Rightwing Film Geek

Camp is not dead


GRAN TORINO (Clint Eastwood, USA, 2008, 6)

I don’t have for Clint Eastwood the boundless contempt that I do for Jean-Luc Godard, but I have the same rating problem with GRAN TORINO that I had with SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL last year, namely how does one rate a movie that is terrible by every possible objective standard, but which you yourself had a high ol’ time laughing at.

In fact, I enjoyed GRAN TORINO so much that I nearly did a Mike D’Angelo last night and retitled my blog in its honor. I was told by Craig Lindsey of the Raleigh News-Observer via Twitter that I wasn’t “a part of the crew” until I contributed an alternative title for the film based on its jaw-droppingly awful dialog (plenty of samples coming). I eventually decided on “OVEREDUCATED 27-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN” and decided I’ll renominate my sight that, at least for the temporariliness. But alas, the font size on the WordPress template’s header was too big to make it work.

The problem with GRAN TORINO is very basic. The acting is appallingly bad, from top to bottom; the script is worse. We’re not talking weak — we’re talking jaw-dropping, head-grabbing, “I can’t believe I’m seeing this” bad. It’s the story of a very grumpy old man Walt Kowalski, played by Eastwood. A Korean War veteran and retired Ford factory worker, he can barely tolerate his family (the film begins with his wife’s funeral) and he sees his working-class neighborhood being “taken over” by “Hamung” immigrants, whom he calls by every ethnic slur in the book. Not that he discriminates, mind you; he refers to everybody by such lingo.


What the ethnic-slur dialogue put me in mind of was another camp masterpiece, VALLEY OF THE DOLLS. Released in the late-60s, just when the restrictions on movie language were ending, it was an utter hoot to watch old-school performers like Susan Hayward and Patty Duke spit out the words “damn” and “fag,” like 5-year-olds who’ve just learned how to say those words and learned what they mean. In GRAN TORINO, there’s a similar dynamic in the script-writing. There are several scenes where Walt interacts with other white working-class ethnics — e.g., an Irish foreman and an Italian barber — and every use of “Polack,” “Mick,” “Wop,” every reference to someone being stupid, drunken or greasy, etc., just lands with the same clunking “thud” of the 5-year-old’s swearing. I understand that in those cases it’s meant to be affectionate ball-busting among friends. But the scriptwriter Nick Schenk (whose earliest credit is writer, producer and supporting-player on the forgotten Comedy Central gem “Let’s Bowl”¹) and story co-writer Dave Johannson (his first credit) may simply be too young to have any exposure to ethnic slurs as anything but unacceptable taboo epithets. They thus fail at making them part of the natural, believable speech of someone who thinks them acceptable, rightly or wrongly, for whatever reason, and in whatever context. For example, here is GRAN TORINO’s idea of white characters engaging in an ethnic joke:

A Mexican, a Jew and a colored guy walk into a bar; the bartender says “get the fuck outta here.”

That’s it. And in the movie, a bunch of old-school white working-class men at the VFW start laughing at it. Really. I can imagine hypersophisticated hipsters laughing at that joke’s deliberate emptiness as a pomo text, but not Pabst-drinking war veterans, no matter how bigoted you think they may be. Ethnic humor, whatever the morals or ethics surrounding it today might be, has a long history and so follows the same comic conventions and rules as every other form of humor, acceptable or unacceptable. The three ethnic characters have to do or say something consistent with (or playing against) their respective stereotypes, no matter how innocuous or pernicious. The words “Mexican,” “Jew” and “colored” have never been funny. The comparison with Archie Bunker is inevitable, but that was written and acted closer to the time when such language was in fact routine and normal. Carroll O’Connor (and his scriptwriters) could make bigoted lines from a bigot (more than) halfway believable. But trapped in an anachronistic awkwardness, GRAN TORINO’s use of that language is like a modern person trying to read Middle English aloud with no training.

torinogunNor is the dialog the script’s only problem; the trajectory and ending are too. Regarding the latter, it’s not the reversal of expectations, which is actually not bad and relatively well done, if hammered over the head, but the denouement and motivation, which make no sense (see my comment below, and SPOILER WARNING there). Walt’s decision to become Christ-figure sacrifice (complete with bleeding hands) is so wildly out of wack with what his character had been that it could only appeal to my sense of irony, plus it proves that the rest of the movie wasn’t an intentional parody. We were supposed to take seriously, I think, the whole ebony-and-ivory (OK … I can’t think of a yellow wood) “interracial neighborliness is stronger than blood” moral, and believe that this growling old bigot has his heart softened by the Hmong family next door? To the place and degree Walt takes it at the end? Actually, that’s not even true. The truly dangerous and risky things he does, he does at the start. OK, pulling out the rifle to save the Hmong family’s son from a street gang was motivated by an inter-Hmong struggle entering his home space (and sets up the immortal “really? … they said that?” line … actually more of a growl, “get off my lawn”). But what possible reason was there to save the Hmong daughter from an imminent rape by black gangbangers? Why does Walt so suddenly take a liking to the Hmong son who tries to steal the titular Gran Torino? And don’t tell me “coughing up blood at inopportune moments” is a sign of fatal illness believable in any play/movie set more recently than CAMILLE or LA BOHEME. How can this story be taken seriously by highbrow critics who generally sneer at stuff like DRIVING MISS DAISY (the same story trajectory, but with infinitely better control of tone, nuance and dialogue). By all means, if you think ARCHIE BUNKER’S PLACE was believable (by the end, Archie not only had Jewish business partners, but was raising an adopted niece as a Jew, had a black housekeeper, a gay waiter, and illegal Hispanic cooks, and was dating a Puerto Rican woman), then you too might find the trajectory of GRAN TORINO believable.

