Gran Torino.

Review #1550: Gran Torino.

Cast: 
Clint Eastwood (Walt Kowalski), Bee Vang (Thao Vang Lor), Ahney Her (Sue Lor), Christopher Carley (Father Janovich), Doua Moua (Fong "Spider"), Sonny Vue (Smokie), Elvis Thao (Hmong Gangbanger No. 1), Brian Haley (Mitch Kowalski), Brian Howe (Steve Kowalski), Geraldine Hughes (Karen Kowalski), Dreama Walker (Ashley Kowalski), Michael E. Kurowski (Josh Kowalski), John Carroll Lynch (Martin), and Chee Thao (Grandma Vang Lor) Produced and Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, #1476 - Pale Rider, and #1501 - Unforgiven)

Review: 
"I liked that it dealt with prejudice, that it was about never being too old to learn — we talked about that before, about always moving forward, progressing."

This was the 29th directorial effort of Clint Eastwood, a name very familiar with numerous films highlighted previously. The 2000s only continued that trend with films such as Million Dollar Baby (2004) or with his Iwo Jima duology in Flags of Our Fathers and Letter from Iwo Jima (2006). He gradually took on less roles as a star, with this being his fourth and last role in the decade (of course anyone would be glad to be over 70 and still take on roles from time to time), with this one serving as an audience favorite. The screenplay was written by first-time writer Nick Schenk with a story by him and Dave Johannson. Schenk had done some work with television (a game show, a mixed martial arts show, and comedy sketches) while working in construction and fruit truck driving that wrote his script at a bar, while Johannson sold furnaces. It was the experiences Schenk had with Hmong co-workers people at construction that inspired the main character (whose characteristics were stated by others in why it couldn't be made). However, after finding producers to help option the script and a bit of bouncing around, it found its way to Warner Brothers with Eastwood, who accepted it without apprehension - the story had only one modification made from script to to screen, which was to change the setting from Minneapolis to Detroit (for tax breaks).

In a way, this proves to be the last of a specific theme in the films of Eastwood - namely the idea of having messed with the wrong man at exactly the wrong time to do so, one who becomes an unintentional hero to those who seek out his scowl-turning tenacity. He might as well be thought of as the hodgepodge of Archie Bunker and Dirty Harry, a man of evolving sensibility towards others but also in the cycle of violence. Even a retirement from Westerns can't help shake the idea that the genre is present in those basic ideas (resembling The Shootist, in its aging fighter, aspiring ward and ultimate note on violence). Whether the film actually accomplishes its goal of said breaking away from said stuff is up to the viewer, naturally. For me, I thought it was a decent film, even if it seems a bit wedged stuck in between being a coming-of-age film involving one finding their courage or just being a confrontational one of a man against the streets infringing on his lawn. I think it actually worked a bit better when involving the Hmong culture and the parallels that come from it with family when faced with Eastwood - or at the very least what seems like their culture, since there  since there was discussion over perceived inaccuracies in the film that came from writers, cast members, and crew. In any case, it is the fact that the performances are fair enough to go alongside fine production values that keep the film from seeming completely washed away in a dated capsule.

Eastwood is probably the best part of the film, in that he fits the mold of what is needed in acid-laced edge that does not so much cry for redemption as he so much softens himself from sharp prejudice to at the very least finding some sort of peace as we go along with him and his grimace, winces and all. The Hmong actors do fine, but "natural acting" without having much rehearsal to go with it can make a wooden time to see play out, because they can only go so far when faced with someone like Eastwood. Vang subsequently described the struggles associated with his performance as one that "doesn't look like stellar acting to me". He stated that he and others did not have much consulting with Eastwood, since he wanted "natural acting", so to speak while finding trouble with a character he felt was negated by the script in submissiveness; the scene with the barber is a bizarre expression of that, trying to assert just what one needs in terms of friendly exchange of insults and banter that doesn't really gel well with actually building this character up as opposed to a bit of a gag. Her makes an okay impression in accompanying Eastwood for a time in snark and culture info-giving. Carley is the only other one giving any sort of impression, and it takes a while for him to not seemingly crumble into a corncob in quivering persistence. The others seem to be there for the occasional vague moment with everything riding on the one professional star, which could have been an unwieldly time with less conviction from an actor.  It all depends on how much one buys the gradual growing-bond between Eastwood and the community that goes alongside macho melodrama that bubbles itself in observation for 116 minutes that only scratches the surface of changing attitudes towards others. In that sense, it may prove a minor effort in Eastwood's extensive body of work, but it certainly has an appeal for those who find it having enough grasp on its subject to make it mean something in the end.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.