Skip to main content

"Gran Torino" (9 January 2009)


Saw it this afternoon. Here's what I think:

First off, the climax is just as I expected -- Eastwood's character does finish things off with a macho display of violence. Yes, he pulls out a lighter rather than a gun, but the delivery is violent, and essentially alone, he meats out his (evidently evil) opponents' destruction. (What would have been unexpected is if Walt listened to his priest's advice, contacted the police, and *they* figured out a way to inhibit the gangs' predations; instead, we get a priest who comes to learn that Walt was right all along).

Also, I wish the film was more aware of an interesting equivalence it sets up: namely, that Walt and the evil gang-bangers share violent reactions to trespasses into their territory. But as Dorothy notes, the film is not interested in drawing connections between Walt and gang-bangers. They are set up so we have no empathy for them, so that we can hate them. (Those who want to war against druggies, will shape their fantasies in the same way.)

Also, Thau is not set up to take things over. He ends the good boy that really, at heart, nobody takes too seriously -- the fate Michael avoided in the Godfather by taking violence into his hands. Walt is to be taken seriously. And so too -- to some extent --the priest, who confronts things head-on himself.

Also, this is a grandparent's film. Right now I live in Toronto's annex -- a place populated by liberal 60-year-olds who are forever hoping they might take in as renters those who are quiet, deferent, respecters-of-elders types, and who are forever complaining about their insufficiently attendant children. In short, they seek out "orientals" for the same reason some older men seek out young women. Wish the film had the sass to point this out.

Also, didn't like how the movie portrayed Walt's kids. If in confession he admits to being haunted all his life for not attending to his kids, the film should have showed the kids being the way they were owing to a lack of something (i.e. attendance), rather than owing to them being "spoiled" (god I hate that word) by too much of something.

In sum, not a film that will encourage older people to come to respect the youngins these days. More a film for the Don Cherrys of the world (wear a shirt and tie, young man! sacrifice yourself for noble causes!).

All this said, I enjoyed the film. I cared for the people in the film. I liked seeing Clint interact with his neighbors -- a lot. I liked a lot of his relationship with the neighborhood girl (though she did overact at times, and I didn't like how her overt, urgent, hurried sassiness at a certain part of the film really seemed primarily about getting us to like her all so much that we'd want to hate those who attacked her as much as Walt does). And I liked Walt.

Finally, Dorothy, please consider getting into the fray like Steve is wont to do with his reviews. Don't just post and vanish. Stay awhile.

Link: Gran Torino: Is this Eastwood's Self-Pitying Swan Song?


Popular posts from this blog

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …