Oscar Wilde presents an argument that I have never before considered in his essay "The Critic as Artist." He basically argues that the critic is the ultimate artist, and that literature isn't really creative at all. Another point that he has that I find particularly interesting is when he says that the purpose of the critic isn't at all about the person/thing that is being reviewed, it's about the critics ability to create something new from that. One of Wilde's comments, from the voice of Gilbert, really struck me. "I am always amused by the silly vanity of those writers and artists of our day who seem to imagine that the primary function of the critic is to chatter about their second-rate work." The thing is, what he describes here is how we, as a society, view the critic, and honestly, if there was nothing to criticize, the critic would not have a job.
I honestly like his form. I think that the voice of Ernest is really important to the piece, because he presents the potential skepticisms and arguments that critics - of this essay - could have. It's an interesting dialogue, and I think that it is a creative method, in itself, of being a critic. It might be a stretch, but I feel like he's trying to create an example of his argument through the piece itself. And if I'm wrong, and he's not, then he at least presents his argument in a format that's more appealing than just the general essay.
I don't think that I agree with the extreme to which he makes his claims. Do I agree that a critic is not only a reviewer, but also an artist? Yes. But the character of Gilbert continues to argue that literature has nothing new to add to society, that it's second-rate, boring, etc., and I don't agree with this. I don't think that the critic is the only one who has the potential to make new statements - authors and painters (and other types of artists) do as well. The critic's job may not only be about the work they are reviewing, it may also be about creatively contributing to society, but it is also about the artists, and what the artists themselves are contributing to society. I think that Wilde's argument is interesting and that it makes one think, but I can't agree with it in its entirety.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Television Networks Changing Things Up
Bill Carter's article "New on the Networks: Safe Formulas From the Past" presents a really interesting look at how the networks are doing (not good) and how much they're scrambling to change things up this winter/spring in an effort to bring ratings back up.
It's not a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to television lately that the ratings of all networks are considerably low so far this season. There's talk of the writer's strike having an influence on this, and that may be, though I think that at least some of it can be attributed to bad writing and repetitive storylines. Viewers are willing to stay with programs through periods of bad writing (unless you tick off a whole group of people, like the gay community) because they believe that things will probably start to get better, but many shows have continued to flounder to the point where they're losing more and more viewers as weeks progress. There has been a lot of shuffling of schedules already this year, but now more changes are being made.
According to the article, networks (specifically ABC and NBC, which have lost the largest percentage of viewers) have decided to throw out programs that go in new directions and are therefore considered "risky," and instead use writers who have had great success (like those of the shows "ER" and "NCIS") because this is safer.
On some level, I understand this - it's easier to go with what's safer, and these writers have had a lot of success in the past. The potential problem I see with this, though, is that people are getting tired of the same old thing, and that's what's being created (there's a new spinoff of "NCIS," for example). There can only be so many cop shows and so many hospital dramas - people NEED something new. We'll see how this decision plays out, but I feel like it could backfire.
It's not a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to television lately that the ratings of all networks are considerably low so far this season. There's talk of the writer's strike having an influence on this, and that may be, though I think that at least some of it can be attributed to bad writing and repetitive storylines. Viewers are willing to stay with programs through periods of bad writing (unless you tick off a whole group of people, like the gay community) because they believe that things will probably start to get better, but many shows have continued to flounder to the point where they're losing more and more viewers as weeks progress. There has been a lot of shuffling of schedules already this year, but now more changes are being made.
According to the article, networks (specifically ABC and NBC, which have lost the largest percentage of viewers) have decided to throw out programs that go in new directions and are therefore considered "risky," and instead use writers who have had great success (like those of the shows "ER" and "NCIS") because this is safer.
On some level, I understand this - it's easier to go with what's safer, and these writers have had a lot of success in the past. The potential problem I see with this, though, is that people are getting tired of the same old thing, and that's what's being created (there's a new spinoff of "NCIS," for example). There can only be so many cop shows and so many hospital dramas - people NEED something new. We'll see how this decision plays out, but I feel like it could backfire.
"Elements of Style" Help
One thing that I want to implement in my writing is Rule #8 (73) in the "Approach to Style" chapter.
