LE CERCLE ROUGE
Dir: Jean-Pierre Melville
France, 1970
25/03/09
Made a few years before his death at the age fifty-five, Le Cercle Rouge is usually considered in the pantheon of classic gangster films that Melville made in the latter part of his career. It certainly is a stylish display of fate and inevitability, that like the best film noirs that influenced it seems to play fast and loose with coincidence and fleeting connections.
The film follows four main protagonists as they all converge around a jewelry heist. First we have commissioner Mattei (Andre Bouvril) escorting his prisoner, Vogel (Gian-Maria Volonte), on a train, but after Vogel escapes Mattei finds himself under intense pressure to put things right. Then there's Corey (Frequent Melville collaborator Alain Delon), who on the day of his release is given a job offer by a prison guard. Corey says he wants to go straight but is easily enticed into the job. As these three stories are expertly woven together by Melville we follow the meeting of Corey and Vogel, seemingly by pure chance, but the two help each other through several scrapes and Corey lets Vogel in on the job. The final character is Jansen (Yves Montand), an alcoholic ex-cop who is needed by the robbers for his sharpshooting skills.
It's obvious that Melville doesn't mind the slow build up to bring his pieces together (Jansen isn't introduced until an hour into the film, yet is no less fleshed out then any of the other characters), but this is to the films credit. We are shown the little details that inhabit the criminals, and police officers lives such as Vogel having to strip off his clothes and then put them back on to cross a river whilst being chased by dogs (modesty is not a particularly good trait to have as a fugitive. These are not suave and cool gangsters in the mould of Scorsese, they do what they have to to get the job done). We also see such things as Jansen tediously making bullets, and the robbery itself, which is shown in minute detail as we watch Vogel and Corey ascending a building and clambering across rooftops for several minutes before they even get to their destination. This of course is intended. The inevitability of these characters' downfall is never in doubt, yet Melville wants to show us the pointlessness of their actions; no matter how much preparation they make, they can't escape their fate.
There are many tense moments in this film, dealt by Melville with expert precision. Keeping in line with the films style, he creates the tension out of small moments. In the near silent robbery for example, it is the creaking of a pane of glass whilst a security guard decides whether to recheck the toilet, or a security system that doesn't seem to turn off when the switch is flicked that gets out hearts racing, one of the best of all being when Vogel, breaking free of his handcuffs on a train must move slowly and silently whilst holding his handcuff up, so as not alert the attention of Commissioner Mattei sat up on the bed below, only inches away.
The films actors, besides the seemingly overconfident Mattei, play their characters with a stoic like determination, seemingly possessing a psychic connection with each other. This is the style of acting Melville liked (because, it is said, it reflected his own personality), but it gives the characters a sense of depth and intrigue, something deep inside that the camera can't penetrate. These traits are best embodied by Alain Delon's Corey who manages to express emotions without ever changing his face, such as when he visits crime boss Rico (Andre Ekyan) to take some money. He is no less restrained then in any other scene, yet the hate and potential violence he emanates is easily felt (In fact this scene, which is one in which we see anything resembling feelings from Corey's character, can perhaps in part be blamed for his downfall later). The cinematography therefore is left to reflect on the characters' quiet exterior by being restrained and unobtrusive, it does what it needs to do and does it well.
Melville knows how to use this acting style to his advantage to get genuine surprise from the audience, such as Corey's reaction at Vogel shooting two gangsters or when during the robbery Jansen lines his gun up carefully on a tripod aiming exactly at it's target, and then, without any warning removes the gun from it's stand to take the shot without any aid. The shocked reaction of the usually laconic Corey and Vogel can't help but create a brief moment of panic in the audience.
The theme of the film seems to be an almost original sin style philosophy, embodied particularly by the Chief Of Police (Paul Amiot). "All men are guilty, They are born guilty, but it doesn't last" he says to the shocked Mattei with a seriousness that is almost humorous. Mattei later seems to accept the philosophy when pimp and bar owner Santi's (Francois Perier) son is arrested on trumped up charges which turn out to be true. Melville ties this in with his theme of fate by quoting Buddha at the beginning about how certain men are destined to meet in a red circle (Le Cercle Rouge). It seems that Melville wants us to believe that the fate awaiting all men is not only inevitable, but deserving.
