Gran Torino and Hmong Gangs in the Midwest
by Guest Contributor Joanna Eng
In Gran Torino, Clint Eastwood plays a bitter old man who’s basically the only white person left in a run-down neighborhood somewhere in the Midwest. He (reluctantly, at first) gets to know his Hmong neighbors, and ends up getting intricately involved in their lives, as they deal with issues caused by a local Hmong gang that some of their relatives are a part of.
There are plenty of things about the movie that might make for great posts on Racialicious:
1. Like most Hollywood movies that are about a community of people of color, Gran Torino features a white protagonist who not only saves the day, but also has the most layers of complexity to his personality.
2. As the first major Hollywood film about Hmong Americans, how did it do at depicting this community? Does the exposure of Hmong culture and the opportunity for Hmong actors outweigh the possible inaccuracies and negative representations? (See some of the commentary about this on AsianWeek.)
3. Clint Eastwood’s character’s constant racist remarks serve as a running joke in the movie. Just because he uses outdated and blatantly un-P.C. language with an “equal-opportunity discrimination” approach, is it OK to use this deeply offensive language as comic relief?
But I don’t really want to write about those things. I want to write about another reaction I had.
Of course I’ve seen other movies involving gangs, shootings, and/or rape. But this one hit me harder. After seeing it, I couldn’t stop worrying about the Hmong family depicted in the movie. I think there were a few reasons that the gang violence and the rest of the plot made such a big impact on me:
One reason is that the gang members and family affected were all Asian. I suppose I had heard of the existence of Asian American (or even Hmong American) gangs, but it’s easy to forget. Because of the media I’ve been exposed to my whole life, I usually make the assumption that street gangs are mostly made up of African Americans and Latinos, and then I also hear about “organized” crime—the Italian mafia, Chinese mafia, etc. (I’m pretty sure there’s a fine line between gangs and organized crime anyway, and I wonder how much racist assumptions factor in to that distinction.)
The gang activity in the movie was disturbing because it was relatively unexpected. My girlfriend pointed out that in the beginning of the movie, the neighborhood where it takes place doesn’t seem like a dangerous neighborhood. I think that’s because the neighborhood isn’t the stereotypical dangerous neighborhood usually depicted in films—which would be a black or Latino neighborhood in a densely populated urban area. In Gran Torino, the first impressions the viewers get of the neighborhood are of a white (Polish American) family gathering at one house, and then of a Hmong family gathering at the house next door. White and Asian families coming together around home-cooked food on the weekends, in their two-story houses with lawns, doesn’t seem to have much to do with criminal activity. But of course, that’s because the movie scenes we’re accustomed to tell us otherwise.
Another thing that made the setting less stereotypical was that it took place in the Midwest (I’m not sure where exactly). And rather than showing us the culturally homogeneous setting that we’re used to seeing and that’s become synonymous with the Midwest (except for Chicago), we see an extremely diverse neighborhood, in which the main character is quickly becoming, or already is, a racial minority as a white person. Indeed, a little casual research showed me that Minnesota and Wisconsin have the largest populations of Hmong Americans along with California.
The reality is that there are large numbers of Asian American gangs and a whole lot of gangs in the Midwest. I’m obviously not an expert on this, but to take one example, just Googling “Hmong gangs” brings up a list of many of the factions of the Crips all over the United States and Canada. On that list of 115, there are 17 factions of the Crips that are specifically described as Hmong, 11 labeled as Laotian, and 5 others with “Asian” or “Oriental” in their names. There are about 10 factions in Minnesota, 10 in Wisconsin, and some others in Indiana, Kansas, Ohio, and Oklahoma. These are facts that I’m pretty sure most American media consumers have never heard.
The film showed situations and settings that we don’t normally see in mainstream movies, and I have to give it a lot of credit for that. Highlighting a minority group that most Americans have never even heard of, showing cultural diversity in the Midwest, and even featuring an elderly person as the protagonist, were all uncommon choices.
If you saw Gran Torino, what did you think?
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Angel H. wrote:
I haven’t seen it yet and frankly, I don’t plan to. I just seems like another “Beware the Brown People.” (”Havoc”, anyone?)
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 10:03 am ¶
Orville wrote:
I hate Clint Eastwood I really can’t stand this old S.O.B. Hollywood will probably nominate this old sea hag for an Oscar but he’s a part of the Hollywood establishment. I just don’t take Eastwood seriously. I agree with Spike Lee that Eastwood’s movies tend to have racist overtones.
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 11:28 am ¶
Francisco wrote:
It takes place in in a town outside of Detroit (though filmed in Fresno).
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 11:39 am ¶
Sara_2 wrote:
Communities composed of people who are recent immigrants, sharing a language with one another, “sharing” poverty, and not speaking the language of the financially dominant culture are surely breeding grounds for gangs everywhere?
Some links on Chinatown gangs, sometimes called tong gangs - these were fairly well publicized in the past -
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1999/03/09/NEWS12705.dtl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_problems_in_Chinatown
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 12:06 pm ¶
Brenda wrote:
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I’ve heard that it’s set in St. Paul, Minnesota, probably in the Frogtown neighborhood. I will go see this movie because 1) it has Hmong people in it! and 2) maybe it will show a decent portrayal of life in Minneapolis/St. Paul?
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 12:09 pm ¶
Brenda wrote:
Whoops sorry, just read the last comment. I have bad sources.
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 12:10 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
When I saw the trailer I thought,
Here goes another “white man takes out the garbage” movie.
Dirty Harry, Charles Bronson etc…
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 12:24 pm ¶
Mr. Noface wrote:
I’ve seen the movie and although the trailers for this film gives it a retired Dirty Harry type of vibe, that’s not really what the film is about. Indeed at times the film leads you to believe that it just another glorifictation of vigilantism, but that is not the case, which I suppose is why the ending is so surprising (at least it was to me).
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 12:37 pm ¶
Big Man wrote:
When I saw a commerical for this movie my first reaction was “Damn, I guess it’s the Asians turn to be gangbangers.”
Seriously, I’ve seen this same plot hundreds of times, but usually it’s black kids or latino kids who are the bad guys. Or some mixture of both. It’s unusual to see Asians in this role, but the overall story is pretty familiar.
