He has also written several other piano pieces (In The Line Of Fire), that song for Diana Krall, or even another one which he has sung on (Gran Torino).
Besides Grace Is Gone, the soundtracks he's been responsible for were those of Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby (with which he got nominated at the Grammy Awards in 2006), Flags Of Our Fathers (with the collaboration of his son Kyle and Michael Stevens), Changeling, Hereafter and J. Edgar.
The famous Monterrey Jazz Festival, which was even shown in his debut as a director, Play Misty For Me, worked as a stage when in 2007, and as part of the festival's fifty anniversary schedule, he was honoured with an honorary doctorate in music (because of his contributions to jazz and blues music) by the BERKLEE COLLEGE OF MUSIC (located in Boston, is the world's largest independent music college, and Clint's is a member of its board of administrators since 1992). Clint was flanked by, again, Diana Krall, family friend and Berklee alumni.
It needs to be remarked as well, that Malpaso Records released the album titled EASTWOOD AFTER HOURS (LIVE AT CARNEGIE HALL) in 1997. This is a live album (recorded on October, the 17th, 1996, at the legendary New York venue) in which reputed jazz musicians (together with THE CARNEGIE HALL JAZZ BAND and a string section) performed music from the scores of Eastwood's movies. Clint hosted the event, besides sitting at the piano on the suite the album is named after, and he also co-produced this album, which became a hit. Kyle Eastwood and his quartet also took part.
 |
| One of his biggest passions |
The films he's been involved in as an actor have made almost two billion dollars of gross income, only in the home market, almost reaching two and a half billions worldwide. As a director, his films are even closer to having grossed those two billions at, let's say, home. As for the overall income, this is not far from the three and a half billion dollars (gross). Many of those films are in both categories, of course, but these figures are remarkable.
When I say home market I mean (unless noted otherwise) North America (USA, Canada and Puerto Rico). The international one refers to the rest of the world, and the amounts which have been given above in the second place result from putting both markets together. Always on a gross basis.
I've checked a website called THE NUMBERS to shed some light on all this, and Clint is shown almost on top on some lists (mostly on the one of the top directors at the domestic box office), but taking a look at some of them, I have realized I barely understand anything about the way they have been elaborated.
The list of awards is overwhelming, with prizes of all sorts and from all places, be them from critics, fellow partners in crime, festivals or the best known ones. And not only because of his work, when focused on a specific film, but also because of his career as a whole and his achievements as an overall filmmaker (a recognition to him as an individual).
Pertaining the last ones, he is the recipient of an honorary Palme D'Or at Cannes (2009), a medal (also at Cannes) as Commander Of The Order Of Arts And Letters (1994), the french Legion Of Honour (2007), a japanese Order Of The Rising Sun (2009), three honorary degrees at as many different colleges and many more recognitions.
But if we focus only on the most important ones, at least when it comes to the big screen, as the Academy and The Golden Globe Awards are, his films have been worthy of forty one nominations at the former, and thirty three at the latter, which have amounted to thirteen Oscar Awards and eight Globes. Every single film involved in these achievements has been directed by him.
Out of all those forty one Academy Awards nominations, eleven belong directly to him, be them as an actor, director or best film. He got four prizes, as the best director and for the the best film thanks to Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby. In both occasions, he almost achieved an unprecedented treble, having also been nominated as best actor, although with no luck. But this last detail makes him one of only two people to having been nominated twice as both actor and director for the best film (the other one being Warren Beatty).
His Academy Award as best director for Million Dollar Baby made him the most veteran director to win this prize so far (he was seventy four when that ceremony took place) and one of three directors who are still alive and have directed two different winner films (together with Milos Forman and Francis Ford Coppola). He is also one of the few directors who are even better known due to their work as actors, to win an Oscar as best director (along with Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner, Warren Beatty again, Robert Redford and RICHARD ATTENBOROUGH).
At the Golden Globes, thirteen out of those thirty three nominations involve him, triumphing another four times: best director for Bird, Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby, and best foreign film for Letters From Iwo Jima.
 |
| 1992 |
 |
| 2005 |
A MORE PRIVATE EASTWOOD (ALTHOUGH NOT TOO MUCH)
His private and familiar life could be the subject of as much talk as his work. He has fathered eight children. At least that are known of, because his unruly passion for women, since a very young age, makes this information little reliable. At the very beginning, I mentioned the daughter he had in the early fifties, allegedly unaware of it (there are some discrepancies on this), and right after marrying a woman (Maggie Johnson) who was not the newborn's mother. He has known (presumably) about that daughter's existence only a few years ago (she, in principle, is the oldest of his offspring, and the one who finally makes that number eight). In fact, only four children out of those eight were acknowledged when they were born; the other four were later known to be his. Eastwood himself, while being interviewed in 1997, answered the question of how many kids he had, with a laconic I have a few. All this means that is quite feasible that his total offspring can amount to more than eight kids. Because his moral compass concerning subjects such as fidelity or monogamy has revealed itself as almost nonexistent, by keeping tons of relationships with different women, and many times overlapping them. Not to mention those we do not know anything about.