It has been said elsewhere that Melville's use of zoom is somewhat dated, but i think it suits the film fine, and is used sparingly or unknowingly, usually to emphasize something, though i think dated could be applied to the editing. One scene in particular, which adds to the theme of pointlessness is when Jansen makes bullets. The use of several wipes here is quite tedious, as is a shot of Corey going down in a lift as the camera raises upwards, which is a perfectly good shot (emphasizing the feeling that Corey is about to meet his fate) but doesn't need to be shown twice in a matter of seconds. But these are small matters that were noticed once or twice in a film clocking in at over two hours.
It seems to me that whilst Melville was undeniably influenced by American cinema of the forties and fifties, this film, which maintains much of that look (the costumes, the cars, the downbeat mise en scene), feels far more like the kind of film we would see coming out of America in the proceeding years. The emotional void of it's characters and pessimism of it's story echo just as much in films like The Conversation (Coppola, USA, 1974), Chinatown (Polanski, USA, 1974) or Network (Lumet, USA, 1976). These films seep in the darkness that was inherent in the old American film noirs but given a more fatalistic and paranoid essence by the French directors who took the genre and moulded it into their own vision, influenced much more by the memories of the second world war. Melville, who like many of those future directors saw himself as a loner, fills his film with this sense of embitterment. The sometimes intense, and other times desolate scenes these create make for an ultimately satisfying and absorbing experience.
Wednesday 25 March 2009
Tuesday 24 March 2009
Quantum Of Solace (Film)
QUANTUM OF SOLACE
Dir: Marc Foster
UK/USA, 2008
(24/03/09)
There is little doubt that Casino Royale (Campbell, UK/USA/Germany/Czech Rep, 2006) was a return to form for the bond franchise with Daniel Craig throwing himself full throttle into the role. It was received to rapturous reviews and many fans were calling for director Martin Campbell to helm this film, which is a direct sequel(he also, incidentally, directed the best Bond film of the nineties, Pierce Brosnan's pilot Goldeneye (U.S.A/U.K, 1995)). This may have been a better idea as it seems everything they got right in the first film, which was more then they got wrong, they mess up in this one, the only real improvement being the plot.
Whereas Casino Royale consisted of a story extended around the gimmick of a poker tournament, this one encompasses more of a large conspiracy theory featuring a huge organization (QUANTUM, an attempt to create a new SPECTRE) that is more suitable to the Bond canon. There are some nice little attempts in the screenplay to tie it in with modern events, such as Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric, playing the villain with the relish that all bond villains should be played with, despite lacking any defining eccentricity besides eating an apple too enthusiastically), trying to convince a CIA operative that his plan for the Bolivia is good for America as they are losing control of South America whilst being distracted in the Middle East. In fact his character being an environmentalist with a hidden motive is a nice touch. Industrialists used to be hailed as the saviors but became corrupt, are the new wave of environmentalists any different? There's also dashes of clever dialog, such as when Bond is talking with Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright) in a bar and bonds says "I like the way you [the Americans] carved this place [South America] up". "I'll take that as a compliment coming from a Brit." Replies Felix. Sadly, these little nuances which improve the script (and feel like one of the contributions of Paul Haggis) are lost by the immediacy of which chases and shootouts have to occur, and there lies the real problem of the film.
