Oscar voters love Clint Eastwood – at least the post-Dirty Harry version.
Now that Eastwood’s films question the need for violence, rather than bask in mayhem, Academy voters can’t get enough of him.
But that wasn’t enough for the terrific “Gran Torino.”
So what gives?
Sharp film blogger Patrick Goldstein hinted that voters might be uneasy supporting a film that asks viewers to root for a racist.
In Hollywood, a protagonist can be a child rapist (“The Woodsman”) or serial killer (“Monster”) and not alienate Academy voters. But if he or she drops the n-word or another ugly epithet, well, then we have nothing to learn from them.
Just ask Entertainment Weekly’s Mark Harris.
The normally astute columnist wrote this about “Gran Torino” in the mag’s latest edition.
The film “peddles the delusion that even the bigot next door has Something to Teach Us All about heroism and self-sacrifice. No, he doesn’t.”
Wow.
So since Eastwood’s character grew up in a time when many folks were bigoted and didn’t reject those feelings, he simply has nothing to teach us.
I’m not defending the character’s ugly racial views, although in the film he clearly learns to to care for, protect and embrace those of nationalities he once disdained.
MILD SPOILER ALERT
And yes, he does teach them about heroism and self sacrifice. I can’t imagine anyone seeing the film and not coming to the same conclusion.
Goldstein puts it far better than I could:
They were reluctant heroes who, by willing to risk their lives for a greater good, found redemption. It’s a quality you don’t find in many movies today, but it’s all there for the taking in “Gran Torino.”
So how about it. Have there been any racist characters who earned the actor/actress who played them an Oscar? One comes to mind -Rod Steiger winning the Best Actor Oscar for 1967’s “In the Heat of the Night.”
Am I missing some others?
UPDATE: Jack Nicholson won a Best Actor Oscar for playing a vulgar, casually racist man in “As Good As it Gets.”
(Photo: Clint Eastwood plays a cranky racist in “Gran Torino.”)
Related posts:
I'm an award-winning journalist and film critic with more than a decade of experience in newspapers, magazines and the Web. I'm a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association, the Washington, DC Area Film Critics Association and the Denver Film Critics Society.
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
In answer to your question, Jack Nicholson in as Good As It Gets. (1997) But as for Gran Torino, well, for one thing, the story doesn’t give a lot of support for Kowalski’s conversion from proactive xenophobe to selfless martyr. Pounding on the cupboards is a poor substitute for a few score well chosen words. The film fell down badly at the end explaining the main character’s final action. And given Kowalski’s world view, does anyone think he’d be confident the justice system would validate his sacrifice?
And the cuffed bad guys lined up on their knees after the shooting? Like they hung around after the shooting to admire their handiwork? Drive-by to stand by?
No, this film gives a big let down after a good buildup. I’m not saying an ‘Unforgiven’ style shootout was in order, just that this ending didn’t add up.
Saying that Clint’s character’s racism is why the Academy voters snubbed him is just a flimsy excuse. The real reason is that the film glorifies hard work, the virtues of masculinity, and ultimately has a Christ-like message of redemption and sacrifice. Now if the film had a statutory rapist/concentration camp guard, or showed the unbearable soul-crushing drudgery of the suburbs, revealed that all white people are racists, or was an exercise in nihilism, than the Academy would’ve loved it.
Scratch almost anyone who has been “slighted” by someone or so perceived and get them off to themselves in a closet and watch the “bigotry” simmer.
If any of us could get into someone else’s mind we would be amazed at the garbage that runs through it from time to time.
The difference between sane people and liberal “sophisticates” is the honesty the sane people show about their inner feelings that sometimes are not politically correct. They acknowledge those feelings, admit them and then work harder to see that they do not become a part of their real life to the hurt of someone they really do not want to hurt. Can you say Tom Hanks ?
Hmmm.
In that case Redd Fox doesn’t have anything to teach us?
bs’d
Yeah, just remember that what is acceptable in one generation may not be so in the next. That means my grandchildren can look down on the left leaning, PC crowd as the goofs they are. Only the left never uses “bad” language and offensive scatology. (Unless they are speaking of conservatives.) They are saintly sorts who need to root out and destroy all remnants of the evil right. What a great example of intolerance & lack of understanding even the most basic humanity. You know, we could never make this stuff up!
Great comments, all. Forgot about Nicholson’s turn in “As Good As it Gets” …
“Torino’s” ending is certainly too tidy … but it doesn’t take away from what Walt does for his new friends.
You can make an argument that “Torino” still isn’t worthy being elevated to Best Picture status, but Harris’ column is something that could easily have factored in to the voters’ minds.
