News: See Eastwood's latest, THE 15:17 TO PARIS, coming on DVD May 22!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
 on: May 19, 2018, 08:13:21 PM 
Started by Macpherson - Last post by Matt
I notice that the logline which is provided that describes the film states that Eastwood will be playing Earl Stone and not, as thought before, Leo Sharp. So although this film may be based on Sharp's experiences, it sounds like this may be heavily fictionalized, which may give them more creative freedom and allow for this to feel more like an original rather than an entirely fact-based story.

I'm getting more enthused about this project. It's a pretty cool bookend to Clint's first starring role, which also featured a mule in what might be the scene that kicked off his career. Of course, that's only if this winds up being Clint's last performance. And, Clint isn't showing signs of slowing down yet.

 on: May 19, 2018, 06:58:57 PM 
Started by TomTurner - Last post by TomTurner
Thanks KC and AKA23!  I have wanted to discuss this for years but no one I know is as crazy about this film, except my brother in law (see my first post on him in another thread) , who just thinks I'm nuts for even thinking about it.

I think that when Josey heard Grandma's speech in the saloon is when he first realizes that there is more than a distinct possibility that he killed her son. He couldn't be sure about it but he certainly shot enough of them to make it plausible.  I think that quick cut to him is Clint's very subtle way of telling us this.  Josey is clearly not happy about it.

Or he is merely reacting to her insult?  I think Josey's skin is much thicker than that by this point, especially after listening to her previous ranting against Missourians.  There is a long existing feud between Kansans and Missourians (I looked into this and just learned that there was a border dispute that started six years prior to the civil war, sometimes referred to as "bleeding Kansas") so her attitude is far from unique, and Josey would have been used to be insulted by people from Kansas.

I wonder if the book goes into any more detail about whether Josey killed Tom or not?  I would even love to ask Clint if ever given the chance

I could be reading far too much into this: Grandma's reference to "killers of innocent men" that made me think if - and this is a big if - her son was there at the scene of the surrender and shot by Josey, she was probably told that her son was innocently processing the prisoners of war and a "Missouri ruffian" rebelled and gunned down these "innocent" men.  Yes, we don't know where Tom Turner was killed, or by who, but this possibility is not out of the question, and this could have been another very subtle way off reinforcing the idea that Josey was responsible.   Clint is after all, a master storyteller, and maybe he wanted to inform us of this incredibly ironic situation yet keep it vague enough so it didn't come off as a contrived Hollywood plot. (killer of son lives happily after after with mother and daughter of the victim)

I agree, we have no way of knowing if Grandma Sarah ever learns that Josey is responsible for shooting her son.  I am only raising the possibility because it makes the circumstances all the more powerful.  Its also an interesting metaphor for the post-civil war America in general.  Many soldiers and war survivors had to go home or relocate because their homes were destroyed and possibly live among people who may have killed their relatives or were guilty of other crimes.

Fetcher's last line is so incredibly powerful. I have to confess that I have paraphrased it a few times.  I am a victim of Hurricane Sandy and more than once I have said to friends "we all died a Little in that hurricane." (I have always been a little too melodramatic

I didn't notice that Clint rides off into the sunset. This is a little weird continuity-wise because the fight with redlegs goes on for quite a while and the sun look pretty bright all the while.)  Be that as it may, its a great touch that Clint has Josey doing the opposite than the standard cliche'.

But where does he go?  A very interesting question, which of course remains unanswered.  I guess I agree with MGK too.  My first instinct is that he doesn't want to cause more trouble for Grandma and Laura and leaves just in case anyone ever comes looking for him someday - despite Fletcher's apparent truce - he shot 55 people after all! But then I started to think how he must miss his own family, and may want one again. As a bonus there is a cute, if a little "odd", filly back at the ranch willing to make him feel right at home as well. 

Clint Eastwood is the king of the ambiguous ending.  This is why I love his films so much.

 on: May 19, 2018, 06:33:37 PM 
Started by Americanbeauty - Last post by Jed Cooper
Sorry, I didnít realize you had posted others of those birds.  I just scrolled back a little and saw them.   Very nice.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 on: May 19, 2018, 06:25:24 PM 
Started by Americanbeauty - Last post by Jed Cooper
Thanks, Matt.  Iím curious to see more of those birds.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 on: May 19, 2018, 06:07:13 PM 
Started by Gant - Last post by Matt
I guess I can agree with that. I think Pacino does these types of characters as well as Clint does his types of characters.