8. Avoid the use of qualifiers
Basically, the rule says to avoid words like "rather, very, little, pretty" because "these are the leeches that infect the pond of prose, sucking the blood of words."
This is something that I'm guilty of a lot - I always feel like I have to qualify, to specify, as if it will provide me with greater description. Instead, it's not only unnecessary, but it adds another word to my piece each time I do it. So I'm going to try to pay more attention to this.
8. Avoid the use of qualifiers
Basically, the rule says to avoid words like "rather, very, little, pretty" because "these are the leeches that infect the pond of prose, sucking the blood of words."
This is something that I'm guilty of a lot - I always feel like I have to qualify, to specify, as if it will provide me with greater description. Instead, it's not only unnecessary, but it adds another word to my piece each time I do it. So I'm going to try to pay more attention to this.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Documentary Review
“Taxi to the Dark Side” Brutal, But Needs to be Seen
By Jessica Maas
Late in “Taxi to the Dark Side,” footage is shown of former president George W. Bush telling the American public, “We do not condone torture.” The screen flashes to an interview with attorney Clive Stafford Smith, who responds with, “Footnote: Torture as defined as…” This allusion to interpretation is one major premise of Alex Gibney’s 2007 documentary “Taxi to the Dark Side,” a well-done, emotion-evoking film about the torture practices used by the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay.
The film centers on the controversy surrounding the torture practices inflicted by United States soldiers on detainees in three areas: the Bagram Theater Internment Facility in Afghanistan, the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in Cuba. Gibney uses a collection of interviews, photographs, reenactments, and archive footage to examine and tell the story of the change in policy toward suspects in the war on terror, as he simultaneously brings up questions of morality, ambiguity, and public façade.
Gibney’s use of Dilawar, a taxi driver in Bagram, as an anecdote to begin the documentary was a sound decision. Dilawar’s personal story allows for a deeper connection to the personal and sets the film up perfectly for its more general investigation of torture.
The proper balance of voices is flawlessly fused throughout the production. No one voice is heard from too many times or for too long, and the multiple voices are well-chosen and allow for different perspectives, which in turn allows for more evidence to be presented. The combination of torture victim Moazzam Beg, soldiers who participated in torture, and soldiers who simply watched the torture happening permits each of the voices to back each other up as they recount events, essentially strengthening the facts presented. Lawyers who worked with some of the detainees provide information about what was occurring outside the detention centers and establish the contradiction between what the public was being told and the decisions that were being made by the government, and archival footage and other people involved are used to back this up. His strong arrangement of voices allows Gibney to cover his bases factually and keep the story fresh.
The organization of the facts themselves becomes confusing, though. In the beginning of the documentary, the events are organized by telling the story of each camp, but as the story progresses and more of the political scene is involved, it is less clear which camp or what time period is being referred to. Text is used on the screen at the beginning of each section to indicate time and place and is helpful, but might be needed more often.
Gibney can be applauded for not shying away from the brutality that occurred, as he uses pictures and reenactments that showcase the techniques that the detainees were forced to undergo, including nudity, sleep deprivation, and severe beatings.
In light of President Barack Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo Bay, this is a must-see for citizens to get background on the events that took place there.
By Jessica Maas
Late in “Taxi to the Dark Side,” footage is shown of former president George W. Bush telling the American public, “We do not condone torture.” The screen flashes to an interview with attorney Clive Stafford Smith, who responds with, “Footnote: Torture as defined as…” This allusion to interpretation is one major premise of Alex Gibney’s 2007 documentary “Taxi to the Dark Side,” a well-done, emotion-evoking film about the torture practices used by the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay.
The film centers on the controversy surrounding the torture practices inflicted by United States soldiers on detainees in three areas: the Bagram Theater Internment Facility in Afghanistan, the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in Cuba. Gibney uses a collection of interviews, photographs, reenactments, and archive footage to examine and tell the story of the change in policy toward suspects in the war on terror, as he simultaneously brings up questions of morality, ambiguity, and public façade.