White people under siege from the uncivilized minorities. Only the white peron’s intelligence and penchant for violence can help him survive. Plus, even though he says racist stuff he’s not a bad guy because the minorities really deserve it.
Same old thing.
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 1:41 pm ¶
CVT wrote:
In seeing the preview, my only reaction was - “F— this!” Old racist white guy “saves” one set of brown people by killing all the rest of them!? Sounds great. Not to mention that - in working with youth involved in gangs - the kind of “solution” he’s offering wouldn’t ever work, anyway, and gangs don’t just shoot up random houses because they’re mad.
Gang members are NOT “badguys” that deserve to die indiscriminately, and I’m sick of movies depicting them in that light. They’re a bunch of scared kids who don’t know how to get out or stop because of the enormous amount of pressure on them - the kind that most people wouldn’t understand - which is why they’re okay with glorifying the murder of scared kids. I think it makes it easier for people to feel this way when the scared kids are brown, of course.
Sure, I only saw the preview, but unless Eastwood’s character dies horribly at the end, I don’t want to see it.
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 1:50 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
I haven’t seen the movie but the post made me want to.
I don’t write off Eastwood as racist, though there are certainly racist undertones in his earlier films, but then he didn’t write or direct a lot of them. That was later, and he seems pretty evenhanded in his WW II series, and I can’t see where race issues really come up in his other stuff too often except in the same way they do in most movies. I’d have to do a re-viewing of the stuff he wrote and/or directed.
(I think Spike Lee is sometimes a bit over the top, much as I like most of his movies).
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 1:58 pm ¶
Joanna Eng wrote:
Maybe the trailer gives the wrong impression. I haven’t seen the trailer.
The movie itself does NOT give off the vibes that commenters who have only seen the trailer cite:
“glorifying the murder of scared kids”
“White people under siege from the uncivilized minorities”
“Beware the Brown People”
“Dirty Harry”
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 2:16 pm ¶
lechatnoir wrote:
I have seen the movie.
This movie is chock full of racist slurs two third of which I have never heard in my whole life.
Eastwood chose to make himself look a tragic civil hero that alone made me wants to puke.
There are basically 4 important layers, most of which do not deal with the phatology of racism .
-the ultra long depiction of the old man with a very strong post war “fever” .
- The “not so racist” but very biaised individual who turns the poor Hmong family into his servants. He received the equivalent of two wedding presents from the whole Hmong clan even after he treated them like they were less then human.
-Halfway through the movie he fills the Father role to teach the shy Asian child a few man’s skills
-Oh well he offered his own life for Thao the Hmong child . This sequence rang a bell “24″ anyone ?
the moral lesson of the movie is “empty” there is nothing there that I have not seen depicted in a way or another in a recent movie.
Apologies for the poor spelling.
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 2:49 pm ¶
Joanna Eng wrote:
@lechatnoir
I do agree that there was too much emphasis on Clint Eastwood’s character and I wished it were no so much about him.
Considering the plot and characters, it may not be a groundbreaking movie; but aren’t most movies even more predictable? I still stand by my point that the depiction of the Hmong community and diverse midwestern neighborhood do make this a unique film.
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 3:06 pm ¶
thaidyed wrote:
I’m a white girl who lives in Lao and works in Hmong communities. My dad is one of 2 white homeowners on a street otherwise all Hmong-a rural/suburban street that screams middle america. He bought the house because it was 10-15% under market for the town–because it was in a Hmong neighborhood (and relished the anti-racist discount).
The elders on the street have been ok with him. While they didn’t meet his expectations of friendly neighbors at first, they eventually started warming up to each other.
The other white guy in the neighborhood whines ‘no fair that the Hmong get given free houses by the Government’ and my dad has had to call him out many, many times on his racism (and willful stupidity).
The elders invited him to a wedding down the street back when he first moved in. He brought his bottles of Lao lao and had a good time at the grandpa table, but got nastily accused of being a cop by the fresno-born bride.
He’s grudgingly accepted being woken by roosters (and the occasionally pig) in an area where its illegal to raise them.
He had his car windows smashed by a Hmong teen in retaliation for making a noise complaint after repeatedly being woken at 2am from a car stereo blasting in front of his house.
And I notice now when I come home to visit, he’s not really talking to his Hmong neighbors anymore and they’re not talking to him.
Bridging the gap between Hmong & White neighbors is gonna take time and one Hollywood movie is not gonna fix it. But I think this provides much needed momentum to the conversation.
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 3:09 pm ¶
adam wrote:
saw the trailer a few nights ago (while seeing milk- the portrayal of milk’s latino boyfriend jack would be another interesting post topic…)
was rather nauseated by it. as a canadian i know pretty little about hmong folks (there are relatively few hmong-canadians) and would love to see a movie that featured hmong-american characters. but this is not that movie.
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 3:11 pm ¶
Chris Chambers wrote:
Gang members are parasites and destroyers of their own people, regardless of color or ethnicity. They aren’t our sad lost sons. Look I know black folks who’ve seen the screenings who say “Good. Now people know it’s not just us and Latinos who have to endure violent nihilistic teens in some of our communties. Even Asians–the “model minority.” So there’s already some built in ambivalence. There are ways on the other hand to show all angles, as in HBO’s The Wire. Nevertheless, these gangs are the garbage. If it takes a grizzled white man to take it out, than shame on us, not him, or Hollywood. We need to clean up our own backyards.
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 4:27 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
@Joanna–
If what you’re saying is true about the film, then the trailer *is* giving the wrong impression. When I saw the trailer with my pal Bianca, we looked at it then at each other. Our mutual reaction: “Oh HELL NAW!” What we came away with was “white (racist) man saves the culah’d folks.” And we agreed, on the strength of the trailer, to not see the movie.
But if what you’re saying is true, then I’ll wait to rent it. If I still think it’s awful after I watch it, I won’t get thrown out of a theater for throwing my popcorn at the screen.:D
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 4:41 pm ¶
Strange Brew wrote:
It’s obvious who has seen the movie and who has not. And it’s ridiculous to accuse someone of being racist or having a racist motive without even seeing the film. Incredibly hypocritical.