Setting itself a few minutes after the climax of Casino Royale, it opens immediately with a car chase through the streets of an Italian city. The problems that betray this film throughout are glaring straight away; the action scenes consist of some of the worst editing seen in a big-budget blockbuster in my memory. The editing is so incoherent that the numerous chase sequences seem to have footage missing and make very little sense, and for the sharper eyed viewer, there are several continuity errors to do with positioning of people and vehicles, one such being when a car goes careening off the edge of a road to the left of Bonds car when half a second earlier in the previous shot it was on the right side if his car. I was just about able to work out that there were some vehicles (be it boats, planes or cars) chasing each other and that someone was being shot at. The opening chase made almost no sense with bonds car door getting ripped off without us seeing, trucks coming from no where, confusing scenery changes and no sense of where any of the cars are in relatio to each other. After this sequence when Bond pulls his battered, bullet strewn car to a halt, he pulls Mr. White (Jesper Christian) out of the boot which miraculously escaped bullet-hole free. The fighting and close combat scenes fare slightly better but are still somewhat erratic, and this squanders some potentially great sequences such as Bond and Camille (Olga Kurylenko) on a battered old plane up against a modern fighter jet and a combat helicopter. The action scenes are central to the Bond franchise and after some brilliantly choreographed fighting in Casino Royale (especially the scene on the cranes which took my breath away) this is a huge disappointment.
The film also tries to show Bond as a man out for revenge, trying to fight the organization that led to Vesper Lynd's (Eva Green in Casino Royale) death. This isn't portrayed satisfyingly enough for us to feel that this is the real Bond having these feelings. At times he seems childish, and elsewhere plain cold hearted, as in the way he treats Rene Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini, reprising his role from the previous film) which is harsh and difficult to sympathize with. There are other plot inconsistencies: why exactly does Bond save Camille from the boat she is on with General Madrano (Joaquin Cosio) when she seems in no immediate danger and of no help to him? Is her role particularly necessary in the film at all, other then a scene similar to the one in Casino Royale where Bond comforts Vesper in a shower, except this time in a burning room, the flames, like the water, representing a purge.
It's certainly not the worst of the twenty-two Bonds films, and perhaps expectations were too high, but it is still a let down. If only the personal bits were as well written as the central plot, or ejected altogether, and the action scenes better constructed, this could have been much better. Daniel Craig certainly should carry no blame, he plays Bond as he is asked to, but i think some of the criticisms from the previous film, that he is less suave and sophisticated and more middle class thug have more baring here. In one scene, agent Fields (Gemma Arterton) takes Bond to a small hotel. Bond immediately leaves and relocates them to a far glossier and more expensive one, which can't help but raise the thought that Bond is wasting British taxpayer's money, simply because he has an ego to maintain. The screenwriters also make the British and American governments complicit somewhat in QUANTUM's plans, which is a good move that makes the film more modern and believable, but all of this added together left me wondering exactly who or what Bond is fighting for, as he seems more interested in showing off and jet-setting then Queen and country.
Dir: Marc Foster
UK/USA, 2008
(24/03/09)
There is little doubt that Casino Royale (Campbell, UK/USA/Germany/Czech Rep, 2006) was a return to form for the bond franchise with Daniel Craig throwing himself full throttle into the role. It was received to rapturous reviews and many fans were calling for director Martin Campbell to helm this film, which is a direct sequel(he also, incidentally, directed the best Bond film of the nineties, Pierce Brosnan's pilot Goldeneye (U.S.A/U.K, 1995)). This may have been a better idea as it seems everything they got right in the first film, which was more then they got wrong, they mess up in this one, the only real improvement being the plot.
Whereas Casino Royale consisted of a story extended around the gimmick of a poker tournament, this one encompasses more of a large conspiracy theory featuring a huge organization (QUANTUM, an attempt to create a new SPECTRE) that is more suitable to the Bond canon. There are some nice little attempts in the screenplay to tie it in with modern events, such as Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric, playing the villain with the relish that all bond villains should be played with, despite lacking any defining eccentricity besides eating an apple too enthusiastically), trying to convince a CIA operative that his plan for the Bolivia is good for America as they are losing control of South America whilst being distracted in the Middle East. In fact his character being an environmentalist with a hidden motive is a nice touch. Industrialists used to be hailed as the saviors but became corrupt, are the new wave of environmentalists any different? There's also dashes of clever dialog, such as when Bond is talking with Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright) in a bar and bonds says "I like the way you [the Americans] carved this place [South America] up". "I'll take that as a compliment coming from a Brit." Replies Felix. Sadly, these little nuances which improve the script (and feel like one of the contributions of Paul Haggis) are lost by the immediacy of which chases and shootouts have to occur, and there lies the real problem of the film.