Thus, we have hir first daughter, Laurie (11-02-1954, born MURRAY), whose existence was revealed to Clint a little time ago. Her mother's names is unknown and Laurie was given up for adoption at birth.
 |
| Clint and Laurie, no less. He's an idol |
Taking the age of his children into account, the next in line would be KIMBER LYNN (17-06-1964), born of his relationship with ROXANNE TUNIS (who died in 2023). He spent with Tunis a good fourteen years, since 1959, although Kimber's existence was not made public until 1989, even if Clint is documented as her father in her birth certificate.
 |
| Kimber Lynn in an old photo |
 |
| Dancer and actress Roxanne Tunis |
The next ones to be born were the two children Eastwood had with Maggie Johnson (his first wife, whom he married in 1953), the already mentioned Kyle (19-05-1968) and Alison (22-05-1972). Obviously, this marriage's timeline is overlapped with that of Clint's relationship with Tunis, and it's bee said that Clint and Johnson's marriage was an open one. Perhaps it just ended up being open because with someone like Clint there was no other way for it to work. It was either that or splitting up. They got divorced in 1984, although it all had already ended six years prior.
 |
| Kyle Eastwood |
 |
| Alison Eastwood |
 |
| Kyle, Alison and parents Clint and Maggie |
This relationship with Reeves was not known until the beginning of the nineties, and the birth certificate of both kids showed that their father had, supposedly, rejected any involvement. Both children's identity was kept a secret until 2002.
 |
| Scott and his famed dad |
 |
| It can be said there's a certain resemblance |
 |
| Clint and Kathryn some years ago |
 |
| Scott and his mum, Jacelyn |
I said, as trivia fact, the first time I mentioned Scott, that I had seen him starring in a video by singer Taylor Swift. Well, that song is called WILDEST DREAMS, and is on a 2014 album named 1989. Said video was shot, mostly, in Botswana and South Africa, and was inspired by films such as The African Queen and by AVA GARDNER's memoirs (THE SECRET CONVERSATIONS, written by PETER EVANS and published in 2013), and was also target of irated criticism, very much in the vein of what happens nowadays with certain stuff.
 |
| Frances Fisher and Francesca |
Morgan, born in 1996 (December, the 12th), is the youngest one. She was born to Dina Ruiz, Clint's second wife, who had already been mentioned. The beginning of Eastwood's relationship with this woman (quite younger than him, by the way) seems to overlap with the ending of his affair with Fisher, and the new couple got married in 1996, when she was already pregnant. They got divorced in 2014, after having been apart for very long.
 |
| Morgan |
 |
| With Dina Ruiz |
The last 15th of June (2024), Clint walked down the aisle with a very pregnant Morgan, for her to get married.
 |
| It's coming! |
It is remarkable indeed his controversial relationship with actress Sondra Locke, whom she met in 1972 and seemed to be made, at least during those times, of a similar stuff as Eastwood, when it came to her relationships. She was married (out of convenience, and never got divorced) and he was still with Johnson, although he actually wasn't. This fact caused quite a stir, although Johnson ended up filing for divorce when she realized Locke was not going to mean to Eastwood what many others before her.
Apparently, Clint had other thoughts (or began to have them soon) and, besides some other relationships, had his two kids with Reeves amidst his affair with Locke (with whom he lived). Locke did not know a lot about all this, at least according to her, but she eventually knew about Eastwood's double life and those kidas, with the aggravating circumstance that she had had two miscarriages together with Clint (during the seventies), and it seems like the second one was actually an abortion, and she was reluctant to carry on with it (it happened at the end of Every Which Way But Loose filming). There are also different opinions concerning these miscarriages, and a subsequent tubal ligation.
Be it as it may, it all ended in 1989, although the legal procedures took much longer to settle. In the meantime, Locke got breast cancer, and that led her to forget about this legal issue in exchange of a deal, but she sued Eastwood again in 1995 concerning this last part. After reaching another agreement the year after, she had another legal brawl, this time with Warner and with Clint as witness, because she pleaded that Warner and him had tried to sabotage her career as a director. In 1999 everything had finished, but she's been quite tough on Eastwood along the years. And, once again, for good reason.
