Tag, you're it! #2 (Swell, another Eastwood game)

[AKA23]

Attention!

We're gonna wrap this game up at the end of the weekend... at least for a little while.  We don't want to burn everyone out on the board with all the tagging and answering.  So, get all those burning questions you want to ask out of your system now, and on Sunday we'll stop tagging and leave the thread open only to answer the outstanding tags.  After a few weeks or months we'll start it up again.

I'm working on other ideas of things to do to keep us busy on the board everyday.   So keep checking back!

Ahhhh..NOOOO! Other ideas? I love this idea. Personally, I'd like to see this game continue. I don't see why we necessarily need to stop it. What does everyone else think? I thought it was a brilliant idea, and it really adds a lot to the board. We all get to know each other a bit better, the questions are fun and interesting, and it gives us all something to think about Unless it really is becoming difficult for everyone to keep up or there's a general consensus that the originality is wearing away, I'd be up for keeping the game going!   Who's with me?  

[AKA23]

Two more of my questions:

Ally : What is it about Eastwood that you like so much? You've dedicated an awful lot of your time to Eastwood (especially with that dissertation) and I'd guess that, like me, you're not real popular with your love of Eastwood at such an early age. I doubt that there's really a lot of young women like yourself around in your circles who share your passion for Eastwood. What is it about Eastwood, and what attracts you to these films that may seem a bit atypical and uncharacteristic of what the mainstream would call the "normal" thing? If you'd like, you can include a discussion of when you really fell in love with Eastwood..what film you were watching..what it was about that film...etc....

Stranger : It seems that a lot of us have favorites from Eastwood films that are widely different depending on when we first started watching Eastwood, or what we grew up with, but even with that, there are certain classic Eastwood films (like Dirty Harry for example) that seem to be appreciated as a "favorite" no matter what the generation. Are there certain films that really transcend those types of things? Why do you think that is that some films seem to be so widely appreciated in Eastwood circles across the different generations of Eastwood fans, and does that have something to do with it? I notice that I like several films from the 90's perhaps because that was the time that he was making movies for me, the movies I first saw in the theater, or were exposed to, or that were more or less set in "my" time period, but I can also make a very good case that I like them because the 90's was truly one of the best decades for Eastwood films. Do you see a conflict here, and what would you say about those interesting things that I pointed out here?  

[AKA23]

Attention!

AKA:  You see a beautiful young woman at Blockbuster... she's looking at renting a Vin Diesel film and notices you looking through the Eastwood section.  She asks if he's as good as Vin.     What film would you hand her to try to convince this poor unfortunate creature that Eastwood blows Diesel away?  (And you have to convince her to watch it with you.   You know, just to make sure she has an educated Eastwood fan nearby to answer any questions she may have after watching it. )

Geez, what is this? First I'm scoring at the movie theater, now I'm picking up a "beautiful young woman" at the video store! I think people are trying to tell me something here! I need a more exciting life! I don't DO any of these things. Well, hopefully we'd have something in common, or we'd "click" or something, otherwise I could just recommend a film and she'd just hate it and then where would I be then!   I don't really know. I think this poor beautiful creature probably likes Vin for his hot body or something ridiculous like that..hehe..there's no other reason to like him...so picking one of my favorite Eastwood films from the 90's wouldn't really be helping the cause. We'd need a film where Eastwood was in his prime here. I'd recommend High Plains Drifter or one of his other westerns...but I don't know if she likes westerns. Most girls don't like westerns. I think I'd ask her what kinds  of films she likes...my inclination is to pick one of his great westerns where he's playing the rugged individualist anti-hero type character, or one of his great films from the 90's, but that probably wouldn't work with this girl. I'd just be concerned that I'd want to pick something that she'd want to watch. Hmmmmm....who the hell knows? haha...if we're going for sheer Eastwood cool factor, nothing beats Dirty Harry but that one is quite violent, and has a few shocking scenes for the uninitiated, and this girl probably wouldn't be a huge fan of all that violence. For this girl who likes Vin Diesel, I don't really know Matt. None of Vin Diesel's films are even remotely similar to Clint's! You can't even try to compare them! I think I may just chance that she likes westerns, and pick The Outlaw Josey Wales . It's a great film, it's PG and doesn't have a lot of graphic violence so if the girl didn't like that, I'd be covered. It IS a western, but it's a good film, I like it, and Clint's character is really cool, he looks good, etc...there are a lot of issues to discuss and reflect upon...and it's a good exposure to Eastwood as well. Sounds like a good first time Eastwood experience to me!