Clint Eastwood doesn’t kill anyone in the film, let’s just get that out of the way right now. He’s got a gun because that’s how he defends his home. He’s a war vet. I own a gun as well, I see nothing wrong with this in and of itself.
I could understand how one could feel it’s another “Great White Hope” kind of movie where the anglo saves the day, but he reluctantly gets involved with his neighbors. It’s not something he sets out to do, he’s not trying to be a vigilante. His Hmong neighbors become his friends and he simply defends them as he would any other friend.
After a visit to their home, he actually realizes he has more of a connection with them than he does with his own family.
He takes his young neighbor, Tao under his wing and essentially treats him as a surrogate son. He’s terminally ill and sets out to show Tao many things he may not have shown his own sons- it’s like he’s trying to make amends for his own misgivings in life.
In the end, he makes a significant sacrifice for Tao, his sister and their family.
Are there racial slurs and stereotypes? Yes. Does it completely fit in the context of the character he’s trying to protray? Again, yes. I don’t see anything wrong with it, if taken in context and if those who have commented prematurely actually saw the movie, they’d likely agree.
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 4:44 pm ¶
CVT wrote:
@ Chris Chambers -
It’s depressing to me to hear that. Yes - gangs are a problem. But the mentality you (and others) are bringing to it are exactly why it’s STILL a problem and HAS BEEN for so long (and it’s only getting worse). Obviously, gang members getting shot isn’t solving the problem. Putting them in jail isn’t solving the problem. So maybe if people actually tried to solve the problems that led to kids getting INTO gangs (poverty, racism, a failing education system, the lack of positive role models, the prison system, and people who don’t think of the 13 year-olds getting involved as anything but “bad kids”) something could happen.
But that’s too difficult. So let’s just pretend that the gang members are flat “bad” or “garbage” and we’re “good” and “take them out” for the betterment of everybody. If it was about “good” or “bad,” there wouldn’t be any gangs - trust me, I know this for a fact. But there’s so much more involved, and pretending otherwise only lets it continue - making those that keep that belief going (mainly the media and the middle class) just as responsible for the mess it all currently is.
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 6:17 pm ¶
CVT wrote:
@ Joanna and Strange Brew -
I don’t doubt that the actual movie plays very differently than the trailers. The problem is, though - why do the trailers take that particular angle, then? That’s a very intentional choice, meant to bring in an audience - and it’s disturbing to think what kind of audience that would bring.
That said, I’m now tempted to watch the film (not in the theatre, though) to better judge it. Tempted, but not set on it.
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 6:21 pm ¶
allheavens wrote:
Gangbangers are not Oliver Twist street urchins. They are a blight on their communities who use violence, drugs, the false lure of surrogate family and easy money to reek havoc on their own. I have no sympathy.
Do I think some are salvageable, yes. But most are straight up sociopaths who have little conscious about the damage they do and the lives they lay to waste.
We can’t blame Hollywood for our disaffected troubled youth or for these grown-ass men who head up these well organized and deadly gangs.
As for the movie, I saw an early preview, though not quite Dirty Harry for the geriatric set, however, it is also not the way to enlightenment by any means. Does it ever cross the minds of Hollywood writers and producers that there are men of color who act as surrogate fathers to troubled young men on a daily basis and have done so for decades?
But it’s Clint and I am sure the 55- to 70-year-old white middle-class crowd will eat this s_ _t up like it was a half-priced entree at Luby’s.
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 6:25 pm ¶
JB wrote:
A Question:
KKK, Aryan Nations, Skinheads…do these qualify for “gangs” in your viewpoint…because it seems that they always get left off of the gang list. Why don’t the grizzled old white men take care of these problems???
I’ve never had an non-white gang member spraypaint graffiti on my place of business but I have had it done by white gang members…
I’m not making a personal remark towards you, but it always strikes me odd that when people talk about youth gone bad the non-whites are all lumped into gangs while the vampire-killers, racists and nihilistic white youth are called troubled or misundestood and humanized.
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 7:32 pm ¶
CVT wrote:
@AllHeavens -
“They are a blight on their communities who use violence, drugs, the false lure of surrogate family and easy money to reek havoc on their own.”
Who are these people that they use “the false lure of surrogate family” on? Oh, right - the younger, INCOMING gang members . . . Who should have no sympathy because they are lured in by older people with false promises . . . Wait, I’m getting confused. Because if all the gang members are naturally bad sociopaths, then who cares if gang members reek havoc on “their own”?
I think we’re in some sort of agreement - but with our numbers flipped. Because, in actuality, I’d say that the MAJORITY of gang members are salvageable KIDS (I’m talking 12 - 14 years old) who are pressured by family and “surrogate family” into getting involved and then get themselves deeper and deeper because nobody cares enough to do anything about it. On the flip side - there are some sociopaths at the top who could give a sh– and use the kids for whatever they can get from them. I’m definitely not saying they’re a bunch of wide-eyed innocents, either.
As for Hollywood - I’m not bringing Hollywood into this side of the discussion at all.
I’m just asking (and may be completely wrong in this), but how many gang members (especially young ones) do you know personally? I know far too many to be happy about - and not a single one of them is a sociopath or beyond redemption.
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 8:37 pm ¶
Strange Brew wrote:
@CVT:
Why do the trailers take that angle? Are you seriously expecting honesty out of our media?
Violence and sensationalism sells. It’s really quite simple. The trailer is structured as it is to put butts in seats. And when said butts in seats experience the film, it might actually provoke a thought or two.
Not really sure what you mean when you say it’s disturbing to think of what kind of audience the trailer would bring. IMO, some of that audience is the exact type that SHOULD see a film like this.
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 8:49 pm ¶
lechatnoir wrote:
@johanna
I knew the movie was predictable, I still assumed this ONE would be different.
I am not convinced most of the posters watched the movie.
My description was a little sketchy.But I went to see the movie without any a priori, I have watched C.E movies before.
lol! the movie was never about a communion between the Hmong community an whites. And it was not about breaking the image of the “model” minority either .Neither crossed my mind the movie is about him really.