And Redd Foxx’s Sanford character taught me to laugh and clutch my chest during tough times …
The fact that he still is using racial slurs, even in his (SPOILER!!!!) will at the end just makes his character more real. He doesn’t go through any fake moment of enlightenment, he still talks the same way. It’s the meaning and the tone of the words that changes.
Cris wants Walt’s conversion to be made clear with well chosen words. In other words; clunky exposition. No thanks, I prefer to see a character’s slow evolution rather than have it told to me.
‘Gran Torino’ was not nominated clearly for political reasons, as this was amazing film perfectly executed. The lack of any nominations speaks volumes about the current state of leftism in Hollywood. To state that Eastwood’s character is “racist” is a knee-jerk liberal and extremely superficial reaction. The fact that they can’t look beyond ethnic slang (as out of place and offensive in some ways at it may be) to see the bigger picture says more about them than it does about a personality like this character. If they had been able to put their brainwashed sensitivities aside, they would see that this character was not “racist”, but had intolerance of those who lacked respect. People of multiple races fell into the category of those who either lacked respect for history and institutions, or who had no respect for human life in general. The fact that this is so easily overshadowed by the slang used in the film is a testament to how multicultural sensibilities have trumped everything else, and how all-encompassing the term “racist” has become.
Gran Torino is easily one of the finest films of 2008, and its shunning by the ACAAADEMY (my a**) speaks poorly only of the ACAAADEMY. If nothing else, Eastwood should be nominated as best actor.
Kowalsky is a man who, by his own definition, finishes things. It’s part of his manhood (yeah, something still worth celebrating) . By acculturation and experience in the war, he has racist feelings against “slopes,” but in his grief over the loss of his wife he finds his humanity through the respect and love that develops between himself and the Hmong family next door — especially Thao and his sister. And his beloved late wife still speaks to him somewhat via the young priest. He hits upon a solution that includes sacrifice and expiation, and protection of innocence, and finishes things.
If all this is not character and plot development enough for you, then what the hey? It’s a movie that touches people through genuine human experience. Oh, but that may not be PC …one reason all us Eastwood fans have loved his films from the getgo, and are glad to see him get back on the case a bit.
Bravo, Clint! ACAAADEMY, b*te me.
I theorized that Clint Eastwood made this movie almost as a reflection of his own life – no, not that he was a racist! More that he does not compromise his own values in his own life, no matter what the current political climate. He is not a trend-setter. He has core values, and never strays from these values. Just like Walt, Clint worked hard his entire life, you never ever see him in the tabloids (except when his former lover was making all those b.s. accusations about him, which were never proven true anyway), and he was the most popular mayor that Carmel CA ever had. Citizens of that city, of every political stripe, were genuinely saddened he didn’t run again. Integrity is a quality that never goes out of style. I agree with blackhawke1251 – I also prefer to see a characters slow evolution, and a possibly messy ending that may not make perfect sense. Isn’t that what life is like? Messy, without a formulatic ending?
Pam — extremely well put. Just because Clint is a throwback, doesn’t mean he shouldn’t belong in modern society. We should have more throwbacks around about now …
More good comments, all … I also think that Walt’s racism is tricky to define. Yes, he uses degrading language … but he’s also quick to overlook his own prejudices when he sees people in need – no matter their nationality.
he’s not really a racist if you watch the film and think about it, he clearly didn’t truly hate those people and as the film showed talking like that is how he communicated with his friends(barbershop scenes)
what they don’t like is the Pr0-American message and rejection of Cultural Reltavism(Good vs. Evil).
Eastwood learned from the good Hymong, and they learned from him and Assimulated to Pro-American Values. The line in the movie saying that Eastwood was different than their traditionalist father because he was American said it all.
Great point, JP … it’s the one I was trying to make but did it badly … the ugly phrases he used were part of his upbringing, part of the way he communicated. But he didn’t have hate in his heart … fear, yeah, bitterness, sure … but not real hate, the kind that makes a true bigot worthy of disdain.
Not that that gives him the right to share those phrases with immigrants or other innocents, but it puts what he says in context.
Meh.
One can speculate oversight reasons ad nauseum and never know why. My own take is that Mr. Clint (fond nickname from Morgan Freeman) already recently has been shown much love from the Academy, and gets a tacit Direction nod for the Jolie nom this year.
There have been as ugly characters with noms before: Fiennes for “Schindler’s List” comes to mind. Back in the day, Carroll O’Connor nabbed several Emmys and more noms as Archie Bunker. I do not see the “Grand Torino” oversight as a slight against Eastwood’s character, but merely another oversight by a fashion-following (this year: Jolie-Pitt!) Academy.