Weighing in on True Crime, I actually really love this performance and film. And Clint wasn't too old to be a womanizer -- that's something you don't grow out of (so I hear) ;).  And Bob's wife wasn't into Everett anyway -- she was just trying to get Bob's attention. So it works.

 on: May 19, 2018, 05:56:52 PM 
Started by Gant - Last post by AKA23
I think quite a few people, who are not fans, think of Eastwood as a mediocre actor. I've heard it a lot. Maybe people that I know just like to upset me! Another thing that I've heard that I think is not really accurate is that he is "just playing himself" so he is not really "acting."

I am definitely not an authority on Jones, Pacino or Nicholson's careers, but I do think that all are considered to be much better actors than Eastwood. Pacino and Nicholson in particular are considered in film circles to be the best actors of their generation.

While I'm not intimately familiar with Pacino's career, I recently saw "Scarface," which was a film he did in 1983, and he gave a very over the top performance in that. Another early Pacino performance that was quite over the top was "And Justice for All" in 1979, so I think there is evidence that he frequently portrayed those types of characters, even well before "Scent of A Woman," and he continues to do so.     

 on: May 19, 2018, 05:41:32 PM 
Started by Americanbeauty - Last post by Matt
Looking good, Jed.  I haven't traveled anywhere lately to do any special photography. But, there's so much to photograph without even leaving town. I photographed the birds in my front porch nest every morning to see the changes each day brings. They left the nest this morning. I had just taken this last one yesterday -- testing the wings.

Now that they're gone, I was going to pull the nest down and clean that area. But, a friend said the breeding Finches may not be done for the season, so I'll hold off until Fall.

 on: May 19, 2018, 05:06:40 PM 
Started by Gant - Last post by Matt
Serious question -- is Clint considered a "mediocre actor" by these people who we're talking about?  Is Tommy Lee Jones really considered a better actor?  I'd say Pacino and Nicholson may be a little more respected as actors overall, but maybe they'd be considered more First Tier, and Clint might be First Tier or Second Tier to most people, but "mediocre" is a whole Tier or two below that.  Nicholson has really wide range. Pacino wasn't always bombastic, was he? I think he was more nuanced before Scent of a Woman. I enjoy the hell out of Pacino performances though.

As for the rest of your post, I agree with it, and you've managed to put into words pretty well how I feel.

 on: May 19, 2018, 04:52:12 PM 
Started by Gant - Last post by AKA23
I was just throwing a little shade your way to keep this conversation interesting, Matt. I actually agree with you. I'd point out that Eastwood may not have the most expansive range as an actor, but that range and acting talent are not one and the same. Eastwood has been very skilled at portraying his brand of character and over the years that type of character has evolved, deepened and become more poignant and emotionally resonant as he has aged. That, to me, is actually the hallmark of a good actor.   

One thing that I've never really understood is that there are a lot of actors that choose to portray similar characters over and over again that are thought of as great actors. Tommy Lee Jones, Al Pacino and Jack Nicholson all come to mind. Tommy Lee Jones is always an ornery, laconic straight man. Al Pacino is almost always over the top and bombastic in his performances, and Jack Nicholson is always witty, arrogant, charming and often a ladies man.

All are thought of as excellent actors, but all three appear to have also portrayed very similar characters using a similar acting style over many years. I'm not saying that Eastwood is on par with all those actors in terms of range, but none of them are thought of as medicore actors even though they also appear to portray similar characters over many decades.

 on: May 19, 2018, 04:37:35 PM 
Started by Gant - Last post by Matt
So, let me get this straight, Matt, part of your strategy to convince this person that they were wrong and that Clint Eastwood is a better actor than they think is to agree with their statement. Boy, how I wish I had you as my opponent when I was doing my speech and debate tournaments years ago!

Well, there is an Eastwood-type character. So there is some truth to that, and it's dishonest to pretend that it's not true. So, if I was debating, I would give in on that point. But, I'd add (which I think I did) that it's not because he can't do other roles, it's because he's been more attracted to these types of roles. I think when Clint steps out of the mold and does the other types of characters, that he's been great. So I think that debunks the argument that he can't do other characters, or that he hasn't done other types of characters. So I think that's how I'd answer that in an actual debate-- not that he can't do other roles, just that he is more attracted to these certain types of roles.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10

C L I N T E A S T W O O D . N E T