Clint Eastwood’s character cannot tell the difference between Chinese mithology and Hmong ethnicity, he had dined there and they “quick taught” him the Hmong courtesy and customs, still every time he was angry he was using the entire catalogue of racial slurs that spans from the Koreans to the Chinese , to the Laosians etc… up until the end he hadn’t figured out what these “people” were. We even had the ” please do not eat my dog” joke among others.
we had been made aware that his character really was a paternalist racist, y’all see when him and his buddies crack racist jokes in the bar and it is only when the young Priest walks in that they stop. I am still trying to understand his role in the movie because he did not influence clint’s characters in any way .
Forget about those little baby gangsters. They were a mere decoration. They were useless to the central plot. Ther little weak attempt to brainwash Tao had even me eyerolling.
This kid gansta did not even kill him because he wanted revenge, he accidently shot him because clint made this gesture that suggested he had a gun.
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 9:12 pm ¶
mahjongg wrote:
after the beef with spike lee…screw clint.
here’s a pair of haikus to make my point:
Clint Eastwood
squinting revolver
that famed executioner
pasty wrinkled death
dark tides approach
white man’s stand he makes alone
bitter, sour, cold.
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 10:34 pm ¶
Dorian wrote:
On the one hand, I feel some sympathy with CVT’s view. No matter how you look at it, labeling them in such stark terms as a “blight on their communities” is not helpful.
At the same time, I do understand JB’s point about white vs. nonwhite gangs. I think one major feature of the KKK, Skinheads, etc., is that their common bond and raison d’etre is one of pure hatred. They exist on espousing their own superiority and terrorizing those different from them. It’s these gangs who deserve no sympathy because their mission is so specifically hate-filled.
So I think the problem is that the word ‘gang’ could be pretty broad that one may argue about semantics. It’d probably be more helpful to be more specific about what we’re talking about.
Posted 22 Dec 2008 at 11:03 pm ¶
Luis wrote:
“At the same time, I do understand JB’s point about white vs. nonwhite gangs. I think one major feature of the KKK, Skinheads, etc., is that their common bond and raison d’etre is one of pure hatred. They exist on espousing their own superiority and terrorizing those different from them. It’s these gangs who deserve no sympathy because their mission is so specifically hate-filled.”
If only that were all they were doing. Check out your local state penitentiary. White cons are often in White Supremacy-flavored gangs, usually there for similar crimes: drug running and assault crimes. It just happens that meth is the drug of choice to sell in most of these groups, instead of more high-profile drugs like crack and marijuana. Lumping the KKK in with these gangs kind of waters down that point, even if their associated with a similar culture.
Frankly, I don’t care to argue with the poster who want to “give it to them,” or “clean up the streets,” because I know they’re not actually going to do anything. Neither are the 55-70 year old racist men peering through their window shades like Clint in this film. The people who are putting themselves on the line don’t need to be told what’s up. They’re black, latino, asian, and white social workers, community members, and ex-gang members who put their lives on the line to try to reach as many kids as they can. They don’t need to be told most of these kids are looking for direction, they just need real help. Not grandstanding.
Posted 23 Dec 2008 at 3:59 am ¶
Araja wrote:
Hey Thaidyed, I don’t want to sound argumentative, but can I ask you what the point of your post was? I can’t articulately put my finger on why it bothered me, but it did. It seems like you wanted to portray your father as having to “put up” with some things “inherent” in a Hmong community (like illegally-raised roosters)…Also, I don’t quite understand why it’s relevant that you live and work in Laos. Is it just because we are talking about Hmong communities in the US? I might be totally off base, but I’m curious to know.
Posted 23 Dec 2008 at 5:12 am ¶
jaye wrote:
Living in Vancouver, Canada, with a massive Asian population, I feel like this movie is old news. I notice sometimes a real difference between the way Asian-Americans feel about their Asian-ness, vs Asian-Canadians.
The Asians as gang-members has been around for awhile…we watch so many U.S. shows and movies up here, maybe I didn’t realize that a lot of the Asian gangbanger shows I watched were actually Canadian, because this Gran Torini movie feels like it’s about 10-15 years too late. It’s just so dated, watching the trailer made my eyes roll. Canada is definitely behind the U.S. in a lot of ways pop culture-wise…but as far as bringing newer minority groups into the mainstream, it feels like the U.S. is behind the times on this one.
Posted 23 Dec 2008 at 5:26 am ¶
DivergentDana wrote:
“saw the trailer a few nights ago (while seeing milk- the portrayal of milk’s latino boyfriend jack would be another interesting post topic…)”
Along with the depiction of the apparently, “very, very nerdy ultimate dork asexual asian male” character, Michael Wong.
http://www.angryasianman.com/2008/03/calling-all-very-very-nerdy-chinese.html
Posted 23 Dec 2008 at 7:42 am ¶
MelMel wrote:
Oh good. Another racist whitey saves a bunch of helpless yellows? Thank god the 6ft tall caucasian with a six-pack was there to save the day! I refuse to see this piece of shit. Someone send Clint Eastwood some fresh material for script inspiration and a pack of depends.
Harsh? I don’t think that was harsh enough.
Posted 23 Dec 2008 at 9:50 am ¶
CVT wrote:
@ Dorian and Louis -
I’m with Louis here on white supremacist gangs not really being all that different from any other type of gang (KKK is a whole different ball of wax, in my opinion).
Because I work with the neo-Nazi/Aryan nation kids, as well - and they are the same kids as those in other kids; the only difference being skin color. Kids in poverty get into gangs for all the same reasons, no matter their race: power.
They don’t have power anywhere in their lives, so they find it by grouping up and forming gangs. Black kids join black gangs. Latinos in Latino gangs. Asians in Asian gangs. And white kids in white gangs.
The sad thing about the white kids in their white supremacist gangs are that they don’t really start out racist at all. These are kids in poverty who had full respect for me (not white), had non-white friends in school . . . I even had one who - in my race and ethnicity class yelled out, “white people really did that!?” (in watching a video where folks were playing pinata with a black baby doll) and then, “I HATE white people!!!” And he wasn’t playing.
But then their powerlessness catches up with them. And the street. And where can they turn for immediate allies in the street? Not an all-black or Latino or Asian gang. So it’s the white supremacists. And there we go . . .