As far as getting her to watch it with me, I don't know about that one. That's a tough one Matt! Perhaps you could give me some advice!   All I know is wanna go hoist some oysters is probably not the way to go!

[mgk]

 

From Matt to mgk:  You've been a fan of Eastwood since Rawhide, right?  If so you should be able to answer this...  After knowing Eastwood as the clean, kindly Rowdy Yates, do you remember what you thought the first time you saw him on the big screen?  Which movie was it?  What I'm hoping here is if you remember being blown away by the difference in his character from Yates to the "Man with No Name" or Harry Callahan roles.

Well, you got your wish...I was blown away just like everyone else was when "little Rowdy Yates" appeared on the big screen in Fistful of Dollars as the Man With No Name.  The maturity level of Clint Eastwood jumped from being a naive young sidekick on Rawhide to what appeared to be a much older man, mature beyond his years, and hardened by life when he appeared in that first spaghetti western.  

Both characters...Rowdy Yates and the Man with No Name...usually found trouble.  But, Rowdy found his trouble because his naivity and immaturity led him there and he often needed help to get out of it.  The Man with No Name found trouble because he was looking for it with an intent to erase it and didn't need anyone else to help him.

Fistful of Dollars shocked the movie-going public in 1964 because of its new approach to a hero of a western movie.  The Man with No Name was more of an anti-hero with character flaws that ran as deep as our own.  Compared to the run of the mill good guys who had been starring in westerns, this was different and most all of the movie goers liked it.  However, critics , who felt it was their job to protect the general public from any and every thing that might corrupt them, criticized it for its negative impact on the Christian morality of the so-called masses.

From AKA to MGK: : I know that you wouldn't show any Eastwood films to your fourth grade class, and I agree with that, but I saw Eastwood films at a very early age (as I've related on the board many times) and I really don't feel that I've been done any psychological or permanent damage by having watched them at an earlier age. Is it possible, in your estimation, that even though I did see some of these films early on, that the fact that maybe I was a bit more interested (I don't even want to say mature, because I'm not sure that's the right word for it.) might mean that some kids may just be able to handle it, and think critically about it, and be able to appreciate it at an earlier age, and not really be doing any permanent damage to themselves or their development? I know that you wouldn't recommend it, and I wouldn't either to be honest, but I think having had the experience, and not having felt that I've really been transformed negatively by it (and in fact there may have been some positive aspects to it, I think I'm qualified to at least ask the question, or explore the possibilities. What do you think about that possibility?

AKA, there is a huge distinction to be made here.  My opinion as to what is appropriate for young people to see in the theater is always based on the maturity level of each individual young person.  But, if you are in a school setting, it is imperative that you err on the side of caution because you, as a teacher or a principal, do not have the final word on what students should be able to see and at what age.  That is a parent's God given right and educators have no right to intrude on the guidelines the parents have set whether you agree with them or not.

Almost every young person has seen every movie they ever wanted to see by the time they are 17 or 18 years old whether they should have seen them or not.  Did some of those movies have a negative influence on them?  Maybe.  Did some of those movies have a negative influence on all of them?  No.  AKA, did you see Eastwood movies in a school setting or did you see them because your parents thought you were mature enough to see them...or, maybe you saw them without your parents' permission?