Setting itself a few minutes after the climax of Casino Royale, it opens immediately with a car chase through the streets of an Italian city. The problems that betray this film throughout are glaring straight away; the action scenes consist of some of the worst editing seen in a big-budget blockbuster in my memory. The editing is so incoherent that the numerous chase sequences seem to have footage missing and make very little sense, and for the sharper eyed viewer, there are several continuity errors to do with positioning of people and vehicles, one such being when a car goes careening off the edge of a road to the left of Bonds car when half a second earlier in the previous shot it was on the right side if his car. I was just about able to work out that there were some vehicles (be it boats, planes or cars) chasing each other and that someone was being shot at. The opening chase made almost no sense with bonds car door getting ripped off without us seeing, trucks coming from no where, confusing scenery changes and no sense of where any of the cars are in relatio to each other. After this sequence when Bond pulls his battered, bullet strewn car to a halt, he pulls Mr. White (Jesper Christian) out of the boot which miraculously escaped bullet-hole free. The fighting and close combat scenes fare slightly better but are still somewhat erratic, and this squanders some potentially great sequences such as Bond and Camille (Olga Kurylenko) on a battered old plane up against a modern fighter jet and a combat helicopter. The action scenes are central to the Bond franchise and after some brilliantly choreographed fighting in Casino Royale (especially the scene on the cranes which took my breath away) this is a huge disappointment.
The film also tries to show Bond as a man out for revenge, trying to fight the organization that led to Vesper Lynd's (Eva Green in Casino Royale) death. This isn't portrayed satisfyingly enough for us to feel that this is the real Bond having these feelings. At times he seems childish, and elsewhere plain cold hearted, as in the way he treats Rene Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini, reprising his role from the previous film) which is harsh and difficult to sympathize with. There are other plot inconsistencies: why exactly does Bond save Camille from the boat she is on with General Madrano (Joaquin Cosio) when she seems in no immediate danger and of no help to him? Is her role particularly necessary in the film at all, other then a scene similar to the one in Casino Royale where Bond comforts Vesper in a shower, except this time in a burning room, the flames, like the water, representing a purge.
It's certainly not the worst of the twenty-two Bonds films, and perhaps expectations were too high, but it is still a let down. If only the personal bits were as well written as the central plot, or ejected altogether, and the action scenes better constructed, this could have been much better. Daniel Craig certainly should carry no blame, he plays Bond as he is asked to, but i think some of the criticisms from the previous film, that he is less suave and sophisticated and more middle class thug have more baring here. In one scene, agent Fields (Gemma Arterton) takes Bond to a small hotel. Bond immediately leaves and relocates them to a far glossier and more expensive one, which can't help but raise the thought that Bond is wasting British taxpayer's money, simply because he has an ego to maintain. The screenwriters also make the British and American governments complicit somewhat in QUANTUM's plans, which is a good move that makes the film more modern and believable, but all of this added together left me wondering exactly who or what Bond is fighting for, as he seems more interested in showing off and jet-setting then Queen and country.
Gran Torino (Film)
GRAN TORINO
Dir: Clint Eastwood
USA, 2009
(24/03/09)
Clint Eastwood’s latest film (and rumoured to be his last lead acting role) sees him doing what he does best; deconstructing the American Psyche as well as the machismo that he spent the first part of his career playing. This time he’s yet again reinterpreting a genre role that made him famous, as he did with the western as William ‘Bill’ Munny in Unforgiven (Eastwood, USA, 1992), by playing a character in the mould of ’Dirty’ Harry Calahan and other such types in his urban thrillers, albeit a lot older and domesticated. But unlike the rogue super-cop in those films, Eastwood’s character, Walt Kowalski, is more of an everyman set in his traditional ways; he considers fixing cars, DIY, and drinking beer the manly things to do and gardening women’s work. He buys American and berates those who buy Japanese cars, and he loves his dog. Also, he embodies many of the feelings in America today that come to the fore less often under the presidency of Barack Obama, but are none the less still there, such as racism, tied in particularly with the disintegration of community. Kowalski voices his politically incorrect opinions of the neighboring Hmongs (Gooks or Zipperheads as he likes to call them) that have now moved into all the houses around him, but a masterstroke of Eastwood's direction and performance is he manages to make these moments funny without loosing their impact, indeed much of it is played for comedy, but we are never made to feel guilty for seeing it as such (unlike many directors who would try to make the audience complicit) mainly because Eastwood manages not to laugh directly at a different culture, but to poke a little fun at the differences and misinterpretations when two different ones collide.