Gibney’s use of Dilawar, a taxi driver in Bagram, as an anecdote to begin the documentary was a sound decision. Dilawar’s personal story allows for a deeper connection to the personal and sets the film up perfectly for its more general investigation of torture.
The proper balance of voices is flawlessly fused throughout the production. No one voice is heard from too many times or for too long, and the multiple voices are well-chosen and allow for different perspectives, which in turn allows for more evidence to be presented. The combination of torture victim Moazzam Beg, soldiers who participated in torture, and soldiers who simply watched the torture happening permits each of the voices to back each other up as they recount events, essentially strengthening the facts presented. Lawyers who worked with some of the detainees provide information about what was occurring outside the detention centers and establish the contradiction between what the public was being told and the decisions that were being made by the government, and archival footage and other people involved are used to back this up. His strong arrangement of voices allows Gibney to cover his bases factually and keep the story fresh.
The organization of the facts themselves becomes confusing, though. In the beginning of the documentary, the events are organized by telling the story of each camp, but as the story progresses and more of the political scene is involved, it is less clear which camp or what time period is being referred to. Text is used on the screen at the beginning of each section to indicate time and place and is helpful, but might be needed more often.
Gibney can be applauded for not shying away from the brutality that occurred, as he uses pictures and reenactments that showcase the techniques that the detainees were forced to undergo, including nudity, sleep deprivation, and severe beatings.
In light of President Barack Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo Bay, this is a must-see for citizens to get background on the events that took place there.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Interesting 'L Word' Preview
Below is a link to an article by Ginia Bellafante about the new (and last) season of The L Word.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/arts/television/16word.html?ref=television
Bellafante has basically turned the preview into a big critique of the series and one that I find few faults with, despite the fact that I've only ever watched the first season. She opens by talking about a few of the more ridiculous storylines the show has experienced, and then goes into the background of the show and how it has developed.
While I have always admired the fact that The L Word has women on it who are not stereotypically butch, I do understand that they also are not exactly representative of various body types (and if there's something our already eating disorder-riddled society needs, it's to see more body types on TV). Bellafante brings a great personality to her writing, stating at one point "...'The L Word' is a Sapphic Playboy fantasia in which women with wrinkles or squishy thighs or an aversion to lingerie appear to have been flagged down on the freeway with urgent instructions to move to Seattle." The L Word takes place in West Hollywood.
I also understand what she says about lesbian bed death. While I admire that the show has always been open about women having sex together (though it is HBO - the same thing could never happen on, say, ABC), the bed hopping is a little much. And the fact that all these women can stay friends with each other after they've slept together and/or had actual relationships with each other is a simply idealistic, as is the portrayal that it's easy to find someone to fall into bed with. One of my favorite lines in the article is "Celibacy means missing out on the action for a period no longer than the number of days between Rosh Hashanah and Columbus Day."
At the end of the article she does mention the fact that The L Word can at least be applauded for the visibility it provides to society, and it is for the visibility alone that I think the show is worth having (though it is in it's last season, so it is coming to an end anyway, and it's on HBO, so it's not as if your average, ignorant viewer is going to just stumble upon it). Bellafante compares the visibility on The L Word to the fact that CBS was flooded last year with angry letters about how two gay lovers on "As the World Turns" had only been seen kissing twice. She could've also mentioned ABC and Grey's Anatomy - they ax their lesbians.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/arts/television/16word.html?ref=television
Bellafante has basically turned the preview into a big critique of the series and one that I find few faults with, despite the fact that I've only ever watched the first season. She opens by talking about a few of the more ridiculous storylines the show has experienced, and then goes into the background of the show and how it has developed.
While I have always admired the fact that The L Word has women on it who are not stereotypically butch, I do understand that they also are not exactly representative of various body types (and if there's something our already eating disorder-riddled society needs, it's to see more body types on TV). Bellafante brings a great personality to her writing, stating at one point "...'The L Word' is a Sapphic Playboy fantasia in which women with wrinkles or squishy thighs or an aversion to lingerie appear to have been flagged down on the freeway with urgent instructions to move to Seattle." The L Word takes place in West Hollywood.