torinoscowlThen there’s Eastwood’s performance, which is easily one of the worst I have ever seen from a professional actor — so stilted and trying so damn hard at the emotional moments, that all you can do is laugh at it. In the first 30 seconds, you see a teen at a funeral with a pierced bellybutton (his granddaughter, it later comes out). Cut to Walt, lip curled and growling “rrrrrrrr.” That growl and sneer continue on the same note throughout the film, Eastwood using them to barrel through the soon-to-be-classic camp lines: “let’s get some good gook food”; “you’re wrong, eggroll”; “I’m closer to these slopes than my own family”; “(rrrrrr) get off my lawn (rrrrrrrrr)”; “you’re just an overeducated 27-year-old virgin (rrrrrrrr) who likes to hold superstitious old ladies hands and promise them eternity” (to a priest²). Eastwood is and always has been a presence, an icon, a muthos. But in the traditional histrionic-stagecraft sense, he cannot act. And his trying to act here, in what are supposed to be key emotional moments, is REEFER MADNESS level bad. Those moments themselves are, predictably though not consistently with Eastwood’s personal public statements, about how awful it is to kill, the trauma of war, and it haunts you all your days, etc., etc.

Not that the other performers are much better — the mostly nonprofessional Hmong actors inhabit the spaces well enough, but when called on to **act**? Ahney Her as daughter Sue comes across as an annoying Tourist Guide To The Ways Of Our People. Bee Vang as son Thao (called “Toad” throughout by Walt) is excessively sullen and bookishly withdrawn until showing unbelievably quickly-learned dexterity at manual labor. Walt’s children and grandchildren are one-note caricatures that look like something Walt would have written himself. Bellybutton … rrrrrrrr … Lions jersey in Church … rrrrrrrr

And yet, and yet … as bad as OVEREDUCATED 27-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN was in every way, I actually did enjoy watching this movie. It helped that Mike primed me for a laugh riot, and that I went in with three beers³ and a shot in me. When the film was over and the credits were rolling (and make sure to stay for them, to hear Eastwood himself singing the theme song; Caruso couldn’t sing like this if he tried), the couple sitting behind me said “that was a funny movie, but it got all sad at the end.” They perhaps didn’t realize they’ve described a very bad movie, albeit also an enjoyable one.
¹ Which may explain something Mike said almost a month ago when he saw it — that huge chunks of GRAN TORINO play like a “Saturday Night Live” parody sketch of a real movie.
² There’s actually an interesting compare-contrast essay to be written about the prominent priests here and in MILLION-DOLLAR BABY, but it’ll have to be written by someone who enjoys the movies.
³ Heinekens. Yes … skipping the easy BLUIE VELVET joke.

January 3, 2009 - Posted by | Clint Eastwood


  1. A Mexican, a Jew and a colored guy walk into a bar; the bartender says “get the fuck outta here.”

    Dude, that’s hilarious. You are thinking that just because ethnics are involved in the setup that it must be an ethnic joke that, for some strange reason, is obliged to follow that peculiar set of rules you laid out.

    See, that’s the joke, it’s verbal slapstick, hold up the Jew, Mexican and colored guy, and when you lean in looking for the next predictable play on their ethnicity the bartender slaps you upside the head. Now maybe I just read it with better timing than the guy who delivered it. Doubt it.

    When this movie gets broader release, I’ll go see it and find out if you were as tone deaf about the rest of it.

    Comment by Ronsonic | January 4, 2009 | Reply

  2. Tone-deaf is one thing … text-blind is another.

    I said explicitly, in the very paragraph following my quoting that joke, that a textuality game was one way to think the joke was funny. But I deny that characters that are drawn as these ones are, and with the attitude toward ethnicity that they have, could plausibly tell that joke with that point.