The bottom line is that it is not my ultimate privilege, as a teacher,  to determine what movies someone else's child can or cannot see.  It isn't even my privilege to determine what someone else's child can watch at my home...those decisions should be left up to the individual parents; it is their right to determine that.

The original question that KC asked me was how old I thought young people needed to be before they could fully understand the complexities of the movie Unforgiven.  She didn't ask me whether I thought it was okay for them to see it outside of a school setting or whether it was okay if they saw it for pure entertainment value whether they could understand it or not.  I stand by what I said earlier that I think mature 17 or 18 year old young people can understand what  Unforgiven is about if they are watching the film with the proper guidance.  But, it is important to remember that it is extremely difficult to find an entire class of students, even honors students, who are at the same level of maturity and it is irresponsible to gamble with the one or two who may be immature and unable to understand what you are presenting to them.

I could go on and on here but even I'm tired of listening to myself talk.  I'm glad you don't feel that watching Eastwood movies early in your life was harmful to you in any way and I hope you are right.  But, your decision to watch them at whatever age you chose to watch them is between you and your parents and not something I, as a teacher or even as another parent, should have any influence on.

mgk

[Smith&Wesson44]

Ahhhh..NOOOO! Other ideas? I love this idea. Personally, I'd like to see this game continue. I don't see why we necessarily need to stop it. What does everyone else think? I thought it was a brilliant idea, and it really adds a lot to the board. We all get to know each other a bit better, the questions are fun and interesting, and it gives us all something to think about Unless it really is becoming difficult for everyone to keep up or there's a general consensus that the originality is wearing away, I'd be up for keeping the game going!   Who's with me?  

Other ideas?  There's a game I started in the trivia forum called complete the scene that not too many have looked at yet.  Check it out if you haven't already and if you like, jump in!

[Matt]

I could go on and on here but even I'm tired of listening to myself talk.

I'm not tired of it.  Man, what a post!  There's more wisdom in those paragraphs than I've ever read on this board.  

Really great to have you posting again, mgk.  

[Matt]

Personally, I'd like to see this game continue. I don't see why we necessarily need to stop it. What does everyone else think?

If a lot of people are still really enjoying this game and want to keep playing, we can keep it going a little longer.  I've been enjoying the game too, however, I feel if we keep it going too long, it will burn everyone out... people may start dreading seeing themselves tagged not only because the question might be really hard, but because coming up with new tags might be difficult.  I thought it would be a good idea to stop it before it got to that point, and then bring it back again later, when it was a little fresh again.

The board is really slow on the weekends lately... football fever?  So I don't know that there will be many people around to reply to this, but... if it seems to be a lot of great fun for the time being, let me know and we can keep it going a little longer.

[AKA23]

Wow, the board is REALLY dead today. It MUST be due to Superbowl weekend! Anybody still out there?

[Lilly]

  Yeah Doug, I know what you mean:

I know how it is with delaying the moment, but I hope you aren't let down after all the hype.

 I'm always careful of that, and I find that everyone has such varied opinions on films that I try to forget about reviews etc and just see it my way.  In this case, the sooner the better, I think.
Hey S&W, that's a great answer , thank you:

Oh, let's see how philosophical this is for you...
I hope this is a good answer for you.

My favorite "character" in all the DH films is...

The Smith & Wesson Classic Model 29 .44 Magnum.  The blue steel, 8 3/8 inch barrel work of art.

Yes , it is an inanimate object, but I can't think of a more powerful object of symbolism in any film of the genre.  I look at the gun as a character.  Think of what it represents:  power.

The power of Harry over the criminal.  The .44 is where the power lies, it's the great equalizer.  When the bad guy is staring straight down the business end of the cannon, he knows that his days as a criminal are over, one way or the other, with him either in a jail cell or a body bag.  The .44 represents what I, the ordinary citizen, can only wish to do what Harry does.  Protect the innocent and run the hoods out of town.  To quote a line from Sudden Impact, "It's the one constant in an ever changing universe."  It's always there, always ready, to put the thugs down.