Clint, however, had allegedly admitted to some trusted ones, that Locke had not been another one, that there had been true love between the two of them, at least for a while, and that he had tried hard for it to work. But there was also Eastwood's true nature and the fact that he could not stand her still being married (to a certain Gordon Anderson, by the way), something that never changed until she passed away in 2018.
Sondra Locke directed as many as four movies and published an autobiography in 1997, called THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE VERY UGLY: A HOLLYWOOD JOURNEY. No comments.
 |
| Eastwood and Locke: all bad |
As of today, he is in a relationship (since 2014, apparently, and made public in 2015) with CHRISTINA SANDERA, a waitress he met while she was working at one of his hospitality businesses, who is also many years his junior.
*Unfortunately, barely one week after this entry has seen the light, I learn about Sandera's sudden passing (it looks like it all happened during the past 18th of July, 2024), aged sixty one, thanks to my pal DEIVIZ. Apparently, it's been Eastwood himself who has made the tragic event public, with a few lines notified to THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER. The cause of death remains unknown, at least for the time being. May she rest in peace.
 |
| Christina Sandera |
I did not want to distract myself with these matters (and truth is, I have not told almost anything), but naming his whole offspring and the kids' mothers already takes a while. There have been many other women, of course (I won't bother mentioning any, but some of those who are known are pretty famous, and some of them even belong to the acting business) and, as I've said, there are reasonable doubts about Eastwood's offspring, because it might very well amount to more than eight children. One of his biographers, PATRICK MCGILLIGAN, admitted not knowing neither the exact number of children he might have, nor with how many women, reaching as far as speaking about an hypothetical child born when Eastwood was still in high school.
There have been recent rumours concerning an actor and filmmaker named JAKE C. YOUNG, right after he used Eastwood as his stage name. Young has never said anything about it, but I googled his name and well, let's say that those rumours are well founded, at least concerning this guy's looks.
Step aside, JULIO IGLESIAS.
 |
| With Christina Sandera (R.I.P.) |
GO AHEAD, MAKE ME MAYOR: THE POLITICIAN
Eastwood has close ties with the world of politics. According to what I've read and listened to, even from conversations I haven't been part of, I can picture what people's overall vision of him in this regard is. Exaggerations (or at least that's my opinion) concerning this are the order of the day, as a consecuence of what I think is just going with the flow and paying attention to gossip. That's why Eastwood is pretty much depicted as a completely right wing and reactionary person. An old-timer and an old fashioned fella, regardless of his age, and little less than a fascist through and through. But this is curious and even funny, because more often than not, a depiction as poor as that one, is also joined by a usual an undisguised liking for Clint, his craft and, in many cases, some of his legendary fictional lines, no matter how barbaric they are. From people belonging to every single corner of the political spectrum. To sum it all up, the guy's a savage, but we like him anyway.
There's much more than meets the eye. Clint Eastwood is not Harry Callahan. He doesn't bend the law at his will and gets away with it, and he does not get out in the street with a Magnum 44. He's voiced his opinion againts political correctness, no doubt, but some usual themes found in his films as a director, and which tend to a more progressive line of thinking, have been systematically ignored. As has been ignored the fact that he is pro gun control. Eastwood, a usual republican supporter, has aimed at everyone who he's deemed worthy of critic, regardless of their ideas (president NIXON himself, as a notorious example), and has even had his times of leaning towards the democrats. And as much as he does not see himself as a left wing activist, he does not consider himself as a total conservative person either. He considers himself a libertarian (even a member of the LP or LIBERTARIAN PARTY), supportive of the famous motto live and let live, without doing harm to anyone. Someone too individualistic to, according to him, be tagged as left or right wing, and a champion of the civil rights from a liberal perspective. All this includes a defence of the freedom of choice when it comes to abortion, and of marriage within the same sex (being very judgmental towards the republican party in this regard).
He's criticized his country's traditional relationship with war and its involvement in some of them. He does not like that USA always wants to be what he calls a Global policeman.
He was elected major (an independent one) of his much beloved Carmel in 1986, working as such during two years before he moved on, and he donated his exiguous salary to a juvenile centre term of the city. He also supported (although not all the time) Arnold Schwarzenegger when the latter became the governor of California in 2003, working along him on a few things here and there (for example, within the California State Park And Recreation Commission, which Eastwood was already a member of, since 2001). Clint has always shown interest in California's politics.
 |
| Clint triumphs |
After BARACK OBAMA was elected the US president in 2008, Eastwood, who had supported his own friend, republican JOHN MCCAIN, during the election, said he wished the very best for Obama, for that would mean the best for the country. But a few years later, at 2012 Republican National Convention, and after having given his support to another republican (MITT ROMNEY) in the next election, Eastwood gave an improvised speech (allegedly a secret surprise) which lasted around twelve minutes. In said speech he addressed an empty chair which was supposed to be Obama, and this performance was seen live by millions. Clint joked with some poor taste remarks concerning him and Romney that Obama had supposedly made, to end up saying that it was the citizens, regardless of their ideas, who owned the country, and that politicians were just their employees, and not the other way around.