~ Dagnabbitt
I agree with Pam. Brilliant!
I am really annoyed that Eastwood didn’t get nomination for his outstanding performance in “Gran Torino” (not to mention great direction and exceptional writing). At this point, it doesn’t matter the reason… it’s just not right.
Personally, I think Eastwood acted the self-rightous-pants off our new King Brad Pitt. I still can’t get over Pitt’s awful Jamacian accent in “Meet Joe Black.” That pretty boy can’t do accents to save his precious life!
did you hear Pitt’s sing song accent in The Devil’s Own? Awful
Clint East wood’s Gran Torino is a great example of the older generation dying out into the new. His protagonist Walt Kowalski reminds me of my grandfather and the bigoted views of a generation with less understanding of others than what we strive for now. Aside from the racial slurs, what people fail to examine, in my opinion, is that his obscenities are directed towards the actions of the youth, the “old fashion” idea of being a hard working responsible citizen in society and those who veer from the traditional “American Way.” Kowalski’s disapproval of his own family is apparent in this film at the funeral (aside from their actions the fact that they don’t drive American made vehicles, in Michigan no less, drives him nuts!), when his son calls with a hidden agenda and when he later visits him for his birthday (with a hidden agenda). The story focuses on human growth and the basic quality of human compassion and misconceptions.
Walt Kowalski is lost after his wife dies and his only companion is his dog, Daisy, who appears to be an old girl, too. The two young neighbors Su and Tao (sorry if the spelling is off), can be seen as counterparts to his grandchildren who are not close to him. In my personal experience, people of culture, whatever their ethnicity, respect their elders and care for them—assisted living or convalescent homes are never an option. Elders are revered and treated with much respect and are cared for willingly. You see this example with Su and how on his birthday, invites Walt over to eat, because she sees him alone. Su shares her hospitality to their home and culture and even educates him in the misunderstood knowledge of their cultural history in the United States. I also felt a little sorry for Walt’s character because he was a Korean war veteran trained to kill and spent three years programmed to hate the enemy who in his experience resembled his established neighbors where he is considered the minority.
Gran Torino is very much Oscar worthy because of what you take home with you after seeing once, twice, or even thrice as has been my case. I think I miss my grandfather more than I consciously admit—not for his foul mouth racial expletives, but because he was always willing to help someone out and had friends of all colors. Above all, he respected those who respected others and carried law abiding values (he was a Chevy man and hated when I opted for a Kia as my first car). I am Hispanic and my grandfather was a third generation Tejano (his family was born in Texas when it still belonged to Mexico) and I admit was somewhat bigoted in his ways. This is a character I am familiar with and understand where the head and heart may be.
Not sure why this movie has been shunned, and Mr. Eastwood may not have an opinion on it; but I say that I choose not to watch the Oscars this go around, and an award nomination does not always mean a movie is not worthy of it.
What is funny is the people crying racist racist are probably MORE racist than the character HIMSELF.
If you see the racist character, you will notice how he ends up mixing with the people next door, accepting their food and giving his prized possession which is his car to Toad (which maybe you forgot Toad was pressured to steal his car by his gang relatives, Walter ended up looking past this) . This is a very good story something to truly learn from.
The people who shun this movie dont have a very good understanding even though they may think they know exactly whats going on, they have the complete wrong understanding, and their failure to understand assures us of their blind stupidity, they are the losers in the end.
After watching Mrs. Streep and company last night I’ve come to the conclusion that you will see 50% or more of the same people year after year for their dry movies. It’s a shame Gran Torino wasn’t even mentioned. It showed that racism is a two way street. From the encounter with the two guys harassing the Hmong girl and the white boy saying racial, sexual and deragatory remarks. To the Hmong Grandma out on the porch mumbling stuff at Walt. Overprotective world we live in, law suits etc. There is alot to learn from a movie like this, it’s a shame everybodys gotta watch where they step.
I thought the ending made perfect sense.
Remember about half an hour in, after the first altercation with the gangsters?
MILD SPOILER – BUT HARDLY
Walt tells the Priest about how he dealt with problems in Korea – when a thousand enemies come over the line “we diddn’t think, we just reacted” to which the priest replies “we’re not in Korea anymore”
and during the climax, Walt doesn’t just react. He thinks it through. It is absolutely clear to him, and the neighbours, that the gangsters have got to go down. Even the Priest knows this.
and the gangsters play right into his hands during the big final scene, doing exactly what he knew they would do.