The film opens at a church for the funeral of Kowalski's wife. Eastwood stands next to the coffin, playing to type by growling at the wrongs in the world, only this time it isn't ruthless killers or cold hearted thugs, it's his granddaughter coming to the funeral in casual clothes, piercings bared, and texting on her phone. The film doesn't just start with this tragedy in order to build sympathy for Eastwood's character (it is later said he is better at dealing with death then with life), but more as a turning point as there is little doubt that the upcoming route the film takes would have been different if Kowalski had his wife, as loneliness and desire for a role ("I fix things...I once fixed a door that wasn't even broke yet") leads him places even he can't really grasp, such as a Hmong party. It is even said by one of sons "Don't you think the old man will get in trouble in the old neighborhood by himself?"*, but neither of them have any time for him. Trouble does soon arrive when a gang trying to recruit young Thao (Bee Vang) into their ranks spills onto Kowalski's lawn; "I used to stack fucks like you five feet high in Korea, use you for sandbags." he says, shotgun aloft. The gang-bangers leave. But from then on he is a hero to his neighbors and an enemy to the gangs and there is no going back.
The films central relationship is between Kowalski and the clever, but shy, Thao as he forced to pay back Kowalski for an attempt to steal his Gran Torino and eventually bonds with the old man whilst doing a selection of neighborhood DIY jobs and getting 'manned up', which leads to more comedy. The implication that all Thao needs is a father figure to avoid a life in gangs is possibly true for that character, but maybe a bit simplistic when applied to other gang members, one of which tells Thao he used to shy and bullied until he was in a gang, but he obviously lacks Thao's intelligence and good nature. But Eastwood is a good surrogate, and it helps his character grow just as much as he feels somewhat haunted by his failed relationship with his sons and is given a chance to do things right. Of course this relationship with his Hmong neighbors begins to flirt with sentimentality, but Eastwood cleverly veers away as it would of spoiled the feeling of this particular film and it's themes.
The other main character in Kowalski's life is the local priest, Father Janovich (Christopher Carley), who continuously forces himself upon Kowalski in order to fulfill a promise to his dead wife and get him to confess his sins. It's a subplot that could easily feel contrived, but is well played, and the priest gets somewhat involved in the central plot in a believable way. His character is really there as someone to open Kowalski's shell and give us an insight into his dark soul, as he isn't going to open up to Thao, or his sister Sue (an excellent performance by Ahney Her, as the one who conducts Kowalksi into the community), as they are both children, yet the only Hmongs that speak English. Eastwood does eventually open up somewhat, but it doesn't get weepy. A moment when he admits his guilt for killing a young man in Korea presents the possibility that all his racism is simply an attempt to undermine his guilt by demeaning the foreigners as less then human.
Obviously the conflict with the gangs crosses a line and Kowalski's gotta do what a man's gotta do. Again Eastwood flirts with another cliche, the gung-ho shootout (which leads to another 'please don't' moment), but this is just toying with expectations ala Dirty Harry, and in the end he goes with the more suitable adult approach that does once and for all with the genre stereotypes and circles back around to Kowalski's relationship with life an death. The ending also leads to the passing of a community from the hands of one ethnicity to another. Although Kowalski is an American born and bred, with a name like Kowalski he his obviously not a native and his parents probably moved into a polish neighborhood before he was born. But Kowalski is an American. He was born there, fought for his country and worked in the Ford factory. But it's time for the cycle to come around and now the Hmongs are doing exactly what the poles did before them. The adults may be foreign but the children are American, and Kowalski gets Thao a job on an American building site, not dissimilar in theme to the job at his old Ford factory. The end shot is Thao driving down the road in Kowalski's sacred Gran Torino, the message seeming to be that America is people of different ethnicities working together to create a distinctive culture, all of which Eastwood presents, thankfully, without being preachy. One such moment that seemingly pokes fun at the American tendency for self-masturbation is after Sue describes her father and Walt asks what's different about himself. She answers "You're different, you're American." Walt asks what that means. "I don't know." She says.*
An interesting switch towards the end is how Kowalski still calls the Hmongs by the stereotypical names such as gook etc. (and, seemingly on purpose, mispronouncing names such as turning Youa into yum-yum), but these cease to have racist connotations and instead become nicknames used with fondness, a sensibility that is perhaps too mature for modern society. It is interesting how this film comes not long after Eastwood was criticized by Spike Lee for having no black actors in his Iwo Jima double bill. Eastwood has now done a grand study of white middle-America equal with any of Lee's studies of the black counterpart, and has presented some interesting ideas into circulation whilst at it, not bad for someone who is eighty this year.
