Gran Torino [Counterpoint]
by Guest Contributor Geo, originally published at Prometheus Brown
Three reasons that Gran Torino is more than just another movie about some white person “saving” people of color:
1. It rejects the idea of a “post-racial” society.
While Hollywood tripe like Finding Forrester, Freedom Writers and the like either minimize, or try to resolve, racial tension, Gran Torino confronts them head-on. Those who tout political “correctness” over honesty (however brash) might decry Walt Kowalski’s (Eastwood) blatant racism. The last white person in his run-down midwestern neighborhood, he bitterly throws out every slur imaginable, and I can’t front – it was unsettling to hear. However, an interesting juxtaposition is made between Walt and his supposedly more “liberal” son, who protests his father’s bigotry but lives a decidedly more sheltered, suburban existence in contrast to his father’s working-class life as a Korean War veteran. Without excusing Walt’s distasteful views on race, Eastwood explores where such bitterness may have come from, exposing it as something that is bigger than just him (unlike Mike Douglas in Fallling Down). With a class consciousness absent from similiar film templates, Gran Torino asks the question: who is the real racist – the working-class white dude who tosses slurs around but actually interacts – sometimes friendly, sometimes bitterly – with these communities? Or the bourgeois white dude who has learned not to use these words but never has into interact with communities of color? Perhaps both are racist, but at least one is honest about it.
2. Stereotypes are present, but given context, and sometimes challenged
Asian Americans seem to only play geeks or gangsters in American mainstream film. It’s a valid complaint, but no amount of protest will do away with the fact that alot of us really are geeks or gangsters (how about a film about folks who are both?). Gran Torino can be rightfully faulted for its stereotyping, which is expected for a Hollywood flick, but Eastwood’s framing and Nick Schenk’s screenplay at least blur the lines between stereotypes and, most of all, contextualize them. In one scene, geeky Thao (Bee Vang) is punked by a Mexican gang with a pistol when his thuggish cousins bail him out brandishing a semi-automatic. Then they try to recruit him – one of them saying, “I was just like you, getting punked all the time. Now nobody fucks with me.” In another scene, Thao’s sister Sue calls out some aggressive suitors for having an Asian fetish and makes sure Walt pronounces “Hmong” correctly. Some will fault some of the Hmong characters’ acting, but I thought it was dope that acutal Hmong people were cast instead of some close-enough-looking Asian thespian. Plus, when’s the last time you heard Hmong gangster rap in a film soundtrack?
3. Clint Eastwood – actor and director
Drawing on a career’s worth of notorious film roles, Eastwood’s Walt is at once familiar and foreign. He’s a retired, sickly (humanized?) Dirty Harry – gun-toting, threatening, proud with a scowl and always in mid-monologue. But not without a sense of humor, which sometimes comes across unintentionally. Or, perhaps, very much intended but cleverly so. In fact, there is an underlying dark humor to the role that offsets the very, very serious subject matter and strips Walt of any of that putrid “White Noble”-ness that we see in too many well-meaning (read: missionary) whites, on or off screen. His bitterness, his hatred, his few moments of revelation – all carry real emotional weight. He is not a particularly religious man, though questions of spirituality and sacrifice figure greatly in the underlying storyline. Yes, he ends up attempting to do good for his poor, colored neighbors but it becomes very clear that, in the end, they’re the ones who saved him.
Eastwood’s mature, understated style is both a draw and repellant to moviegoers expecting either more flash or theatre. The interactions are nuanced, the politics (of race and religion) are at once laid bare and hidden, and some scenes will jar the shit out of you. Overall, its a film that will challenge the way you think about race at a time when everyone, whether you’re “anti-racist,” “post-racist” or straight up racist, thinks they got it all figured out.
Related: Gran Torino and Hmong Gangs in the Midwest
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
SepiaScreen wrote:
I agree with your post. What I thought was refreshing about this film was that Walt remained unlikeable throughout. He didn’t have an extreme makeover divorcing him of all his flaws. He wasn’t magically transformed into a new person and that’s how, as a filmmaker, I think Eastwood was able to tap into and highlight Walt’s basic humanity.
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 11:12 am ¶
Monie wrote:
This film was very disturbing in many ways. To me it was another White man is God film. The other characters were at his mercy throughout the film and seemed to be waiting for his kindness and acceptance to allow them to feel okay about themselves.
I hated how Sue interacted with him, even inviting him and his racist remarks into their home.