Posted 23 Dec 2008 at 11:44 am ¶
rahma wrote:
I haven’t seen it yet, although it’s definitely on my “to watch” list. I live in the Twin Cities, in an area that to the casual observer wouldn’t seem to be a hot bed of gang activity, but we have quite a number of hmong gangs (as well as a sprinkling of somali gangs, which is also not what one thinks about when they think gang). This summer, we had a few bat attacks (random people being beaten almost to death with a baseball bat) at a local lake which were traced back to gang activities.
I believe it was originally suppose to be set in Minnesota (as well as filmed here), but that Michigan offered better financial incentives.
Here’s some commentary from the local hmong community here in Minnesota:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/12/19/grantorino/
Posted 23 Dec 2008 at 12:26 pm ¶
thaidyed wrote:
araja-sorry it bothered you.
my point (maybe not a good one) was that as rehashed and cliche these stupid ‘white guy saves/fixes the poor minorities ‘ hollywood plot lines are, I think its a net positive that there’s now a movie out dramatizing white+hmong suburbia. Because its part of my family’s experience and because it’s part of the american landscape.
You’re right, my dad does feel like he’s “putting up”. He actively calls out racist comments from his white neighbor but yet harbors a host of his own. They (both sides) are trying to be good neighbors to each other and not quite hitting the mark. There’s a tension there. For a while I saw a lot of progress as they worked through it and I’m sad to see it’s died off for whatever reason. I guess I harbor some hope that this process is going on in many other neighborhoods and naively hope the movie could push it along a little.
(ref to myself was to say that my dad is more familiar with Hmong history and circumstances in the US than most aging white suburban baby boomers. ymmv)
Posted 23 Dec 2008 at 2:02 pm ¶
Joanna Eng wrote:
@rahma, thanks for the article! Looks like it doesn’t open in Minnesota theaters until January 9!
Posted 23 Dec 2008 at 2:19 pm ¶
G. K. wrote:
GRAN TORINO was filmed in Grosse Pointe, an upper-class neighborhood on Detroit’s East Side—there is a Hmong pop. on the East Side, but I don’t know the actual size of it. It was also filmed in working-class Highland Park, which is now pretty much destitute (the state had to take over its finances a couple of years ago) and another part of the D that’s been hit hard by the economic downturn. I was homeless and living in a shelter there, and it is one area, that is, as we say here in the D, “‘tore up from the floor up”. Since the govenor signed something giving a 42% tax break to film companies to film here, we’re had a bunch of film productions start shooting out here. I didn’t like hearing that the film was just another angry-white-man-against-the-evil-minorities tirade, but then I haven’t seen it yet—it just opened here in the D this past Friday.
Posted 23 Dec 2008 at 7:37 pm ¶
G. K. wrote:
Oops—forgot to add this link to Detroit Free Press article about the film:
http://www.freep.com/article/20081221/ENT0…0341/1035/PRINT
Posted 23 Dec 2008 at 7:39 pm ¶
G. K. wrote:
Hmmm–that link didn’t work—let me try this again:
http://www.freep.com/article/20081221/ENT01/812210341/1035/PRINT
Posted 23 Dec 2008 at 7:41 pm ¶
Drydock wrote:
While I hold mostly left-leaning political views including ones about crime (I oppose the death penalty, three strikes, the drug war, absurdly harsh sentencing etc.), I absolutely support throwing stupid-ass violent gangsters in jail. Here in Oakland it’s pretty clear to me as conviction rates for violent crime have dropped, violent crime has increased massively.
Putting gangsters in jail does in fact reduce the problem of violent crime.
An article, “Arrests are Down, Crime is Up”, on violent crime in Oakland: http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/arrests_are_down__and_crime_is_up/Content?oid=876297
Posted 24 Dec 2008 at 7:57 pm ¶
Nia wrote:
i echo angela h.
the previews were such a turn off. all i could get from them is “this movie is about clint eastwood shooting/threatening brown/Asian people, and he’s supposed to be the hero? whack.”
Posted 24 Dec 2008 at 11:14 pm ¶
MaTriX wrote:
Honestly, Gran Torino is not a movie I would watch based on the trailer; the trailer is terrible, just to sum it up. However, the movie was outright amazing. There isn’t much action, in fact, he only fired the M1 garand once, and it was an accident. The storyline is amazing. Seriously, Eastwood goes all out with the racist remarks in this film–the humor revolves around this for the most part. Without spoiling the plot, Eastwood portrays a disgruntled lonely self-sufficient old white man living in a neighborhood being overrun by Asians. Hes one of those old guys that sits on their porches and yells at you for stepping on the corner of his property when taking a stroll. Lets just say by the end of the movie, the old disgruntled Eastwood is finally at peace. Again, great storyline, very moving watching the transition of Eastwood’s personality throughout the film. I highly recommend this one.
Posted 25 Dec 2008 at 12:20 am ¶
Bagelsan wrote:
“a neighborhood being overrun by Asians.”
…what, now? “Overrun”?
Posted 26 Dec 2008 at 4:17 am ¶
kameelah wrote:
i saw this film yesterday and i want my $8 back. beyond the racial and gendered analysis, i found the movie to be contrived, overwrought, predictable, and redundant. during the movie i took out my notepad to jot some notes. while i fou
+ we need to stop being excited when someone makes a film about people of color, no matter how stereotypical and problematic. the son is an asexual, passive asian kid who likes books and learns how to be a ‘man’ from clint eastwood who calls him a ‘pussy’ throughout the movie. the daughter is a snarky educated woman who does not mind being called ‘dragon lady’ and insulted. then
+ very colonial undertones–the great white hope who comes to save the savage natives from themselves. (and as the poor acting daughter notes, ‘there are no role models here.’ i guess the shaman doesn’t count) he carries the ‘burden’ of helping these people and like passive natives they bring him foods and treats which the place at his steps as he sits like a king. at the BBQ the women cater to him with food. the only hmong in this film who have a ‘voice’ are the somewhat assimilated english-speaking kids and the gang members. the older family is mute…well the speak, but no translation is provided so they may as well be mute. this film becomes not only a commentary on race and spatial politics, but also on youth. how do we save ourselves from barbaric colored folks and how do we save ourselves from the crazy young kids?
+ salvation through labor…after the son tries to steal the car, the only way he can be ’saved’ is by working.