There's a game I started in the trivia forum called complete the scene that

I did check out your "Complete the scene" game, and that's a great idea.  My knowledge of Dirty Harry isn't up to scratch, but I look forward to contributing in the future.

[Lilly]

good gosh all mighty i just written down a real long answer to all of my tags and then i got the message that i wasn't logged in  
and everything is gone.........
this is just a check if everythin is working now......

Yeah palm, that's happened to me too , but did you see a "back" link on the error page that comes up?  When that first happened to me I thought I'd lost all my text, but clicking "back" brought it up so I could copy it before logging in again .  When I'm writing a long post I usually copy it every so often, just in case.

[Lilly]

 :)Doug asked:

You go to a dinner party and who are seated next to but Dina Eastwood ... what would be the one question you would most want to ask her about Clint?

 Gee that's tough; most questions would be unaskable!  I can't think of much that isn't already in the public domain that wouldn't be prying.  I might ask her about that pot-bellied pig    Does Clint really have one and why , what does he call it, and does he talk to it?



Smith&Weston44 asked:

What (or who) first turned you on to Eastwood films?

 DAmbrosia asked me a similar question in the first thread of this game:

Quote:
What film caused you to become an Eastwood fan?
 
Much easier this one.  It was In The Line Of Fire, of course!  It was just a few months ago; I had of course heard of Clint, but never really noticed him before.  The movie was on the TV one night in our common room at university, and I started watching it while I ate my supper.  Of course I got hooked!  Clint was so good in that film, and the other actors and the script were great too.  So after that I thought I'd check out the internet for Clint stuff, and the rest is history.  I joined this board, got lots more Clint movies, and got to know all you cool people online here!

But to answer your question more precisely, there is also another point...the very first reason I noticed Clint was because he looks a bit like a guy that I sort of dated (and who I still have half an eye on  ).  People say he reminds them of Clint, so I thought "I must check out this Clint guy and see if he is as sexy as ___".  Trouble was he ended up being sexier than my guy  

Aka asked:

You're obviously a great admirer of In the Line of Fire . Is that your favorite Eastwood film? I'm quite an admirer of it as well (it may be my favorite Eastwood flm), but I'm just wondering what it is about that film that you like so much? What is it about the film, and why do you choose it?

 I love In The Line Of Fire; it is a brilliant movie, and as I said above it was the first Clint film I watched, so it is special for me for that reason too.  However it isn't my very favourite Eastwood film.  Bridges of Madison County wins that contest, but if I had to rank it, it may well come second, or at least in the top five.  

I think the idea for the plot was brilliant - interfingering the fictional story with the real event of Kennedy's assassination gave the story an edge that is uncommon in most thrillers.  I'm not normally a huge fan of suspense/thriller movies, but this was an exception.  The screenplay was excellent, some of the dialogues were so well-constructed (see Matt's post on page 5 of the "Favorite Eastwood quotes" thread), especially those over the phone between Horrigan and Leary, and the wonderful chemistry-laden flirtations between Frank and Lilly.  Malkovitch was a fantastic villain, and Russo was strong in her role.  The movie seemed to get the right mix of pace and suspense with gentler scenes developing the characters, and allowing the romance to flourish meaningfully, rather than as a standard "add-on", as often seems to be the case in films these days.  The role seemed to be perfect for Clint - the hero, but with plenty of the inner struggle that he likes to portray - and he acted superbly; the scene quoted in posts above, in which he talks about Dallas 1963, being a shining example.  I remember when I first watched the film being impressed by Clint's use of facial expression, especially in the scenes with Lilly.  The way he casts glances at her (when they eat ice cream on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, for instance) conveyed the sexual tension wonderfully.  