The performances are excellent as can be expected from any Eastwood picture, with Clint himself especially shining. Much has been said that he missed out on an Oscar nomination due to the familiarity of his role, but this is to misunderstand the character. Yes he's a war veteran, but more then that he's a lonely old curmudgeon nostalgic for the past who learns to accept the present, and it is well gauged, especially with the comic elements (it is far funnier then any recent comedy coming out of America) juggled well with the seriousness, which gives the film a coating of reality and in the end leads to a great final result.
*I did not take notes in the film so whilst these quotes may be inaccurate, the are correct in essence.
Dir: Clint Eastwood
USA, 2009
(24/03/09)
Clint Eastwood’s latest film (and rumoured to be his last lead acting role) sees him doing what he does best; deconstructing the American Psyche as well as the machismo that he spent the first part of his career playing. This time he’s yet again reinterpreting a genre role that made him famous, as he did with the western as William ‘Bill’ Munny in Unforgiven (Eastwood, USA, 1992), by playing a character in the mould of ’Dirty’ Harry Calahan and other such types in his urban thrillers, albeit a lot older and domesticated. But unlike the rogue super-cop in those films, Eastwood’s character, Walt Kowalski, is more of an everyman set in his traditional ways; he considers fixing cars, DIY, and drinking beer the manly things to do and gardening women’s work. He buys American and berates those who buy Japanese cars, and he loves his dog. Also, he embodies many of the feelings in America today that come to the fore less often under the presidency of Barack Obama, but are none the less still there, such as racism, tied in particularly with the disintegration of community. Kowalski voices his politically incorrect opinions of the neighboring Hmongs (Gooks or Zipperheads as he likes to call them) that have now moved into all the houses around him, but a masterstroke of Eastwood's direction and performance is he manages to make these moments funny without loosing their impact, indeed much of it is played for comedy, but we are never made to feel guilty for seeing it as such (unlike many directors who would try to make the audience complicit) mainly because Eastwood manages not to laugh directly at a different culture, but to poke a little fun at the differences and misinterpretations when two different ones collide.
The film opens at a church for the funeral of Kowalski's wife. Eastwood stands next to the coffin, playing to type by growling at the wrongs in the world, only this time it isn't ruthless killers or cold hearted thugs, it's his granddaughter coming to the funeral in casual clothes, piercings bared, and texting on her phone. The film doesn't just start with this tragedy in order to build sympathy for Eastwood's character (it is later said he is better at dealing with death then with life), but more as a turning point as there is little doubt that the upcoming route the film takes would have been different if Kowalski had his wife, as loneliness and desire for a role ("I fix things...I once fixed a door that wasn't even broke yet") leads him places even he can't really grasp, such as a Hmong party. It is even said by one of sons "Don't you think the old man will get in trouble in the old neighborhood by himself?"*, but neither of them have any time for him. Trouble does soon arrive when a gang trying to recruit young Thao (Bee Vang) into their ranks spills onto Kowalski's lawn; "I used to stack fucks like you five feet high in Korea, use you for sandbags." he says, shotgun aloft. The gang-bangers leave. But from then on he is a hero to his neighbors and an enemy to the gangs and there is no going back.