+ i was most disturbed not by the racial slurs, but the audience response. when he said spook, shrimp dick, sipper head, swaprats, dragon lady, beaner, gook, chinks, fishheads, eggroll, slopes, nip…the theater erupted into laughter. what is so funny about all of this?
+ if you notice, whenever he has a gun pointed as one of the hmong kids military drum music begins to play. what is the meaning of this? is this meant to just show he is having flashbacks, to sanction the potential killing as legitimate, to homogenize all asians…i dont know, but it is an interesting juxtaposition…
i will add more when i have more time.
Posted 26 Dec 2008 at 10:03 am ¶
Asada wrote:
is there something wrong with an asian kid who wants to read and does not want to bang anyone? Must every person WANT to get involed.
And, pray tell, what would be considered sexual enough?
someone explain this mess to me?
Posted 26 Dec 2008 at 2:01 pm ¶
kameelah wrote:
there is nothing wrong with an asian kid who wants to read…my point is that the character reproduces common stereotypes about asian men as passive, asexual, highly academic, etc.
there is not a litmus test for ’sexual enough,’ but if you have not watched the movie, please pay close attention to the discourse around manhood and sexuality. he is consistently called a pussy…clint eastwood teaches him to be a ‘man’ by being crude and more aggressive, etc.
Posted 26 Dec 2008 at 10:56 pm ¶
pagsasao wrote:
Check out my review here: http://pagsasao.wordpress.com/2008/12/18/gran-torino/
Posted 27 Dec 2008 at 4:23 am ¶
wks wrote:
I’ve seen the movie and had a few thoughts. I was initially put off by Clint’s character’s constant battery of racist remarks. I thought the equal opportunity racism (calling his Italian American barber a dago and his Irish American friend a mick, etc.) was a little too forced in trying to show that he’s not really racist if he uses those terms on everyone. I think part of the point of all this was to show that racist ignorant words are offensive, but does a person’s actions (befriending his Hmong neighbors and treating them as family) matter more than his words… while it doesn’t make it “right,” when I thought about it this way, I found the barrage of racist comments tolerable.
Secondly, the movie very pointedly shows Asian, Latino, and black youths in a very, very negative and generally violent light. On the other hand, the depiction of white youths (actually his whole family including his adult sons and daughter in law) is also very negative, but in a different way — they are apathetic, rude, lazy, selfish and weak. While some may quibble about whether this is really fair that the brown people are shown as more “savage” I think the negative depiction of white teenagers surprised me more and actually left a pretty strong impression.
Posted 27 Dec 2008 at 10:03 am ¶
wks wrote:
FWIW, I have not seen the trailer for the movie, but from what it sounds like, it was a serious misrepresentation (I hate it when movie studios do that with their trailers!!) because I’m pretty sure the trailer would have pissed me off.
I heard of the movie from an article a month or so ago in the NY Times and thought the storyline sounded really intriguing.
Posted 27 Dec 2008 at 10:08 am ¶
Restructure! wrote:
@jaye:
Which Asian gangbanger shows are Canadian?
What’s the difference you see between how Asian Americans and Asian Canadians view their Asian-ness?
Posted 27 Dec 2008 at 1:00 pm ¶
Lxy wrote:
What’s really pathetic about this film is that I bet many mainstream (White) audiences will be touting its “progressive racial message”–even as they revel in all the racial epithets spewed by Clint Eastwood.
Gran Torino–it’s a heartwarming tale of how a White bigot shows that he really has a heart of gold through racial uplift and social work!
Call it Dirty Harry meets the White Man’s Burden.
Dare I say The Academy may even nominate this film for multiple Oscars?
Posted 28 Dec 2008 at 4:35 am ¶
Kyel wrote:
TANGENT:
I have not seen the movie.
But when I saw the trailer, my visceral reaction wasn’t the usual “here we go again…”, but of genuine intrigue.
The trailer definitely emphasizes the savage gangbanger stereotype usually attributed to Blacks and Latinos, but when I saw an Asian face, my eyes widened. I mean, if you look at the spectrum of Asian/Asian-American male stereotypes, it goes from the passive, racially-castrated meek model-minority type on one side, to the dark, virile, irrational creature, i.e. wwii depictions on the other side. Obviously a contradictory binarism, but whatever.
Maybe its just me, but I feel the asexualized Asian male stereotype is far more visible than the sinister archetype. And my intention is not at all to glorify the onscreen racialized gangster persona, but it made me think: what would this do to media-induced perceptions of Asian/Asian-American male masculinity?
Usually it is the Black or Latino men who are attached to these personas and thus hypersexualized. Especially considering the rise of hip hop, I feel “gangsterness” has become an accessible alternative, and yes, “darker” (in more ways than one) mode of masculinity. I felt the slightest sliver of hope that perhaps placing Asians/Asian-Americans in this position would destabilize pre-existing notions of castrated Asian/Asian-American male. Guess not…
Posted 28 Dec 2008 at 5:35 am ¶
David wrote:
Just saw this movie. Live in Grosse Pointe. This movie was excessive in the racial slurs department but overall was as good a Million Dollar Baby and follows the Eastwood formula. He has matured as we all have.
The Hmong issues of language barriers for the older generation and skewed opportunities for the young, particularly males was largely accurate from what I have observed.
It was odd the Sue had to tell him who the Hmong were since they were abandon by our Congress after assisting the CIA during Vietnam and sprayed with Yellow Rain by the Soviets and there Vietnamese allies.
These folks deserve better. Some day Iraqis will be facing the same fate as the Hmong for having cooperated with us.
Posted 28 Dec 2008 at 6:26 pm ¶
Denise wrote:
Saw this movie yesterday. It was indeed filmed in Detroit area this summer. Highland Park, Detroit, Royal Oak and Grosse Pointe. We saw them filming this summer here. He stayed with the crew in the suburbs at the Townsend Hotel and was signing sutographs. It sums up this area very well.
Posted 28 Dec 2008 at 11:40 pm ¶
DETROIT wrote:
The film is filmed in Detroit, an area called Highland Park, in the hood (One of the places filmed).
The location is as real as it gets.
There are a lot of Hmongs in Northeastern Detroit and East Detroit Metro, place like Macomb County.