And his saving of Sue from the (stereotypical) Bad Black guys and the wimpy White dude was just another White man to the rescue scenario.
If this film had been made in 1970 maybe it would have been braking new ground but in 2008/ 09 it’s just another racist Hollywood movie.
Also I don’t think that we, POC, should be so grateful to see ourselves on screen that we ignore how we are portrayed.
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 11:18 am ¶
atlasien wrote:
I’m not sure if I’m actually going to end up watching this movie, but I appreciate this review.
The formula isn’t totally irredeemable. Take director Edward Zwick… he’s responsible for The Last Samurai, Blood Diamond and Glory, which makes him the master of the modern white savior genre. I thought Glory was pretty good, The Last Samurai was painfully unwatchable, and Blood Diamond was sort of compelling for the first hour until it descended rapidly into unintentional comedy.
Reactions to Gran Torino are going to depend a lot on people’s white savior tolerance level. Mine is kind of in the middle. I’ll put up with it if there are other interesting qualities of the film.
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 12:29 pm ¶
Jay wrote:
It’s a valid complaint, but no amount of protest will do away with the fact that alot of us really are geeks or gangsters (how about a film about folks who are both?).
That was Better Luck Tomorrow.
But this so-called fact is irrelevant. Ken Leung’s Lost character is the only character in recent memory that isn’t a geek or a gangster. And that’s tragic.
The whole “white is morphable, everyone else is pigeonholed” paradigm has to go. Really.
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 12:57 pm ¶
9jah wrote:
Racism always seems to be qualified in these movies…as in their must be something reedemable, sympathetic in the Racist. Certainly, this was many times the case but it also was the case that Racists where just lousy bigots. The problem is this contrast of flaw/redemptive value is never drawn with any other negative career type. The (black) thug is just the dangerous guy who jumps out of the corner in the alley. just a black thug plain and simple. I woudl argue the redemptive value of this guy is a distraction to the main idea being pushed and as with every movie of this genre proceeds with an unacceptable premise – that there is anything informed/reasonable/understandable about one person feeling a sense of superiority over another based on race.
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 1:24 pm ¶
Spicy_Carrot wrote:
I think you were referring to Asian males when you were saying how they are usually referred to as geeks or gangsters because I can think of quite a few Asian females who don’t fit that stereotype, but they usually fall into the so-called lotus blossom stereotype. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is Sun from Lost (sure, she’s pretty and at first seemed submissive to her husband, but got a multi-layered and complex storyline as time went by).
As for Asian men, I’m not sure that I would say Ando from Heroes is a total geek (Hiro definitely is), but he is relegated to perpetual sidekick role. Or if you count East Asian (India), there’s Kutner on House. And as Jay wrote, Miles from Lost also is neither a geek nor gangster.
It’s definitely sad I can’t think of more examples…totally proving your point, btw. I can’t even think of any Hollywood film examples.
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 1:59 pm ¶
Renee wrote:
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 2:57 pm ¶
Paz wrote:
Gran Torino was not a perfect film, but I agree that this is not the typical Great White Man Saves All movie. He is never made to be likeable (he refers to himself as the White Devil at one point, and says ridiculous things like “Stay away from my dog” when they invite him to a barbecue) and in the end, how he “saves” the Hmong boy and his family is really about him overcoming guilt and paying for something he did in the past.
i give him major props for casting all Hmongs (you can even see that they don’t all look alike, lol). And I also liked how Sue brought up the Asian fetish thing and explains how to pronounce Hmong and where they’re from (the latter educated me.)
That’s an interesting point about the racism of CE vs the racism of the son. The son is never shown to actually be racist but I think it subtly manifests itself with people in the suburbs avoiding “that” side of the neighborhood. I’ve actually had people whisper to me, “There are lots of Blacks and Mexicans here,” or “I got lost while driving, and I was kind of scared because the area was full of Blacks and Latinos.” In a way, yeah, overt racism is better than subtle racism.
*BTW – an excellent part of the movie is when a Latino gang faces off with the Hmong gang and one of them (I don’t remember from which side) says, “Go back to your country!”
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 3:36 pm ¶
Jules wrote:
This movie didn’t strike me as being directly racist like Lakeview Terrace. Clint Eastwood’s character was the man stuck in time who just couldn’t get it. I understand his over the top use of racial slurs were offensive, but the ones he used were very anachronistic.