The films central relationship is between Kowalski and the clever, but shy, Thao as he forced to pay back Kowalski for an attempt to steal his Gran Torino and eventually bonds with the old man whilst doing a selection of neighborhood DIY jobs and getting 'manned up', which leads to more comedy. The implication that all Thao needs is a father figure to avoid a life in gangs is possibly true for that character, but maybe a bit simplistic when applied to other gang members, one of which tells Thao he used to shy and bullied until he was in a gang, but he obviously lacks Thao's intelligence and good nature. But Eastwood is a good surrogate, and it helps his character grow just as much as he feels somewhat haunted by his failed relationship with his sons and is given a chance to do things right. Of course this relationship with his Hmong neighbors begins to flirt with sentimentality, but Eastwood cleverly veers away as it would of spoiled the feeling of this particular film and it's themes.
The other main character in Kowalski's life is the local priest, Father Janovich (Christopher Carley), who continuously forces himself upon Kowalski in order to fulfill a promise to his dead wife and get him to confess his sins. It's a subplot that could easily feel contrived, but is well played, and the priest gets somewhat involved in the central plot in a believable way. His character is really there as someone to open Kowalski's shell and give us an insight into his dark soul, as he isn't going to open up to Thao, or his sister Sue (an excellent performance by Ahney Her, as the one who conducts Kowalksi into the community), as they are both children, yet the only Hmongs that speak English. Eastwood does eventually open up somewhat, but it doesn't get weepy. A moment when he admits his guilt for killing a young man in Korea presents the possibility that all his racism is simply an attempt to undermine his guilt by demeaning the foreigners as less then human.
Obviously the conflict with the gangs crosses a line and Kowalski's gotta do what a man's gotta do. Again Eastwood flirts with another cliche, the gung-ho shootout (which leads to another 'please don't' moment), but this is just toying with expectations ala Dirty Harry, and in the end he goes with the more suitable adult approach that does once and for all with the genre stereotypes and circles back around to Kowalski's relationship with life an death. The ending also leads to the passing of a community from the hands of one ethnicity to another. Although Kowalski is an American born and bred, with a name like Kowalski he his obviously not a native and his parents probably moved into a polish neighborhood before he was born. But Kowalski is an American. He was born there, fought for his country and worked in the Ford factory. But it's time for the cycle to come around and now the Hmongs are doing exactly what the poles did before them. The adults may be foreign but the children are American, and Kowalski gets Thao a job on an American building site, not dissimilar in theme to the job at his old Ford factory. The end shot is Thao driving down the road in Kowalski's sacred Gran Torino, the message seeming to be that America is people of different ethnicities working together to create a distinctive culture, all of which Eastwood presents, thankfully, without being preachy. One such moment that seemingly pokes fun at the American tendency for self-masturbation is after Sue describes her father and Walt asks what's different about himself. She answers "You're different, you're American." Walt asks what that means. "I don't know." She says.*
An interesting switch towards the end is how Kowalski still calls the Hmongs by the stereotypical names such as gook etc. (and, seemingly on purpose, mispronouncing names such as turning Youa into yum-yum), but these cease to have racist connotations and instead become nicknames used with fondness, a sensibility that is perhaps too mature for modern society. It is interesting how this film comes not long after Eastwood was criticized by Spike Lee for having no black actors in his Iwo Jima double bill. Eastwood has now done a grand study of white middle-America equal with any of Lee's studies of the black counterpart, and has presented some interesting ideas into circulation whilst at it, not bad for someone who is eighty this year.
The performances are excellent as can be expected from any Eastwood picture, with Clint himself especially shining. Much has been said that he missed out on an Oscar nomination due to the familiarity of his role, but this is to misunderstand the character. Yes he's a war veteran, but more then that he's a lonely old curmudgeon nostalgic for the past who learns to accept the present, and it is well gauged, especially with the comic elements (it is far funnier then any recent comedy coming out of America) juggled well with the seriousness, which gives the film a coating of reality and in the end leads to a great final result.
*I did not take notes in the film so whilst these quotes may be inaccurate, the are correct in essence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)