
It is a well-worn story of mutual redemption: the close-knit Hmong family with its open arms, old world traditions and delicious food teaches Walt how family is done; while Walt takes their boy under his wing and shows him his particular brand of manhood. I can’t say I was crazy about Walt as white Saviour to the immigrant community: he puts Thao to work repairing the ramshackle homes on his street that the Hmong have let fall into disrepair. We aren’t clued into why their homes are falling down. We can infer, if we’re feeling charitable, that since most of the young boys end up in gangs, there’s no one left to retile roofs and repair rain gutters. Or we can deduce that they are just typical, shiftless, lazy immigrant bastards. Walt certainly seems to think so, at least initially, and there isn’t much effort to disabuse of us this notion.
Arguably, there’s no need to bother getting offended by anything in this film: the main character is racist and we inhabit his world. But one could also argue that the film has a world of its own – a message for which Walt is only a vehicle – and if that too is racist in parts, then that might be slightly problematic. The film pushes you towards an uncomfortable edge. Walt drops the words ‘gook’ and ‘slopehead’ with abandon in his menacing zingers. And before he is reformed – if you can even call it that – you’re driven to erupt into what is at first laughter, but then degenerates into a nervous chuckle, as if to say “Oh silly old racist. Heh.” After he's reformed, things get even more complicated: the racial slurs directed at the Hmong are now meant to be terms of endearment; and now, no longer vectors of hate, are juxtaposed with the 'greedy Jew' and other racist stereotypes which Walt good-naturedly applies to his friends. I'm not sure that naive 'slurs are only slurs if there's hate behind them' message flies with me. But whatever your feelings on this, the dialogue does make you slightly self-conscious about your own engagement with racist vernacular. Discomfort is what the film does best, what it uses to interrogate the audience’s own perceptions of racism, and it is ingenious in this respect.

I did, however, fall in love with Sue, Thao’s sister, played by Ahney Her. Her acting sucked sometimes too, in similar ways, though not as often. But it added to the innocence of these children, so that by the time Sue becomes a victim of gang retribution, the audience feels personally wounded. Even in playing the feisty one in the family, Her sometimes delivered her lines like she was reading them from a script. She was, pointedly, not the smug American Juno. She was definitely the Other, the non-(American)Juno, fierce and independent but refreshingly so. Could this have been accomplished by hiring better actors with different direction? Perhaps. But this way worked, and I would imagine it rarely does. My movie partner didn’t agree, and I certainly see his objection: he was put off by the poor delivery, and felt that it sometimes plucked him from the created reality of the film so that he was aware he was watching a movie. That was not my experience, but I can appreciate how it might happen.
With the focus on simple story-telling, there were no complex tricks of cinematography, and I could certainly have done without the close-ups of Walt’s snarl, which cheesed the movie up a bit. And oh yes, there was some cheese to be had, in part provided by pieces of Clint’s dialogue. As famous as he is for his deadpan one-liners, there is such a thing as too many. ‘Too liney’, I call it, in my sophisticated, movie-critic parlance. But I had lots of laughs and was entirely dedicated to Walt as a character – another genius of the casting, because everyone loves Clint. Anyone else playing a racist, gun-toting bastard might have been significantly less successful: Walt, like Will Munny, is (by his own code) morally superior, highly flawed, efficient in retribution, unafraid of self-sacrifice and wholly awe-inspiring. And these are the best ways to watch Clint Eastwood.
Mongoose, I too wondered whether the "non-acting" was a 'technique' or merely a lack of talent. By the end of the movie I was leaning my vote towards 'technique' for the simple reason that even the characters themselves were mere caricatures. None of these characters grew before us and became human. And no effort was made to have this happen. The close-ups on the snarl, the one-liners and the fact that Clint's character is merely an answer to the question, "Where is Harry Callahan now?" And we find him there in this broken down community, a broken man himself. To be honest, I think that's the point of the movie, to "honour" the Clint legacy. The "non-acting" technique has certainly worked for him over many years, and over many generations, so why try to fix it now? Personally, I'd like to think that the direction is genius, rather than just stoopid. But that's just my ever hopeful nature.
ReplyDeleteClint's the man. Great film this was. :)
ReplyDeletePersonally, I'd like to think that the direction is genius, rather than just stoopid.
ReplyDeleteExactly. One must believe.
LOL. I am a huge fan of Clint (I also know him like that), and incredibly, I enjoyed this movie. But to be fair, the acting was dreadful beyond belief. It is a tribute to Clint's greatness that we are even considering that this might be 'technique'. Somewhere Arnold is working on a placard...
ReplyDelete"Well, he shouldda armed himself, if he's gonna decorate his saloon with my friend."
ReplyDelete- William Munny, "Unforgiven"
Clint in the place!
If this is to be Clint Eastwood's last time onscreen, what a way to end a magnificent career. Gran Torino is not just one great film, it is a tribute to a legacy.
ReplyDelete