It reminded me of when my first girlfriend’s old, jewish grandmother was happy her granddaughter met a nice negroid boy. I wasn’t offended, rather confused. I believe that’s why Sue’s reactions were either a) ignore him, or b) laugh at him.
And the point that this family saved him was very well made. Seeing him at his wife’s funeral was weird, in that his anger stayed with him and never wavered throughout the film, even towards its end.
Very good outing by CE
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 3:38 pm ¶
magda wrote:
Harold and Kumar aren’t geeks or gangsters!
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 4:29 pm ¶
Ejunco wrote:
Im thinking of watching this online to broke to spend money, but your review seems real good.
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 6:46 pm ¶
Jaya wrote:
You know what? I thought it was a lousy film — the acting was awful pretty much all around, it was cliche-laden, and Clint Eastwood has an annoying habit of SAYING out loud whatever should be subtext — but I really didn’t think it was racist. It had racist characters, yes, but I feel like Eastwood portrayed that kind of racism accurately, and I’m glad he didn’t lose all his racist views by the end of the movie. That doesn’t happen in real life. Views on race are so much more complicated than that, and it is simply unrealistic to expect all prejudice to melt away.
In the end, I’d rather have an honest society where members of different communities work together for a better life, even if they do not see themselves as part of the same community, and recognize the immense differences between them, instead of a dishonest, “post-racial” society where the white liberals can sit in their suburbs and pride themselves on their tolerance and respect for minorities, whilst not having to interact with them at all — and believing they are absolved of all responsibility for helping to improve their lot.
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 6:57 pm ¶
Kate wrote:
Is having the POC “save” the white guy (because POC are so much more soulful and in touch with their humanity) really that much better than having the white guy save the POC? Kind of like Morgan Freeman’s character in Million Dollar Baby, no?
I haven’t seen it, I admit, because I hate hate hate Clint Eastwood-directed movies, but bells went off when I read that part of the review.
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 9:11 pm ¶
Feminist Review wrote:
I fully support what Jaya is saying. Artistically, the film was rubbish. Is it racist though? I don’t think so.
Posted 15 Jan 2009 at 12:39 am ¶
Jaya wrote:
I actually didn’t mind the whole “white guy saves the day” aspect of it all.
I mean, its Clint Eastwood. He’s the closest thing we have to a real life superhero.
Don’t tell me a little shiver didn’t go down your spine when he went all bad-ass on those gangsters. And I thought it was a little awesome that Tao got CLINT EASTWOOD to teach him how to be a man. I mean, god DAMN.
Or maybe y’all didn’t grow up watching his cowboy movies?
Posted 15 Jan 2009 at 12:19 pm ¶
Prometheus Brown wrote:
“In the end, I’d rather have an honest society where members of different communities work together for a better life, even if they do not see themselves as part of the same community, and recognize the immense differences between them, instead of a dishonest, “post-racial” society where the white liberals can sit in their suburbs and pride themselves on their tolerance and respect for minorities, whilst not having to interact with them at all — and believing they are absolved of all responsibility for helping to improve their lot.”
Thanks for the feedback, people. Jaya’s above quote pretty much sums it up for me. It wasn’t Clint’s best artistically, but arguably his most talked about and debated over in recent years.
Posted 15 Jan 2009 at 4:44 pm ¶
DK wrote:
I’m interested in seeing this film. It seems like a step in the right direction (”accurate” casting, non-homogenization) — to be honest, when I saw the trailer, my first thought was: Wait. Asian Americans?! The focus of a movie?! But I’m still skeptical about Clint Eastwood defying the white savior archetype.
@magda, Yes, but doesn’t Harold and Kumar function as a Dude Where’s My Car version of Rush Hour and its sequels? Minorities can be comedy/slapstick protagonists, but in acclaimed, non-ghettoized American cinema… *shrug*
Posted 15 Jan 2009 at 5:27 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:
In the end, I’d rather have an honest society where members of different communities work together for a better life, even if they do not see themselves as part of the same community, and recognize the immense differences between them, instead of a dishonest, “post-racial” society where the white liberals can sit in their suburbs and pride themselves on their tolerance and respect for minorities, whilst not having to interact with them at all — and believing they are absolved of all responsibility for helping to improve their lot.
- this times a million.
But there’s a way to acknowledge differences- perhaps learning from each other- without being a dick.
Posted 16 Jan 2009 at 6:48 am ¶
Lxy wrote:
I’ve haven’t seen _Gran Torino_ and don’t plan to, but I gotta say I like Blue Scholars!