    Comment by vjmorton | January 4, 2009 | Reply

  3. Eastwood’s always struck me as an incredibly overrated director. It seems people think his movies are great just because they’re incredibly bleak. Bleakness does not equal profundity. This one looked a little melodramatic (in the usual Eastwood style that critics swoon over, for some reason), but I thought it showed potential, just because I like the idea of a grumpy, mean, bigoted old man being the hero (not totally unlike Nickolson in “As Good as it Gets” where you like the guy in spite of yourself). It seemed to me that the “get off my lawn” line was self-consciously cliched– of course that’s exactly what you’d expect a crusty old man to say! I like the joke you cite, too, and like Ronsonic, I think it could be plausible to hear it among tough old working class white guys. Well, I’ll have to see the movie and see for myself…

    Comment by Andy Nowicki | January 8, 2009 | Reply

  4. I think you are being unfair to the grumpy old Hunkies and Pollacks of that culture, time and age. I grew up with them in the suburbs of Cleveland. They were my friends’ dads and uncles. Racism, and yeah, these guys had it, does not equate to racial animosity.

    Anyway, you’ve seen the movie, I haven’t as uneven as Eastwood has been as a director, I’ll need to see for myself to say more.

    Comment by Ronsonic | January 9, 2009 | Reply

  5. Yep, the joke is on the level of “Guy Walks into a bar — OUCH”. It’s not so much a joke as a meta-joke, as old as “Take my wife — PLEASE”. You have to have about 20 other jokes around it for it to work, and they have to stand on their own.

    But, I can’t think of a single story-joke that hasn’t been ruined by putting it in a movie. Remember the joke in Big Fish about the milkman? That was a whole chapter of the novel, and it was so funny that my dad had to read the entire chapter to me over the phone. In the movie — not so much. It was a “remember that part of the book?” moment.

    Okay, they told the “Now try coughing” joke in a French movie named after some color, and that was pretty good, but only because it was a “dirty joke in a high-minded movie” moment.

    Any other jokes in movies?

    Comment by Joe Marier | January 10, 2009 | Reply

  6. I love this review.

    The compare-contrast of the priests in Million Dollar Baby could be interesting in the way that comparing two cardboard cutouts would be interesting. Both have the pastoral acumen of someone at Dell Technical Support. Neither resemble actual human beings. Both are simply window dressing on the theme that organized religion is shame-based and impotent to effect personal change. (note the way the real moment of grace in Torino is the confession to the boy through the screen door, as contrasted with the celebration of the sacrament). The priest in Torino is far more prominent, but less integral to the plot and thereby more annoying.

    One thematic parallel between MDB and GT is that you can achieve redemption on your own terms, and in isolation from the rest of the huamb human community. Clint seems to be given over to this form of sentimentality.

    Comment by Clayton | January 13, 2009 | Reply

  7. “But what possible reason was there to save the Hmong daughter from an imminent rape by black gangbangers?”

    >What possible reason

    umm…okay. He had a gun. A girl was about to be raped. You don’t see why he would get involved? You would just keep driving? If I had a gun and could do something, I would, even it was a stranger, even if it were somebody I hated more then anybody else.

    What possible reason could he have??? Wow. Just WOW. Nice review.

    And just to clear it up, I’ve known many older people who have reformed away from their racism. They still make the jokes and have some stereotypes plugged in, but they don’t actually HATE anyone or WISH THEM UNWELL based on race.

    Comment by The Hat | December 7, 2009 | Reply

  8. You idiot, “Polack” [sp?] is not an insult. It’s simply Polish. In Polish “Polak” means a Polish man and Polka means a Polish woman. And no, the Polka dance is not Polish. It’s Czech.

    Comment by Charles H .Small | May 11, 2010 | Reply

    • Gdybyśmy rozmawiali w języku polskim, który jest istotny

      Comment by vjmorton | May 11, 2010 | Reply

  9. […] save this film from its overarching earnestness. Some of the humor falls flat, though. Read the excellent review over at Rightwing Film Geek for more on […]

    Pingback by gran torino « The Weight of Glory | June 13, 2010 | Reply

  10. You know what, this review is extremely flawed.

    I’m not going to bother with your review as a whole, because I’ll be here for ages, but this line “Walt’s decision to become Christ-figure sacrifice (complete with bleeding hands) is so wildly out of wack with what his character had been that it could only appeal to my sense of irony, plus it proves that the rest of the movie wasn’t an intentional parody.”

    The whole point of the movie is the transition. He goes from having two materialistic children, to having a child that he could take care of and care about, someone who can care for him in return. He didn’t have that feeling of respect and affectionate from his biological children. He knew he was dying because he kept coughing up blood and knew that after attaining a father/child relationship, he was ready to die. He knew his limit when it came to taking on his enemies. He couldn’t possibly think he could take on the whole gang on his own when they were ready armed with uzis. A very old man such as him, knowing he is going to die, having attainted a relationship with a child, was at peace with himself and ready to die for a greater cause. He has killed innocent children in Korea and now will sacrifice his life for someone. It’s as if he’s repaying what he owes, he is getting his past off his chest by giving the life back to someone.

    Comment by Anthony | November 7, 2010 | Reply

    • I couldn’t agree more with how “extremely flawed” this review of Gran Torino is, focusing on mechanics and delivery more so than content.

      Comment by Bora | February 19, 2011 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: