J. Edgar

OPENING: 11/09/2011

STUDIO: Warner Bros.

ACCOMPLICES: Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
The most powerful man in the world. The most boring biopic in history.

Opening Statement
As a lifelong political junkie, dramatized biopics — from the ridiculous (JFK) to the sublime (Frost/Nixon) — play right into my wheelhouse. Talented filmmakers feast on the bones of these high profile figures and deconstruct their careers for enlightenment and entertainment. So how do you go about tactfully criticizing Clint Eastwood? The man is a bona fide Hollywood legend who has crafted some incredible films. Sadly, J. Edgar isn’t one of them.

Facts of the Case
A diligent young government agent, John Edgar Hoover, rises through the ranks of corruption and political turmoil to become the most powerful man in U.S. Government. Consumed by ambition and high ideals, his innovation and tenacity revolutionized crime fighting while opening the door to civil rights violations we continue to struggle with today. Hoover is the poster child for what can happen when unparalleled authority and a warped sense of right and wrong go unchecked. This is his story… or at least one version of it.

The Evidence
Dustin Lance Black’s screenplay uses the dictation of Hoover’s memoir in 1972 as the backbone for the film, allowing us to float in an out of key events in the man’s career. At times poignant and other times annoying, Eastwood attempts to leverage its non-linear style to build a slow boil which culminates in Hoover’s death. I say “attempts” because it’s difficult to invest yourself in the life of man who is both unlikable and unsympathetic. In fact, the only real emotion we feel is pity, for people like his longtime secretary Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts, You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger) and lifelong partner Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer, The Social Network) who are sucked into Edgar’s raging whirlpool of ambition and never able to escape. It’s hard to imagine how this man engendered such loyalty when he treated everyone but his mother (Judi Dench, Quantum of Solace) with arrogant disdain.

The performances here seem to be the tipping point. DiCaprio has become a highly intense actor on the order of DeNiro, Pacino, and Sean Penn. But to craft a living breathing character, one has to go beyond the surface intensity and discover a light to balance the dark. And that’s where this performance and the film itself falters. Eastwood has made a career of finding humor in even the darkest of circumstances and there’s very little humor here, which makes everything seem so self-important. There are far too many moments that scream “Look at me, I’m acting!” which is the last thing you want an audience to think.

Subtle devious manipulations of Dame Judi Dench as Edgar’s mother and the simple detached reactions of Naomi Watts as Ms. Gandy are in stark contrast to DiCaprio and Hammer who force their interactions in all but the most quiet of moments. One scene in particular — which both men admit had very little rehearsal and very few takes — finds Tolson and Hoover’s relationship reach its boiling point. What should be a moment of profound realization is undermined by over-the-top bad acting choices. Armie was shooting for Liz Taylor in Who’s Afraid of Virigina Woolf? and wound up with Susan Lucci in All My Children. The same can be said for DiCaprio in Edgar’s inability to deal with his mother’s passing. The scene nods to Hoover’s rumored crossdressing, but screams of Norman Bates in Psycho.

For as much time as these two characters spend together on screen, you’d think our investment in their relationship would be significant. And yet once these characters reach their twilight years, you can’t help but feel we’re watching a college theatre production of Waiting for Godot with twenty-somethings in heavy elderly makeup “acting” like senior citizens.

Shot in only 39 days, J. Edgar is a period piece of the highest technical order, one which perhaps overwhelms its narrative. The hair, makeup, costuming, sets, and lighting are meticulous for the near 50 year span in which the story operates. And yet the post-production team seems to have taken it all a bit too far with a past history color correction scheme that leaches life from the frame, leaving us a whitewashed history that flies in the face of a tale that attempts to lay bare the history of a man who no one really knew beyond what he wanted them to. To make matters worse, Eastwood’s mastery of music and passion for quiet understated Jazz sabotages the film. The sleepy piano driven underscore only amplifies lifeless visuals to drag everything down.

Closing Statement
Like many of the industry people I viewed the film with, I have no doubt there will be some who will fall all over themselves praising the film. I just can’t share that enthusiasm. In fact, my disappointment with the experience seems to grow with time and distance. Save for Judi Dench, Naomi Watts, and an impressive production team, there’s just not much to relish about J. Edgar. Those expecting a late season Oscar juggernaut will be sorely disappointed.

The Verdict
Guilty of criminal ambivalence.

7/10

Hereafter

OPENING: 10/22/2010

STUDIO: Warner Bros.