Seriously though, this is a somewhat interesting take on the film.
However, one thing to keep in mind is that the political meaning and intentions that Eastwood had for the film (or what some people here ascribe to it) will NOT necessarily be what most audiences take away from the movie.
Minority Militant has his review the film, where he touches upon the reactions of a predominantly White audience to the movie:
http://minoritymilitant.blogspot.com/2009/01/militant-review-of-gran-torino.html
Posted 16 Jan 2009 at 7:04 am ¶
nonogirl wrote:
Unless you are Hmong, or have been called the slurs in the movie, you are not qualified to say whether or not the film was racist. This film makes it seem ok, to less intelligent folk out there, that saying any number of racial slurs against EAST ASIANs (since we are apparently all interchangeable) is acceptable. It’s funny how some people of all colors think it’s ok to comment on whether something is racist or not against ASIANS when they ARE NOT Asian. I would never be as disrespectful to do this to a black or latino/a person.
Posted 16 Jan 2009 at 11:01 am ¶
coffeerama wrote:
Clint Eastwood used his outward crankiness to come across as tough and yet also heroic at the same time, well done i’d say
Posted 16 Jan 2009 at 4:37 pm ¶
DK wrote:
@Lxy Wow, that’s… disturbing. I have no plan to watch it in a movie theater. I hope that’s not the intellectual audience’s response, but it’s true that intention does not equal reception — to a grim degree.
@nonogirl To me, any racial slur is unacceptable. I don’t know if you can qualify people’s judgement though — does that mean people of color aren’t qualified to recognize racism against white people? I’m only qualified to call out racism against Asians? I’m confused.
Posted 16 Jan 2009 at 6:23 pm ¶
Linda wrote:
Thanks to everyone for sharing their perspectives. As a white person, I appreciated having overt racism shown as the destructive element it is in this movie.
In reflecting on the film, I thought about of the protagonist’s death at the end as more about Catholic “martyrdom” than anything else. He was terminally ill and did what he thought was right. The best moments of the film are the ones that show the shared working class value of “let’s get sh*t done”.
Ultimately the movie was about human connection despite oppression and the effects of violence. I would encourage everyone to see it who can stomach the epithets.
Posted 17 Jan 2009 at 6:54 am ¶
Shinen wrote:
One of the most refreshing reviews about the movie that I have read thus far! Compassionate, without excusing the ways that it could have improved. I love your interpretation about how the Hmong neighbours are the ones who save Eastwood’s character, rather than the other way around.
Posted 18 Jan 2009 at 5:03 am ¶
Ky wrote:
Honestly, I’m not sure what was so unique about this movie, nor is it clear how exactly it offered any insight into the issue of race relations.
At the end of the movie what had we learned about minorities in general and the Hmong in particular? Well, not much except that the Hmong tolerate racial epithets and think it’s reasonable to be addressed as gook or zipper head.
Furthermore, exploring a character like Eastwood’s is irrelevent in this day and age. Racism hasn’t really looked like that in decades.
Posted 18 Jan 2009 at 5:58 am ¶
Sara wrote:
Everyone in the theatre laughed out loud at Eastwood’s racial epithets–and so did I, because laughing is the usual response when a movie character casually does something unforgivably inappropriate. Discomfort-laughter. There’s also discomfort and laughter when the white people in the audience realize Eastwood’s sons and their families are Just Like Them.
Personally, I liked the movie. I think it’s far from a work of art, but I really enjoyed it as a depiction of an elder man’s complete generational separation from his own family and the entire rest of the world (except, as it turns out, the ultra-traditional Hmong).
Posted 18 Jan 2009 at 4:37 pm ¶
olderandwiser wrote:
I lived in Michigan when the neighborhoods began to change. What one needs to realize is that 30 years ago most neighborhoods were ethnic meaning there were entire neighborhoods of Pollocks and Dagos and Germans and Irish, and they were people who worked in the Auto plants for most of their lives after serving in the Military.
Then a phenom happened called Blockbusting. . . that’s when a minority group buys a house in an established neighborhood. White flight takes over and before you know it, all the neighbors have moved, leaving one or two behind. This is what happened to Walt. He stubbornly stayed in the home he purchased with his beloved wife; in the home where they raised their kids. He kept up his home beautifully, while he watched his neighborhood go to shambles.