The responses were immediate, many and different. There was approval within that convention and tons of crticism outside of it. Memes were created too (the EASTWOODING). This is not something that I deem deserving of further attention, but it became the talk of the town back in the day, and it was not exactly one of Eastwood's most popular moments.
 |
| The infamous chair |
Later on, and regarding the 2016 campaign, he admitted not having supported anybody, although he also said that, if given the chance to choose between HILLARY CLINTON and DONALD TRUMP, he would stick with the latter, because Clinton had said she would follow in Obama's footsteps. Eastwood said he understood some of Trump's ideas and where his motivations came from, but at the same time he quoted Trump as someone who said a lot of bullshit and was unmistakably racist some times. What he did not understand is how everything was about what Trump said or did not say, instead of much more important stuff. Soon after he said he had no idea whom his vote would go to, and not for the good reasons. In 2020 he publicly supported democrat MIKE BLOOMBERG, because Trump had humiliated himself with his foolishness.
MISCELLANY
There's more. Since a very early age, Eastwood has advocated for exercising and a healthy life, even appearing in some magazines in this regard, once he became a star, to advice people on nutrition, etc. This side of him was reinforced later on after his dad's relatively early death, due to a heart attack.
 |
| Beware! |
He has also set his eyes on the hospitality industry, and he owns the MISSION RANCH hotel, in Carmel. This is a real estate which exists since 1852 and which he purchased in 1986 to refurbish it according to its original style. In addition, and also in Carmel, he opened a pub called HOG'S BREATH INN in 1971, which he kept until 1999, when he sold it. This place is said to be the one where he first met Jacelyn Reeves in.
 |
| His former business |
It has nothing to do with said hospitality industry, but Clint has shown great interest in golf as well, and not only as a sport to be practiced. He owns a golf club, which is located, where if not there, in Carmel, and which is called TEHÀMA GOLF CLUB. It has to be a very exclusive place because, besides facing the Pacific Ocean and being surrounded by the expected high standards, one can only become a member at invitation.
In a nutshell, Clint Eastwood not only devotes himself to acting, directing, producing, composing, piano playing, business in the hospitality industry making, healthy way of life advocating and full time womanizing, but he also flies helicopters, meditates and invests in the real estate market, not to mention his philantropy things here and there. What you'd call a true polymath. Although it goes without saying that money bears interest, and when someone has as much, the options to increase one's knowledge and fields of expertise get much bigger.
And this is all that there is.
I wish I could say that everything I have written it's been done with complete knowledge, given that I'm an expert in all things Clint Eastwood and an authority on this matter. No way. Nowhere near close. I haven't even read any of the many biographies out there about him (although I wish I did, and I have one in waiting). I've seen his movies and I can talk about them as a fan, but that, and little else, is what I've done: giving my opinion on them.
I always try to gather enough information when I write and, in order to offer what info I deem necessary, I have had to do a lot of reading. In this regard, I must thank all that I've learnt on Wikipedia, the chronology (and more) gotten from IMDB and some other articles I could not list, for they are many. But all that information (and a lot of more I've rejected) can be found anywhere, and what I didn't want to do, was to present it as if this was another encyclopaedic entry. This is why I hope the hypothetical reader appeciates all this mostly because of my personal opinion on the films, and the anecdotes related to them, regardless of their agreement with my points of view, given this is not only about cinema.
This is a tribute that just had to be done and, after a few months I'm amazed that I've reached the end, although it's also true that finishing it makes me sad somehow. If those who read it have just one quarter of the fun I've experienced writing it, find out they are eager to watch this or that film one more time, or just want to watch them all for the first time after the reading, it would be enough for me to consider all this a success. It's been good fun to remember so many things about this movies and, being honest, now I want to see almost all of them once again.
Thanks to Clint Eastwood for being such an amazing individual (despite some things) and for the insane amount of good times and memories he has provided us with. Thanks to Constantino Romero for contributing to create an immortal picture of the actor in the subconscious of so many people in Spain.
Thanks to the reader, of course, for reaching this far.
And last, but not least, I'd like to remember the great Donald Sutherland, Clint's partner in crime in a couple of movies, who passed away on the 20th of June, aged eighty eight (1935 - 2024). May his soul rest in peace.
See you soon!
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario
Comenta si te apetece, pero siempre con educación y respeto, por favor. Gracias!
Have your say if you want to, but always be polite and respectful, please. Thanks!