I was thinking about Clint Eastwood and his film history, and I gotta wonder if it represents some change of his world view. In his younger films, Clint solved all his problems with guns. Then came True Crime and he solved the problem with his “pen” as a journalist. And in Gran Torino, he basically commits suicide to “catch” the bad guys.
Does this represent an evolution of Clint Eastwood’s philosophy? Or is he just too old to be shootin’ everybody who pisses him off?
It’s been my theory, ever since Unforgiven, that Eastwood’s later work represents an acknowledgment of, perhaps even an attempted atonement for, his role in the perpetuation of violent iconography in the culture. I mean, as an actor Clint Eastwood certainly became something of an icon, and the iconography of Clint was largely made up of the satisfaction of violent revenge.
I think as he grows older, and as he matures as an artist, he sees his contribution to American culture with a touch of regret, or even remorse, and most of his more recent movies seem to address the role of violence in our culture with a philosophical approach; a more and more strongly elegiac examination of the effects of violence on a culture and on the individual.
Also, as he matures as an artist, I see more and more John Ford in his work. Ford’s strongest central theme was “nobility in defeat,” roughly stated, and I think Eastwood’s work shows an increasing understanding of that idea, as it has moved away from simple stories of violent revenge.
I wonder if there’s a distinction to be made here between Eastwod the actor and Eastwood the director. The most iconic “Clint with gun” films from his early period - Dirty Harry, The Good the Bad and the Ugly, those sort … he wasn’t involved in the production, so didn’t have much of an impat on the direction of the story. Since Unforgiven, he’s been director/producer of practically everything he’s done.
I always think he makes a much better director than an actor.
At a tangent … looking up his work on imdb … Holy Crap that man’s prolific. Directed and produced nearly a movie a year for the last 38 years, plus all his acting-only work dating back to 1955. The guy’s a machine!
Mystic River was one of his later (and best) films, and it seemed to have something to say about violence. Not sure exactly what, though.
Before that, Bloodwork was a pretty straight-up murder(er) mystery.
I’d forgotten about Mystic River, which I really liked. I think it’s point is that vigilantism is a bad idea, and leads to tragedy – like killing the wrong guy.
I agree with a lot of what** lissener** said I think it’s probably simpler than that. Playing an old washed up killer is old Clint’s wheelhouse, if he hadn’t starred in it who else in Hollywood has the chops and look to pull off a credible Will Money? Tommy Lee Jones maybe, but I can’t think of another.
His character may feel regret but I can’t think of another movie that does so much to showcase Clint’s past hits.