Having lived in a neighborhood like Walt’s I understand his anger and his pain. I understand his relationship with his children and grandchildren. Children are so narcistic these days, they only think of themselves. I don’t think they knew anything about their own father. Do any of you ask questions about your own parents? What did they do in the military? What was it like starting out for them? I bet not.
I live with a man much like Walt. He calls it like he see it, although he doesn’t use the ethnic terms that Walt used, but close.
I understand Walt, and I understand his decision to take up the cause for his Hmong neighbors. He saw something that needed fixing and he fixed it. We need more people like him.
I love Walt and people like Walt.
Geeks or Gangstors? No, there are Hero’s. Walt is a Hero, first and foremost.
Posted 26 Jan 2009 at 1:30 pm ¶
Han wrote:
Before word of Gran Torino hit mainstream I learned of the project through an Asian American class. I was surprised that there would be a big budget Hollywood movie with actual Hmong American actors. But the movie seemed to be another “white man saves the day” kind of film. The trailer didn’t even hint Hmong; the only indication of (mistaken) ethnicity is Walt’s one liner of “why these Chinese have to move in here” line.
From what I’ve gathered through a series of Asian American blogs, the majority of people feel that; 1. The Hmong American characters lack depth and complexity (while giving other characters depth and complexity is important, the fact that the majority of the Hmong leads and supporting actors were all first time might explain that); 2. Eastwood’s film is just another “white savior” doctrine; and 3. The racial slurs might have been a little too much however for the purpose of the film.
However, the heavy usage was not as much of a concern as was the audience reaction across America. There is concern among our community that people were laughing too often, too loudly and for too long. That people would laugh at such inappropriate areas can be for several reasons; people either is laughing because others are laughing, laughing because their inherently uncomfortable hearing such terms, laughing because they think racist people like Walt are ridiculous or as I imagine, some actually think it’s funny.
While the majority of the bloggers I read shared similar reactions and thoughts, one Asian American blogger felt almost hurt that so much of the Asian American community disliked the movie. They list some points that as Asian Americans we should; 1. Feel proud to have the Hmong American community brought to mainstream attention, 2. See that it’s the Hmong family that actually “saves” Walt, 3. The over usage of racial slurs only brings to light language that many people might and probably do engage in. All of which are valid points, worth looking at. It’s important to note that the blogs I visited were all Asian American run, with the exception of one that was a minority and racism blog; and of those only one blogger is identified as a Korean American blogger.
Within the Hmong community there are also equally mixed feelings. I had a chance to meet with Doua Moua, who is Spider (cousin to the lead Hmong gang member in the film) and find out how he felt about the movie. His reaction was a positive one and he felt by portraying the gang aspect of Hmong life in America was quite true to life. As an actor within the film, he felt proud to have a role.
Others who also had roles in the film held particularly high views of the direction and production by Eastwood, seeing the film as mainly positive. Worth praising is the use of only Hmong/American actors and not using other ethnicities to pretend to be Hmong. Within the general community it appears that many feel that the movie is a positive step for the Hmong American community to gain attention. This is particularly so to take away from the stigma that the Hmong community might be viewed as a violent community, due to the shooting incident of the Hmong hunter who had killed six white hunters in Wisconsin a few years back. As the Hmong entertainer, Tou Ger Xiong, said in a short interview with Minnesota Public Radio station, “First things first, let’s get our foot in the door. Complain later.”
Posted 26 Feb 2009 at 10:29 am ¶
L. wrote:
@ LaToya: I don’t have a twitter or know how to use the RSS feed thingy to send tips, but I wanted to let you know that Clint Eastwood recently made some comments about young people being too PC and losing their humor for not wanting to joke about someone’s race and ethnicity. I’m sure you heard about this though.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1155360/Clint-Eastwood-goes-gunning-PC-killjoys-saying-laugh-race-based-jokes.html
http://gawker.com/5160707/clint-eastwood-yearns-for-sam-the-jew-jokes
And Renee @ Womanist Musings wrote about it:
http://www.womanist-musings.com/2009/02/clint-eastwood-race-based-jokes-are.html
I really want to know what people think of Gran Torino now that he made these statements. I also find it interesting that he has “Sam the Jew,” “Jose the Mexican” but what does he refer to himself as?
Posted 03 Mar 2009 at 2:38 am ¶
tip wrote:
why do they refer to them as zipper heads i have never heard this and have no idea what that means
Posted 12 Jun 2009 at 10:25 am ¶