RUN TIME: 129 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Hereafter is a quietly moving film.
Opening Statement
For director Clint Eastwood and writer Peter Morgan, Hereafter represents a surprising change of pace. Eastwood has traditionally steered clear of fantasy, while Morgan’s filmography is dominated by talky, witty political dramas like The Queen and Frost/Nixon. Though it feels a bit different from anything either man has done before (particularly Morgan), Hereafter is a quietly moving film.

Facts of the Case
The film tells the story of three different individuals living in different parts of the world. The first is Marie (Cecile De France, Around the World in 80 Days), an esteemed French reporter who is nearly killed on her vacation when a tidal wave strikes. The near-death experience affects Marie in a strange way, as she’s certain she witnessed a glimpse of the afterlife during the brief time in which she was unconscious.

The second person is George (Matt Damon, The Bourne Identity), a man who just so happens to have psychic powers. He used these powers to make a living, but he retired after the burden of dealing with the pain of others became too much for him to handle. These days, he works at a factory in San Francisco and takes cooking lessons at night. In his cooking class, he meets a girl named Melanie (Bryce Dallas Howard, Lady in the Water) who seems to have eyes for him. George likes her, but wonders whether a normal relationship is even possible given his psychic abilities.

Finally, we meet Marcus, a 12-year-old British boy attempting to cope with the death of his twin brother Jason. After his mother is forced into rehab, Marcus is placed in a foster home and forced to start a new life. Determined to make contact with his brother from beyond the grave, Marcus runs away and visits a series of psychics, hoping one of them will be able to help him make contact (Frankie & George McLaren take turns playing each of the brothers).

The Evidence
I’m in a bit of a dilemma. I want to recommend Hereafter and tell you that it’s a rewarding experience, but I’ve just witnessed a good deal of evidence to the contrary. About 30 minutes into the film, the two elderly women sitting next to me got up and left. “This is one of the most boring movies I’ve ever seen,” one of them complained. Okay, so they didn’t like it. Every film has its detractors, I guess. Two more people fell asleep during the movie, snoring loudly at times. Finally, when the film ended, the majority of the audience let forth a general burst of displeasure. “Well, I wasted my seven dollars,” one man said. “You got that right,” another person laughed. “That was so stupid,” another pitched in. “ I can’t believe Clint Eastwood made that crap.” And yet there I sat, watching the end credits and reflecting on how much the film had moved me.

Hereafter is being promoted as some sort of supernatural thriller starring Matt Damon, when in fact it’s a subdued drama with an ensemble cast that includes Matt Damon. What matters is that it’s a good film; a drama that tackles the realm of the supernatural in an intelligent and thoughtful manner. The only thing it requires you to accept is that George is a real psychic with a real gift for helping people make connections with lost loved ones. Everything else will be informed by what you bring to the table beforehand.

Obviously, the world is full of many different religions and belief systems, with a wide variety of views on what (if anything) awaits us beyond the grave. Regardless of other religious specificities, the idea that there is still some form of life after we pass on is universal. It’s been said that if there were no afterlife, humanity would need to invent one. Likewise, if there is no afterlife, humanity has invented one. It dulls the ache of losing a loved one to think that they’re still out there somewhere, in a peaceful place free of pain. Hereafter is not out to declare that there is an afterlife that we can all look forward to (what visions of it we do see are purposefully non-descript), but rather to explore humanity’s fundamental need for its existence through the lives of three people.

All three of the film’s central characters have a particular interest in what happens after we die. George seems to witness the afterlife through other people, Marie seems to have been there and Marcus desperately wants to know if it even exists. All of their stories are affecting in different ways, as Eastwood and Morgan explore heartache from a series of compelling angles. George’s story in particular plays like a superhero tale too melancholy for comic books, as his psychic abilities (only activated when he touches someone else) have historically destroyed his attempts at personal relationships.

Closing Statement
The film offers three intersecting stories, but they collide in a manner that’s refreshingly natural and low-key (as opposed to the Rube Goldberg-esque mechanics of something like Crash or Babel). Morgan’s writing is full of buried feelings and unspoken sentiments, while Eastwood’s direction has rarely been so graceful (recall his work in The Bridges of Madison County and you’ll have an idea of the lovely tone he attains in this film). I suppose its subdued, poetic nature will disappoint those looking for something sensationalistic (I don’t know what the people at my screening thought they were getting, but they definitely didn’t get it), but I urge you to set aside any false expectations and simply accept the film for what it is. Hereafter is worth the effort.