I also understand what she says about lesbian bed death. While I admire that the show has always been open about women having sex together (though it is HBO - the same thing could never happen on, say, ABC), the bed hopping is a little much. And the fact that all these women can stay friends with each other after they've slept together and/or had actual relationships with each other is a simply idealistic, as is the portrayal that it's easy to find someone to fall into bed with. One of my favorite lines in the article is "Celibacy means missing out on the action for a period no longer than the number of days between Rosh Hashanah and Columbus Day."
At the end of the article she does mention the fact that The L Word can at least be applauded for the visibility it provides to society, and it is for the visibility alone that I think the show is worth having (though it is in it's last season, so it is coming to an end anyway, and it's on HBO, so it's not as if your average, ignorant viewer is going to just stumble upon it). Bellafante compares the visibility on The L Word to the fact that CBS was flooded last year with angry letters about how two gay lovers on "As the World Turns" had only been seen kissing twice. She could've also mentioned ABC and Grey's Anatomy - they ax their lesbians.
Monday, January 19, 2009
"Live from Baghdad" Review
“Live from Baghdad” Lives On
By Jessica Maas
It is not at all a large stretch of the imagination for one to today watch HBO’s “Live from Baghdad,” a recounting of journalists during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and think of the Iraqi war. Iraq itself, and the bombs, guns, and hostage situations present in the film bring the current war to the forefront, and not unnecessarily. Written by Robert Wiener and directed by Mick Jackson, this 2002 production discusses issues of censorship and journalistic integrity that are more than relevant today, and does so in a manner that is both absorbing and likable.
In the film, CNN producers Robert Wiener, played by Michael Keaton, and Ingrid Formanek, played by Helena Bonham Carter, take a crew to Baghdad with the hopes of surpassing the other major networks in ratings by presenting the best coverage of what will become the Gulf War. The team finds that this goal is going to be harder to accomplish than they initially thought, as they grapple with issues of censorship and manipulation imposed by the Iraqi government and with the ethics surrounding reporting the story over safety, both for themselves and others.
The script is good mostly for the issues it presents. Wiener struggles with the balance between presenting the best story and maintaining the safety of those he reports on, and throughout the film the team is subject to reporting only what Iraqi Minister of Information Naji Al-Hadithi, played by David Suchett, will allow. Though Wiener befriends Al-Hadithi and is privy to information from him, he and Formanek are still under a tight leash and risk their lives should they attempt to push the boundaries.
A positive, sympathetic light is cast on the journalists as a whole throughout the film. Even when they’re potentially putting people’s lives in danger, it’s portrayed as acceptable because they feel bad and they’re doing their jobs, and the controversy and potential negativity they could face as a result is an area that could’ve used more scrutiny and exploration in the writing.
The film is subject to great acting, both on the part of Keaton and Bonham Carter, who give compelling performances, and as a result of a strong supporting cast. Keaton delivers a very real character through his interpretation of the gutsy but morally aware Robert Wiener, and Bonham Carter presents the flamboyant and compassionate Ingrid Formanek in a very genuine manner.
The underlying sexual tension between Wiener and Formanek is believable and well-played, allowing the characters another dimension to their personalities, though the storyline itself does distract from the journalism story.
News images from the actual time period the movie takes place are used throughout the film and are a strong aspect of the effective cinematography.
The film raises concerns that became huge and caused great controversy in journalism in the years to follow the United States invasion of Iraq, and “Live from Baghdad” was released only months prior to the invasion. “Live from Baghdad” is a balanced, well done film that remains important for people to see today.
By Jessica Maas
It is not at all a large stretch of the imagination for one to today watch HBO’s “Live from Baghdad,” a recounting of journalists during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and think of the Iraqi war. Iraq itself, and the bombs, guns, and hostage situations present in the film bring the current war to the forefront, and not unnecessarily. Written by Robert Wiener and directed by Mick Jackson, this 2002 production discusses issues of censorship and journalistic integrity that are more than relevant today, and does so in a manner that is both absorbing and likable.
In the film, CNN producers Robert Wiener, played by Michael Keaton, and Ingrid Formanek, played by Helena Bonham Carter, take a crew to Baghdad with the hopes of surpassing the other major networks in ratings by presenting the best coverage of what will become the Gulf War. The team finds that this goal is going to be harder to accomplish than they initially thought, as they grapple with issues of censorship and manipulation imposed by the Iraqi government and with the ethics surrounding reporting the story over safety, both for themselves and others.