I like the fact that a lot of thought had gone into trying to make the life of Secret Service agents realistic, attested to by this being the first film that was officially approved by the Secret Service, who assisted in its making.  Their input helped to ensure another point I liked about the film; the strong role of the main female character.  It was good to see Clint's lady friend being an independent capable professional, rather than a traditional helpless chick, and most of the time Lilly was dressed sensibly and appropriately, in trousers rather than some flouncy outfit.  Even the sex scene was done tastefully.  It can't have been easy to make a movie about extraordinary events and an extraordinary profession seem realistic, but that is what was largely achieved.  We saw into the life and inner feelings of a Secret Service agent, not the usual invincible action man.  

Petersen did a great job as director.  I'm not a fan of excessive superimposition and fancy shots in movies, but I thought the fading together of Frank's face with images from 1963 was very effective.  

And let's not forget another excellent Ennio Morricone score.

All the elements combined to make an entertaining film, that has a more thoughtful level as well.  Before this film I never owned a movie and had hardly ever seen a film more than once.  That soon changed, and I appreciated more each time I watched it.  

So, that's my bit said  , gotta go think up some tags...

[AKA23]

I owe another two on account of that beautiful girl at Blockbuster:

KC : You seem to not really hold In the Line of Fire in as high a regard as a lot of us on the board. I was wondering why that was. It has a great script, great acting, and it's an interesting suspense/thriller. Are you not really a fan of these types of movies, or is it partly because it's the only film in the 90's that Eastwood didn't direct, and you'll automatically hold films that Eastwood directs above films that he didn't? How do you think the film would have been different if Eastwood directed it? I'm not sure we would have had the same type of film. This one seemed to have more action, be more suspenseful, have a bit of a faster pace, and I think that was good for this particular film. A lot of people criticize Eastwood's self-directed films for being too slow in pace, and this one wasn't. We know why he didn't direct it (or why he says he didn't direct it), but how do you think the film would have been different if he did in fact direct it, and would you have liked it better with the changes you feel he may have made to it as director?--I'll think up another one later.

[Lilly]

Hey Aka, I'm in the dark here - why did he say he didn't direct it  

[AKA23]

He said that he wouldn't be able to do a good job on all of the promotional stuff and the post-production with A Perfect World as well as direct In the Line of Fire . He didn't want to have to deal with A Perfect World and In the Line of Fire around the same time, so he asked Wolfgang Petersen to direct, and he would only star.

[Lilly]

Cheers Aka    Interesting...but I wonder if that's all there was to it  

[AKA23]

Cheers Aka    Interesting...but I wonder if that's all there was to it  

Me too. I'm sure that KC would be able to give you a more complete answer, but it looks like that's all there was to it and if there were other reasons for it, I don't think we'll ever really get an answer publicly. If you'll notice, it's also not a Malpaso Production, so all Clint really did for the film, as far as I know, was act in it, but what an acting job it was!

[KC]

I owe another two on account of that beautiful girl at Blockbuster:

KC : You seem to not really hold In the Line of Fire in as high a regard as a lot of us on the board. I was wondering why that was. It has a great script, great acting, and it's an interesting suspense/thriller. Are you not really a fan of these types of movies, or is it partly because it's the only film in the 90's that Eastwood didn't direct, and you'll automatically hold films that Eastwood directs above films that he didn't? How do you think the film would have been different if Eastwood directed it? I'm not sure we would have had the same type of film. This one seemed to have more action, be more suspenseful, have a bit of a faster pace, and I think that was good for this particular film. A lot of people criticize Eastwood's self-directed films for being too slow in pace, and this one wasn't. We know why he didn't direct it (or why he says he didn't direct it), but how do you think the film would have been different if he did in fact direct it, and would you have liked it better with the changes you feel he may have made to it as director?--I'll think up another one later.

AKA, can't you ask me one question instead of four or five?   I still owe the answers to five tags from yesterday ...  