The Verdict
9/10

Gran Torino

OPENING: 01/09/2009

STUDIO: Village Roadshow

TRAILER: Trailer

ACCOMPLICES: Official Site

The Charge
“Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn’t have messed with? That’s me.” –Walt

Opening Statement
It has been said that Gran Torino may very well be the last onscreen performance from Clint Eastwood. If that’s true, it seems like a somewhat fitting concluding note. In many ways, Walt Kowalski is a distillation of Eastwood’s screen image. He’s angry, bitter, tough, violent, and frustrated with the sort of “punks” who go around messing up society. Of course, Eastwood has played many characters that are nothing like this, but this is perhaps the persona that people remember Eastwood for. If Unforgiven was a final statement on The Man with No Name, then Gran Torino is a final statement on Dirty Harry.

Facts of the Case
Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood) is not a particularly happy man. His wife of many years has just passed away, and he doesn’t have a very good relationship with his children. Walt lives in a predominantly Asian-American neighborhood, and regards his neighbors with bitter disgust. As Walt is both a racist and a generally unfriendly fellow, he doesn’t have many friends. He seems to be a man beyond redemption, the sort of cranky old codger who inspires apologetic statements like, “Well, you just have to understand, he’s from a different generation.”

One night, Walt hears a noise in his garage. He grabs his shotgun and goes to investigate, and discovers a neighborhood boy attempting to steal his prized 1972 Gran Torino. Walt angrily chases the boy away. A few days later, he hears something else going on. He goes outside, and discovers a group of local thugs beating up on that very same boy and his sister. Walt scares them off and, by doing so, unintentionally wins the respect of his neighbors. Begrudgingly, Walt gets to know his neighbors just a little bit, and even ends up becoming a mentor for the young man who tried to steal his car. However, it quickly becomes evident the gang members are not simply going to let the kid off the hook. Their acts of violence and aggression continue to escalate, and soon Walt realizes he’s going to have to take drastic action.

The Evidence
Throughout Eastwood’s career, the theme of righteous rage and vengeance has frequently played some sort of role. However, Clint has grown increasingly reflective and complex as he’s aged, and here creates an interesting scenario: he must find a way to save the kid from the local thugs. At first, we expect him to just do what Detective Harry Callahan would do and take them all out. Walt is certainly a man capable of doing such a thing, but this film is looking at the bigger picture. There’s no question that he could kill those punk kids, but how can Walt solve this problem without destroying what’s left of his soul?

Eastwood’s portrayal of the character is very much inspired by Dirty Harry, but Gran Torino is by no means a sixth installment in that particular franchise. The movie is not fueled by action and violence, but rather by relationships and moral questions. There are antagonistic scenes between Walt and a young priest that reminded me a good deal of similar scenes in Million Dollar Baby. Their scenes together provide conversations about some of the bigger questions the film is addressing: life, death, forgiveness, redemption, and vengeance. The resolution the film ultimately provides is a satisfying one, though it may anger some audience members. Eastwood thinks a man like Walt can still find redemption, despite leading a life full of bitterness and hatred. Some may feel Walt doesn’t deserve to be redeemed, and his behavior is nothing more than a cheap route to feeling better about himself as a human being. Whether you agree or disagree with the conclusion, Gran Torino offers a good bit to chew on, as most Eastwood films do.

Gran Torino is a good film featuring a superb performance from Eastwood, but doesn’t quite rank among the actor/director’s best works. Like Walt, the movie is a little rough around the edges. There are a few miscalculated scenes involving the friendly exchange of racial epithets. These should either be very funny or painfully uncomfortable, but for some reason they feel precocious. In addition, some of the supporting performances seem a tad too amateurish at times. There are individual lines here and there which feel inauthentic, mostly due to unconvincing delivery. These awkward missteps prevent the movie from hitting great heights.

Closing Statement
Despite the occasional flaws, Gran Torino delivers where it counts. The first act which establishes Walt is quite strong, and the third offers an excellent and unavoidable conclusion. There’s enough good stuff peppered through the middle to keep the film afloat during the rough patches. The greatest pleasure is seeing Eastwood, who has hit a new peak of rough charisma. It’s great to hear that rumbling growl, even if it is just one last time.

The Verdict
8/10

Changeling

OPENING: 10/31/2008

STUDIO: Universal

TRAILER: Trailer

ACCOMPLICES: Official Site

The Charge
To find her son, she did what no one else dared.