The script is good mostly for the issues it presents. Wiener struggles with the balance between presenting the best story and maintaining the safety of those he reports on, and throughout the film the team is subject to reporting only what Iraqi Minister of Information Naji Al-Hadithi, played by David Suchett, will allow. Though Wiener befriends Al-Hadithi and is privy to information from him, he and Formanek are still under a tight leash and risk their lives should they attempt to push the boundaries.
A positive, sympathetic light is cast on the journalists as a whole throughout the film. Even when they’re potentially putting people’s lives in danger, it’s portrayed as acceptable because they feel bad and they’re doing their jobs, and the controversy and potential negativity they could face as a result is an area that could’ve used more scrutiny and exploration in the writing.
The film is subject to great acting, both on the part of Keaton and Bonham Carter, who give compelling performances, and as a result of a strong supporting cast. Keaton delivers a very real character through his interpretation of the gutsy but morally aware Robert Wiener, and Bonham Carter presents the flamboyant and compassionate Ingrid Formanek in a very genuine manner.
The underlying sexual tension between Wiener and Formanek is believable and well-played, allowing the characters another dimension to their personalities, though the storyline itself does distract from the journalism story.
News images from the actual time period the movie takes place are used throughout the film and are a strong aspect of the effective cinematography.
The film raises concerns that became huge and caused great controversy in journalism in the years to follow the United States invasion of Iraq, and “Live from Baghdad” was released only months prior to the invasion. “Live from Baghdad” is a balanced, well done film that remains important for people to see today.
Review of 'Gran Torino' Review
My "but" comes at the end of the first paragraph: "Eastwood's judgments may be more on target than Kowalski's, though, as he brings an overall must-see film for society to the box office."
In terms of things I would change, I think I'd talk more about the script itself and less about the cultural implications of it, and I'd do a better job of summarizing what the film is actually about. I think that I'd also end up changing the tone of the piece itself to be slightly less positive because, after another day of reflection, I was less impressed by the film than I initially was.
I'd also be more specific with backing up the points I make, and I wouldn't refer to the "viewers." Overall I'd probably give myself a B.
In terms of things I would change, I think I'd talk more about the script itself and less about the cultural implications of it, and I'd do a better job of summarizing what the film is actually about. I think that I'd also end up changing the tone of the piece itself to be slightly less positive because, after another day of reflection, I was less impressed by the film than I initially was.
I'd also be more specific with backing up the points I make, and I wouldn't refer to the "viewers." Overall I'd probably give myself a B.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
8th Season Brings Changes to American Idol
Below is a link to an article about the changes in the new season of American Idol.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/arts/television/13idol.html?ref=television
While I applaud a lot of the changes that the show is implementing - airing three weeks of auditions instead of four, and even the addition of the new judge - I'm not a big fan of the show in general, and will to continue to not watch it. I have watched it on occasion (because one of my roommates was watching, or because my family was), and while some of the performances may be worth watching, I generally think the show is a waste of time and wonder what it says about us as a society that it's the most popular show on primetime television.
The main feature of the show is Simon Cowell - the show even admits this - and while his comments can, at times, be amusing, they can also get old. I do think that the move to bring Kara DioGuardi in to challenge him will be interesting and could create some drama. I've always thought that the other two judges on the show are totally worthless and unnecessary, but she has the potential to create some controversy.
The move to get rid of a week of the auditions is also a good one, I think. There are a lot of people who find the humor behind them amusing (because of all the people who have absolutely zero talent and only tryout to be on TV), but I think it's silly. When the goal of the show is to find a good performer, I don't know why we spend so much time looking at people who are only wasting the judges's time. I mean, I understand that it gets ratings, but I'm really tired of shows making stupid decisions for the ratings (cough, Grey's Anatomy, cough). This is a good decision, though.
I don't know how I feel about the move to having 36 semifinalists instead of 24. That's a lot, I think. But it could work - maybe. It'll take time to really draw a conclusion about that, I think.