The film’s Wikipidia link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Torino_(film)
Posted 30 Dec 2008 at 9:35 pm ¶
chuck kuhn wrote:
The real thing, my visit to Bac Ha and Sapa among the Hmong people. Kind, colorful and just trying to survive.
http://www.pbase.com/ckuhn55/bac_ha_vietmas
http://www.pbase.com/ckuhn55/faces_of_sapa
http://www.chuckkuhnphotography.blogspot.com
Posted 01 Jan 2009 at 3:08 pm ¶
Paz wrote:
This is pretty late but I just saw the movie. I loved the film. I didn’t see trailers. but it is definitely not the typical White Person Saves All. (CE actually self-depracatingly refers to himself as the White Devil at one point).
I haven’t seen much of Eastwood’s work, other than Million Dollar Baby, but I have to give major props to him for having an open casting call for people of the Hmong community instead of casting Asian actors of any ethnicity.
BTW the Hmong kid comes out on top at the end, riding away into the sunset. (figuratively)
Posted 03 Jan 2009 at 3:18 am ¶
Michelle wrote:
Gotta co-sign Paz.
At least he cast Hmong people, not general “Asian” people. He could have hired some famous Asian actors/pop stars instead of real and appropriate actors (and yes I know that many of the actors were true novices, but they were the right age and ethnicity). In that respect, as an artist, I gotta give CE his due.
Posted 03 Jan 2009 at 12:54 pm ¶
Alex wrote:
It’s probably not Crips, since the gang members were all wearing red (bandanas, clothing, etc)
Of course, there are Blood Hmong gangs too, but otherwise the stated point is correct.
Posted 04 Jan 2009 at 4:13 am ¶
Jenn wrote:
Maybe some of you need to see the film before commenting on it. Just a thought before posting irrelevant rants.
Posted 05 Jan 2009 at 6:25 am ¶
DRAVEN wrote:
@ CVT
I grew up in a mediocre area of NYC and I have come across the transformation of kids turning into the “hip” ridiculous notion of being “recruited” into gangs by the peer pressure, intimidation, and harassment.
I have seen both sides of the spectrum. At one point in 6th grade an older latino classmate wanted me to join his group/gang and to cause trouble around the school. His way of “encouraging” me was by mocking my morals and upbringings. Perhaps in some liberal sense I tried to understand their suppressive actions but in many aspects I failed to sustain my patience as their violent behavior was going to be physically.
Putting gangs into juvenile prisons, or even regular prisons so they can reform themselves is a waste of time and money. Gangs have no regard for those who are different.. and by different I mean civilians who live “normal” lives instead of spray painting private property, trying to “convert” teenage girls into “ho’s” , and acting for their malevolent cause: to steal and kill whatever comes their path…I know their psychological drive and I would prefer to have these so called waste of sperm and eggs into the pit of hell. Gangs are nothing but negative trash chaos bringers who only defecate society instead of contributing.
Scared kids you say? I am sure they were once scared but over the course of time they were CONVERTED (yes, as in a religious approach) by the gang recruiters whose means are to oppress and control their followers to do whatever the big boss tells them to do.
In practice, it is difficult to come in terms with gangs as they will always plot a way to deceit and betray… Just because some of us reached higher aspirations of life doesn’t mean we have a moral obligation to put up their rampart antics. Some of the kids in gangs were uncontrollable in grammar schools. If it wasn’t for the current pass-a-fist approach the government has towards the students who will struggle through high school , these so called “human beings” ought to rot and do labor in Chinese prisons.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 8:48 pm ¶
Baltimoron wrote:
There’s no correct reaction to the racial politics of “Gran Torino.” Viewers with an eye for race are given enough material that they can read just about any meaning they wish from the movie.
Is Thao an example of the asexual Asian male stereotype? Yes. But at the same time he is the only Hmong male in the film whose role utilizes that image. The other Hmong men are masculine types concerned with being “the man of the house,” gang members, etc. Reactionary models of manhood, for sure; but not the effeminate caricatures so often portrayed in popular media.
Is Sue intelligent? Yes. But with her intelligence comes weaponized wit and an awareness of the exoticization that non-Asian men attempt to force on her. Her ability to take Walt’s slurs in stride is not cast in a submissive light, but is instead meant to reflect her impressive self-possession. Notice that she gives as good as she gets.
Are the older Hmong portrayed as full subjects with non-English dialogue warranting subtitles? No. But a viewer could easily read that as a statement about the marginalization of immigrant groups rather than a callous perpetuation thereof.
None of the issues raised by previous commenters lack an anti-racist counterinterpretation (and I’m not talking about liberal color-blind “anti” racism). That’s what makes “Gran Torino” stand apart from the rest of the Hollywood mill grist.
Really, African-Americans are the only racial group not given a multi-layered portrayal in film. This is especially relevant given Eastwood’s recent feud with Spike Lee. Despite taking place in majority-black Detroit, African-Americans have about five minutes of screen time in a single scene. Worse yet is the fact that the three black characters are the would-be gangrapists of Sue Lor.
Posted 10 Jan 2009 at 2:46 pm ¶
Sherry wrote:
I thought that this movie had such an important message and I am wondering why so many of the movie viewers missed the message. You need to realize that the “racial slurs” and the violence sets the intention for the movie. I do not like racial slurs or use them myself but Mr Kowalski was a bigot and a racist and it was important to set that tone. I don’t want to give the ending away so I will just say that you must get over the racial slurs….the director had to use them to make his character believable. I think that Clint Eastwood deserves an Oscar for his performance in this well scripted, incredible film. The message was one of getting over bad things of the past, forgiving oneself for not being a great role model/father /husband/friend , and doing the wrong thing for the right reason. I think this film serves ***** stars .
Posted 19 Jan 2009 at 2:27 am ¶
chaoticdiva wrote:
I have yet to see the movie. However, the one thing that I can add to your post is that the movie was filmed here in a Detroit Suburb (Ferndale, I think). I just remember it being all the buzz that Clint Eastwood was walking around with cameras behind him.
