Photo+Journalism
I had posted this back in March on my Facebook notes. Here’s a repost:
Probably a good month, month-and-a-half ago, a handful of people asked what my thoughts on Gran Torino are. By a handful of people, I really mean (remember) John and Jon…
Anyways, I finally got around to watching it today.
A lot of my Asian friends had commented on how much of the film was Clint Eastwood muttering racial slurs under his breath. True. (I was far more impressed by his “old man” grumblings and sighs of annoyance. “GrrMmmmmmMMMMhhhh, no more, no more!…-sniff- Oh okay, bring it in, bring it in…”) But I think the source of much upset regarding these racial slurs is really from the audience reaction. How the audience reacts to Eastwood’s character’s dialogue and sometimes monologues affected how I felt, at least, not towards the film, but towards the jerks sitting behind me.
Now…these guys behind me were big boys. Big in every way. Hefty men, rotund. They’d put their feet up, and shake the entire row of chairs in ways I’ve never felt before (I think the guy kept grinding one of his shoes against the other as he’d drop one foot from the top of the chair to the ground from time to time). Gargantuan noises. Eating. Talking. Unnecessary comments. These guys were nightmares to sit in front of. I don’t recall ever having such rude, unpleasant theater companions before.
Anyways, these guys seemed to be there more for the actual racial banter and jokes, rather than to watch an enlightening film about race, class, and age relations. [SPOILER ALERT] At the serenely violent end, the most vocal of the herd shouted out “I WASN’T EXPECTING THAT KIND OF ENDING!” Surely he was expecting something far more along the lines of Dirty Harry or The Good The Bad and The Ugly. Clint Eastwood really disappointed this guy.
But during the film, each time Eastwood’s character, Walt Kowalski, would spit out some sort of racial comment, these guys would be busting their sides with laughter. Sure, many of these moments were meant to be funny…but not really so much in the beginning…
I thought the film, however, was a fair shot at a socially conscious film. It had the feel of Boyz n the Hood plus a little western/war nostalgia that Eastwood’s presence alone brings to the screen. It’s a warm film about aging, death, and discovering the meaning of life. Certainly a socially significant film, not only because it examines cultural differences and socioeconomic struggles, but because it approaches issues that are essentially human.
When Kowalski uses the racial slurs, he does so not entirely out of hate. Or at all out of hate, even in the beginning. He echoes language that he grew up with, perhaps hyperbolically, but he uses it out of his ignorance towards his neighbors, or as a tool of intimidation before he has to resort to whipping out his pistol. Yet he subtly shifts his tone, though his language remains unchanged, to use slurs as terms of endearment, light teasing to which his neighbors take little offense. No one actually corrects Kowalski’s speech to tell him that it is deeply offensive, so his character, in character, makes no adjustments.
Granted, those hard, harsh words are hurtful to many. But taken in context, the point is a bit…null.
But the sad thing is that the subtle tone shift, the endearment and appreciation for the Hmong culture, and Kowalski’s new understanding of life itself, is likely lost on many of the…less perceptive audience members like my corpulent pals behind me.
—
Other thoughts:
For the most part, the film has a sort of Italian neorealism essence about it. Non-professional actors, representing the lower-class lifestyle (think Slumdog Millionaire as a very recognizable modern example). However, it (like Slumdog) is a bit too tidy in the end to be neorealism. I think that’s more of a trend among American movies, though, rather than a specific fault of the film. Americans, especially now, really need that picker-upper. Europeans and Asians really seem to not mind that depressing, yet real-life ending. There’s always a ray of hope though…ambiguously… but in American films, we have a hard, tangible, but plastic-y happier-than-expected ending. And darn, does it feel good.
It was nice to see some Asian American representation in there. Sure, the Hmong actors weren’t fantastic, but keep in mind, they’re not professionally trained. At least they’re really Hmong, not *ahem* Chinese substituting as usual *coughmemoirsofageishacough*. It certainly worked to address some of the social difficulties Hmong communities face, and lower income Asians as well: gangs, poverty, familial pressures, etc. I’m sure it barely brushed the surface of many other problems, but save it for another film.
—
All in all, I liked it. It was a fine addition to Clint Eastwood’s work as actor and director. I respect the man for what he has done and what he is trying to do.
Jessica–
I’m sorry you had such an unpleasant experience with some in the audience. Reading your account of it reinforces my desire to stay home and watch movies on my home theater system. What I lose in a bigger screen, slightly better sound, and pleasant audience reaction by not going to the theater, I probably more than make up for in convenience and avoidance of the ‘jerk factor’ when I stay home. I just saw “Gran Torino,” and, after reading your story, I’m glad I did it at home.
I think I have pretty much the same positive take on the film as you do. I agree that Eastwood could have probably substituted just about any other ethnicity for the Hmong and still made largely the same movie, but I liked the fact that he did it with a people about whom a great many in America and elsewhere probably knew virtually nothing. My wife, who is Thai and frequently complains about the insular nature of American culture and the ignorance of its people about Asian and other cultures, appreciated this as well and enjoyed seeing a realistic portrayal of a Hmong culture that shares some similarities with hers.
I thought Kowalski’s unending racial slurs and ‘Dirty Harry on steroids’ mannerisms were pretty over the top, almost as though he were poking gentle fun at the grimacing, growling, doesn’t-suffer-fools-lightly, tough guy characters he’s played in a gazillion movies over the years. But what shone through the intentional or unintentional parody was the character’s (and Eastwood’s for making the film) essential goodness. When Kowalski’s Hmong neighbors and the persistent priest reached out to him with genuine caring and integrity and wouldn’t take no for an answer, they were able to break through his defensive abrasiveness and become friends. It was a joy seeing the fatherly relationship develop between him and Thao and the affectionately bantering one between him and Sue. And I loved the scene where he gorged himself on Hmong food in the kitchen while the older ladies looked on approvingly. And the scene with the Hmong medicine man “reading” him with more perspicacity than his own family was very moving.
Finally, it was great to see the old man kick young gang-banger butt, even though, in real life, he might well have been shot to fleshy ribbons in retaliation long before he had the chance to make his great sacrifice, and, even after that sacrifice, the imprisoned Hmong could well have reached out from their cells to wreak bloody vengeance by proxy on Thao’s family.
All in all, I thought “Gran Torino” was an effort substantially greater than the sum of its acting, storyline, and dialogical parts, and I truly enjoyed it. It seems that you did too. Thanks for reposting your perceptive review of it here, Jessica.