[Doug]

Actually, Matt I got my first computer in 1997, so I imagine it wasn't too long after that that I thought of searching the web for Clint Eastwood, and this was the best site I found at that time.  (Still is, of course!)  So I saved it, and checked back every so often to search through it, listen to the RA's, and what not.  I don't remember seeing a message board at that time.  (When did that start?)  Finally, I did notice it, but I wasn't into posting on message boards, and one time I checked it out and saw a discussion about GBU, I believe.  I didn't check back again for a while.  Then for whatever impulse, I started looking in every now and then, and I remember being amazed at how knowledgeable everybody was about film in general and Clint in particular, and I thought I had nothing to add. Then in June 2001 I moved from Dayton Ohio to Las Vegas and in July I registered, but I don't think I posted anything right away.  At some point I did (obviously) but I can't remember what it was.  Probably something like what's your favorite western, or something like that, where I could give an opinion without feeling like I needed to be an expert.  I got involved mainly because I liked hearing what everybody had to say and it's been entertaining.  It's taken me forever to keep who's who straight in my mind, though.  And I will say I've learned so much from this board, and it's even revitalized my enthusiasm toward Clint -- not that I ever stopped being a fan, but up to about a year ago I'd only seen his movies after Unforgiven once.  So now I've made a point of seeing them all again, plus a lot of older ones I hadn't seen in a while, and I'm ready to watch them all over again.

Tags:

Daisy:  There's humor present in even the spaghetti westerns, as well as the movies he made afterward (even in his most violent movies), so how much do you think humor has contributed to the success of his career?

AKA: I know Clint has stated that The Gauntlet was partly a statement against excessive police violence (I'm paraphrasing, obviously), but do you think the movie comes across to an extent as an anti-police movie?  (Heck, he's the hero, but he doesn't get his act together, so to speak, and stop drinking until after he's put into the position of having to defy the police.)  

[Lilly]

I quite agree Palm:

Lilly has asked me what i want to see on a special edition of BOMC.
That's a long story Lil.
First of all i'd like to see some scenes from the book "BOMC the film" cos there was more filmed than we got to see. I am especially interested in that scene after they said goodbye for the last time and obviously she ran after him outside ( if you study the last scene closely where she stands near the gate, something isn't right in my opinion, she is all sweaty and her hair is a bit messed up !!!! Look at it another time and you shall see it too).
Than i would like to hear and see Meryl and Clint's experience on how it was to work on BOMC together (in some sort of duo interview).
And last but not least i would love to see some bloopers (if there where any of course).
It is going to be a special 2-dvd edition so it's going to be pricy    

Yeah, I'd love to see the cut scenes, especially the one you mention, and another one shown in the book but not in the film is them having breakfast the morning after they first get together.  That looked like it could have been a good scene.  
Bloopers would be fun.  From the photos in the book of Clint and Meryl on-set, it looks like they had a good relationship; there must have been some fun moments caught on camera.  I'd like to see a "making of" documentary on the DVD.  Perhaps also a five minute feature on rural Iowa and it's people would be good (it's a much maligned state, and BOMC helped to put it on the map as being more than just cornfields and hicks), maybe with some short interviews with the people of Winterset who worked as extras (in the cafe scene).  A featurette on the music in the movie might have been cool, with Clint talking about his composition of Doe Eyes.  

And of course WIDESCREEN would be a must!

[AKA23]

Sure, KC. I see two linked questions there, but you're right, it is more than one question. If you'd like, you can just answer how you feel it would have been different if Eastwood directed it, but I was also really interested as to why the film seems to be a favorite of a lot of people, yet you don't hold it in a very high regard yourself. I was interested in why as well, which is probably why I asked both questions. They're really tied together, and might naturally flow in a discussion on the film, but if it helps for you to answer just one, you can do that too I suppose. I didn't realize that you had so many tags!! I'm sorry KC.