Posted 24 Jan 2009 at 3:50 pm ¶
buddy larsen wrote:
The underlying target of the film is the part of America that sees no problem with betraying a wartime ally –in this case the Hmong –to their fate against a common enemy –in this case the communist totalitarian aggressors on the march all over the world in the 70s. When the newly-elected 1974 so-called “watergate congress” (overwhelmingly Democrat) used it’s power of the purse to cut off, without warning, the ARVN fighting in the field to hold its borders againsrt an enemy in flagrant violation of the Paris Peace Accords by which USA combat troops left the theater, the Hmong –allies of South Vietnam and USA, were left high and dry. The Hmong had been our best friends and we told them to go to hell for it. The Hmong were victims of the communist bioterror weapon “Yellow Rain” and USA officially looked the other way with a giant “Don’t bother me, sucker”.
This is what Eastwood was up to. Trying to make us see what we did. There are clues everywhere –comments, revealations, and most graphically in the fact that the old soldier was coughing blood –which happens to’ve been the first sign that the Yellow rain spores had been inhaled and were busily dissolving one’s lungs. The old man’s family was that side of America, the selfish, materialistic, side of USA that had cut and run and left the Hmong to be erased by the genocide that the communist forces tried mightily to create.
Racist film? To think so is to be blindingly ahistorical and as short-sighted as the part of America that Eastwood is exposing as so selfish and careless of the lives of other peoples and races that we stupidly create the very conditions of evil that out of the other sides of our mouths we are saying we oppose.
Eastwood to me is an example and representative of the best side of America –the side that is sadly getting old and out of touch with the postmodern fog that hides and obscures the shapes of right and wrong.
IOW, the reviewers here who examine the plot –the structure –of the film, without contexting it inside its theme, are missing the point rather completely.
The theme is the driver in this film. and it identifies Eastwood as a major film maker, and a rigorous philosophical humanist and enemy of the political cynicism that falls for anything and stands for nothing.
Posted 26 Jan 2009 at 1:21 pm ¶
LUZ wrote:
Let me clear up all the location shooting in the movie. Walt’s house and the neighborhood shots were filmed in Highland Park, Michigan……this is not a neighborhood or part of Detroit, it is a city by itself, surrounded by Detroit. The church scenes were filmed at St. Ambrose in Grosse Pointe Park, as was the hardware store scene, Walt son’s house was in Grosse Pointe Shores, the barber shop was in Royal Oak, the VFW Hall in Warren, the tailor shop in Grosse Pointe. At the end of the movie as the credits roll, the car cruises down Lake Shore Drive passing through the cities of Grosse Pointe Shores and Grosse Painte Farms. Lake St. Clair is in the background .
Posted 28 Jan 2009 at 12:43 pm ¶
Anonymous wrote:
this movies makes us hmong people look bad
Posted 29 Jan 2009 at 8:20 pm ¶
buddy larsen wrote:
I don’t think it makes the Hmong look bad. I think it makes them look strong, to try to make new lives in a strange new world. Not very many people have such courage.
Posted 01 Feb 2009 at 9:02 pm ¶
Emmeaki wrote:
I don’t think that anyone who hasn’t seen this movie is qualified to review it. Big Man’s quote was “White people under siege from the uncivilized minorities. ” That’s not true. Walt was only under siege because he tried to help Thao. Thao was the one who was under siege by his own people, including his cousin.
CVT wrote “Old racist white guy “saves” one set of brown people by killing all the rest of them!? ” This absolutely does not happen in the movie!
People constantly complain about the racial slurs, but this character was a racist! If the movie was about a male chauvinist, then the character would say misogynistic things. For all the people that complained, how exactly to we portray a racist if without using any racial slurs? It they had softened up the language, then people probably would have complained that the character was unrealistic.
I think the racial slurs were effective to show how ignorant he was. Walt fought in Korea, yet he is using racial slurs for all different types of Asians and directing them at the Hmongs.
For people who have only watched the trailer, the movie is much more complex than what you might imagine.
Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 1:52 am ¶
Miguel wrote:
I really thought that the ending could have been better. The only other thing that I did not like about it was the acting. Clint pretty much had to carry the whole movie.
Posted 07 Feb 2009 at 9:28 pm ¶
Debbie wrote:
I absolutely loved this movie. Yes, Walt was a racist, but his being a racist was central to the plot. Walt grew to respect, and then love, these “gooks” (as per Walt’s salty tongue). Walt learned that he related to these people as he had never been able to relate to anyone, including his own family. In the end, he proved how he’d grown during the course of his relationship with his wonderful new Hmong friends. In the end, Walt sacrificed the remaining months of his life to ensure that his new friends - who were like family to him - could have a better future. I absolutely LOVED this movie. It really touched my heart. It demonstrates that there is good in everyone. For a while,I thought that old crazy Walt was going to be a neighborhood vigilante, but old Walt surprised me and grew a bit, due to the positive influence of his wonderful new Hmong friends. I’m now an avid Clint Eastwood fan. WOW, what a movie!
Posted 13 Jun 2009 at 7:13 pm ¶
Bay Area wrote:
I think most of the people posting missed the point of the movie. It was definitely not about the Hmong community, the movie was about change and it was about Clint’s character.
Clint Eastwood’s character was as much a surviving gang member as the young Hmong kids. He was a vet who had killed at least 13 Koreans during the “conflict.” He carried the emoitonal baggage with him throughout his adult life. He was responsible and dutiful to his country, company, and his family. He knew alot about death and nothing about living to his own admission.
Although he was dutiful towards his institutions, they had left him isolated and alone: A Country that does not appreciate his service, a giant Auto company failing and declining much like Walt, and a community of symbolic these changes. The center cannot hold.
He was an unlikable and unsympathetic character throughout the movie until the end. When he confesses to Tao is when he truly makes a change and realizes his sacrifice can make his life worth living.. His salvation could provide hope for his neighbors.
It was the guilt of killing a Korean that wanted to surrender that haunted him throughout his life. This was foreshadowed earlier in the movie when he said something to the affect, ” the decision you make when there are no orders that will stay with you.”
Once this is revealed, he is freed. For a man who cared for nothing except his dog, his vintage car, and his wife (as far as we know).. He finally engages in living and sacrifices for others so they may live.
Posted 28 Jun 2009 at 7:53 pm ¶