Opening Statement
Changeling is an ambitious, moving motion picture that could not have been directed by anyone other than Clint Eastwood. The actor-turned-director never appears onscreen, but you can feel his presence. This is a movie made with an angry glare, gritted teeth and clenched fists.

Facts of the Case
Changeling tells the story of Christine Collins, a single mother attempting to raise a young son in Los Angeles during the late 1920s. She is a good mother, and she actually has a reasonably successful career as a supervisor at a telephone company. One night, she comes home from work, and discovers that her son is missing. She has no idea where he could have gone. She calls the police, who inform her that her son will probably be back home within 24 hours. If not, they’ll look into it. The next day, her son has still not returned.

A long investigation seems to lead nowhere for weeks and weeks, but finally, there is a breakthrough. Five months after the boy’s disappearance, the police claim they have found Christine Collins’ son. Christine is delighted to hear this news, and is equally dismayed when she discovers that the boy is not actually her son. She tries to tell the police this, but they will have none of it. “Children change a lot in five months,” they say. “Just keep him a few days and wait for the shock to wear off.” Collins hesitantly agrees, but comes no closer to being convinced that this boy is her son.


Just to be sure, she checks with her son’s doctor, teacher, and others… all of them confirm that it most certainly isn’t her son. This information would prove embarrassing for the police department, so a police captain (Jeffrey Donovan, Burn Notice) has Christine locked up in an insane asylum, claiming that she isn’t “of sound mind.” Fortunately, Christine is a strong and intelligent woman determined to do whatever is necessary to prove her innocence and find her real son, and she receives the considerable aid of a local minister (John Malkovich, Burn After Reading) who is dedicated to exposing corruption with the L.A.P.D.


The Evidence
Typical of Eastwood, this is a movie packed with a heaping helping of righteous anger, tempered with the director’s usual level of compassion and thoughtfulness. It doesn’t quite get everything right in terms of storytelling structure, but the movie’s heart is in the right place, and the emotions that fuel the film carry it through the rough patches.


Angelina Jolie turns in a very fine performance here, demonstrating yet again that she is capable of far more than what she has given us in her “popular” roles in movies like Wanted, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Tomb Raider, and Gone in Sixty Seconds. Her turn as Christine Collins deserves a place on the shelf right next to her turn as Marianne Pearl in A Mighty Heart. The latter was a restrained and low-key drama that never pushed too hard. It was impressive, but just a little on the sterile side. Eastwood pushes harder, as he usually does, and I must admit that the film is all the better for it. Eastwood doesn’t want this to be a quiet little discussion piece; he wants to make your blood boil, and justifiably so.

The level of corruption and self-centeredness demonstrated by the L.A.P.D. in this film is appalling, and yet it never feels like Eastwood is pushing too hard. What he offers us is a portrait of “the banality of evil”, using a combination of bureaucratic excuses, bad paperwork, and subtle adjustments of the law to mask great wrongdoing. These guys grow uncomfortable at the thought of controversy, and do everything they can to try and sweep it under the rug and make it go away. It doesn’t matter how many people are hurt during the process, the only thing that matters is that the status quo of the L.A.P.D. is preserved.


This material is handled with skill by a very strong cast. Jolie is the lead, but I honestly think of this as an ensemble piece. Malkovich is a surprising character; he behaves differently than most religious figures in the movies. He uses the influence of the pulpit not only to offer Biblical teachings, but to try and spark social change. On the flip side of the coin, we have Jeffrey Donovan and Colm Feore as corrupt figures in the police department. Their performances are essays in insufferable behavior. There’s also a terrifying turn from Jason Butler Harner, whose role is best left undescribed for the sake of avoiding spoilers.

Closing Statement
As I hinted, the film is not flawless. Eastwood manages to crank out a very tightly crafted 90 minutes or so, but the third act is just a bit sloppy. The resolution and clean-up of this story goes on too long, and there is an execution scene that could have been snipped completely. There is nothing wrong with the scene in and of itself (such things are inherently dramatic, and Eastwood plays it perfectly), but it doesn’t really add anything to the overall experience other than adding a dose of attention-grabbing drama to the proceedings. The scene that came before it was enough.


Despite this, Eastwood remains a reliably compelling filmmaker, and the film successfully tackles most of the really important stuff with intelligence and deep feeling. I suspect that some will inevitably snap at the movie for being too forceful in the way it deals with certain elements, and that’s understandable. Nonetheless, I think there are times that call for subtlety, and times that call for directness, and I believe that this particular story merits employment of the latter. Changeling is a fine film, one that I hope you’ll take the time to see.


The Verdict
9/10