Overall, though, I think that American Idol wastes a lot of time. They devote an hour a week specifically to kicking people off - I don't get that. Why does it take an hour to tell the United States who is safe and who isn't? It's long and drawn out and silly. If they want to have a two-hour episode every week (like, say, The Biggest Loser) and spend the last half an hour kicking people off, fine. But watching for an entire hour just to see who gets kicked off? Weird, and wrong. And can someone tell me why we need an eighth season of it? That's like eight too many.
So I will not be watching to see how these new changes play out. Though, if the FOX producers ever decide to go through with their idea to move from Tuesday/Wednesday to Wednesday/Thursday, which would allow them to compete with the drastically declining material those homophobic jerks over at ABC/Grey's Anatomy are producing, I might have to start.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/arts/television/13idol.html?ref=television
While I applaud a lot of the changes that the show is implementing - airing three weeks of auditions instead of four, and even the addition of the new judge - I'm not a big fan of the show in general, and will to continue to not watch it. I have watched it on occasion (because one of my roommates was watching, or because my family was), and while some of the performances may be worth watching, I generally think the show is a waste of time and wonder what it says about us as a society that it's the most popular show on primetime television.
The main feature of the show is Simon Cowell - the show even admits this - and while his comments can, at times, be amusing, they can also get old. I do think that the move to bring Kara DioGuardi in to challenge him will be interesting and could create some drama. I've always thought that the other two judges on the show are totally worthless and unnecessary, but she has the potential to create some controversy.
The move to get rid of a week of the auditions is also a good one, I think. There are a lot of people who find the humor behind them amusing (because of all the people who have absolutely zero talent and only tryout to be on TV), but I think it's silly. When the goal of the show is to find a good performer, I don't know why we spend so much time looking at people who are only wasting the judges's time. I mean, I understand that it gets ratings, but I'm really tired of shows making stupid decisions for the ratings (cough, Grey's Anatomy, cough). This is a good decision, though.
I don't know how I feel about the move to having 36 semifinalists instead of 24. That's a lot, I think. But it could work - maybe. It'll take time to really draw a conclusion about that, I think.
Overall, though, I think that American Idol wastes a lot of time. They devote an hour a week specifically to kicking people off - I don't get that. Why does it take an hour to tell the United States who is safe and who isn't? It's long and drawn out and silly. If they want to have a two-hour episode every week (like, say, The Biggest Loser) and spend the last half an hour kicking people off, fine. But watching for an entire hour just to see who gets kicked off? Weird, and wrong. And can someone tell me why we need an eighth season of it? That's like eight too many.
So I will not be watching to see how these new changes play out. Though, if the FOX producers ever decide to go through with their idea to move from Tuesday/Wednesday to Wednesday/Thursday, which would allow them to compete with the drastically declining material those homophobic jerks over at ABC/Grey's Anatomy are producing, I might have to start.
Helpful Website
I used the IMDb website for part of my research because it gave me well organized general information about the movie (director, producers, list of characters, etc) all in one place. It also provided me with links to the actors so that I could research their acting backgrounds, which was helpful for the acting portion of my review.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1205489/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1205489/
Monday, January 12, 2009
Gran Torino Film Review
Kowalski a Symbol for All
By Jessica Maas
Clint Eastwood’s first scene in “Gran Torino” couldn’t be more fitting. Walt Kowalski, Eastwood’s character, stands at the front of the church for his wife’s funeral and meets anyone who dares to enter the ceremony with intense scrutiny and quick judgment. As the director and main feature of “Gran Torino,” it’s easy to draw a parallel between Kowalski overlooking the funeral and Eastwood overlooking the set. Eastwood’s judgments may be more on target than Kowalski’s, though, as he brings an overall must-see film for society to the box office.
Walt Kowalski is a hardened Korean War veteran set in his prejudices and general dislike of everyone, most notably his new Hmong neighbors. Though he is eventually befriended by and even defends teenagers Sue (Ahney Her) and Thao (Bee Vang) after Thao attempts to steal his prized ’72 Gran Torino, Kowalski has more than a few stereotypes and derogatory terms in his vocabulary with which to use against the community. The journey he takes as he learns more about the Hmong community, and subsequently more about himself, is by no means a quick one, but this nonetheless adds to the realistic component of the film.
Almost everyone knows or has known a Walt Kowalski, and Eastwood does a remarkable job in the role, bringing a true charisma to the character. The same praise cannot be given to his co-stars, however. While Eastwood should be applauded for his desire to use Hmong actors, and while it can be recognized that Hmong actors are not at all abundant in quantity, his choice to use two first-time actors is more than obvious throughout the film. Her’s lines are, at times, awkward and forced and Vang’s performance vacillates between stiff and overeager. There is no doubt that Eastwood carries the cast, but his performance and the poignancy of the story itself make up for any flaw in other performer’s abilities.
The script does a great job of bringing issues of stereotyping and visibility to the forefront. Many viewers can identify with Walt’s lack of knowledge about the Hmong community, and everyone is guilty of stereotyping or judging too soon at some point in their lives, if not everyday. “Gran Torino” offers hope for communities still seeking acceptance, and does so through the creation and realistic growth of authentic characters. The film doesn’t fall into the trap of clichés or even attempt to use sex to draw viewers in, as many other films are guilty of these days, but instead stays true to the message at hand, and that in itself is commendable.
“Gran Torino” is brilliant not only for Clint Eastwood’s acting, but for the risk taken with and the delicacy exhibited with the subject itself. The laughs that Eastwood is able to elicit through his sometimes overzealous character allow for a few lighter moments in an otherwise serious story, establishing an agreeable balance. Anyone who identifies with the term “American” needs to see this film.
By Jessica Maas
Clint Eastwood’s first scene in “Gran Torino” couldn’t be more fitting. Walt Kowalski, Eastwood’s character, stands at the front of the church for his wife’s funeral and meets anyone who dares to enter the ceremony with intense scrutiny and quick judgment. As the director and main feature of “Gran Torino,” it’s easy to draw a parallel between Kowalski overlooking the funeral and Eastwood overlooking the set. Eastwood’s judgments may be more on target than Kowalski’s, though, as he brings an overall must-see film for society to the box office.
Walt Kowalski is a hardened Korean War veteran set in his prejudices and general dislike of everyone, most notably his new Hmong neighbors. Though he is eventually befriended by and even defends teenagers Sue (Ahney Her) and Thao (Bee Vang) after Thao attempts to steal his prized ’72 Gran Torino, Kowalski has more than a few stereotypes and derogatory terms in his vocabulary with which to use against the community. The journey he takes as he learns more about the Hmong community, and subsequently more about himself, is by no means a quick one, but this nonetheless adds to the realistic component of the film.
Almost everyone knows or has known a Walt Kowalski, and Eastwood does a remarkable job in the role, bringing a true charisma to the character. The same praise cannot be given to his co-stars, however. While Eastwood should be applauded for his desire to use Hmong actors, and while it can be recognized that Hmong actors are not at all abundant in quantity, his choice to use two first-time actors is more than obvious throughout the film. Her’s lines are, at times, awkward and forced and Vang’s performance vacillates between stiff and overeager. There is no doubt that Eastwood carries the cast, but his performance and the poignancy of the story itself make up for any flaw in other performer’s abilities.
The script does a great job of bringing issues of stereotyping and visibility to the forefront. Many viewers can identify with Walt’s lack of knowledge about the Hmong community, and everyone is guilty of stereotyping or judging too soon at some point in their lives, if not everyday. “Gran Torino” offers hope for communities still seeking acceptance, and does so through the creation and realistic growth of authentic characters. The film doesn’t fall into the trap of clichés or even attempt to use sex to draw viewers in, as many other films are guilty of these days, but instead stays true to the message at hand, and that in itself is commendable.
“Gran Torino” is brilliant not only for Clint Eastwood’s acting, but for the risk taken with and the delicacy exhibited with the subject itself. The laughs that Eastwood is able to elicit through his sometimes overzealous character allow for a few lighter moments in an otherwise serious story, establishing an agreeable balance. Anyone who identifies with the term “American” needs to see this film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)