Karger Says Eastwood’s Could be a Lock
Dave Karger on Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino:
But I had a chance to see the film last week and I’m happy to report that has much more depth. Like Eastwood’s last acting-and-directing job, Million Dollar Baby, it goes to some very surprising places. I’ll leave the actual criticism to my much more qualified colleagues Lisa Schwarzbaum and Owen Gleiberman, but from an Academy perspective, though Gran Torino probably won’t end up a top-five Best Picture possibility (the competition is just too stiff), Eastwood’s performance seems to be like a good bet for a Best Actor nomination. At first, some viewers may be distracted by all his moaning and groaning (literally, he often moans and groans instead of actually speaking), but as the film goes on, a fantastic character arc emerges, and Eastwood gets to play gruff, then sensitive, and then heroic in the space of two hours. Though he’s got two Oscars for directing and two for producing, he’s never won in an acting category. Whether Eastwood can unseat top competitors like The Wrestler‘s Mickey Rourke or Milk‘s Sean Penn remains to be seen, but given that he has said he may not act anymore, a Best Actor nod seems like the best way for the Academy to acknowledge this very interesting film, and his storied acting career.
Chase Kahn says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 11:13am
I want this movie to just go away — looks terrible…
Princess of Peace says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 11:27am
I can’t believe that this is generating so much Oscar buzz. From the trailer it does not look very good.
backto1960 says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 11:27am
Overrated Eastwood rears his ugly head again and the academy will be more than welcome to kiss her wrinkled and soggy ass.
Just watch as how a deserving actor gets sidelined just because the academy wants to give Eastwood a spot.
As far as I’m concern, Eastwood should head East…far, far, far East, right into the nursing home where he belongs. Some people just can’t leave the stage when everyone is still applauding.
Chase Kahn says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 11:32am
The only good thing to come from this movie is that we now know who will do Christian Bale’s Batman voice in the third film…
Ivan says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 12:11pm
Jeje Chase Kahn, good on that!
Will be a shame if Eastwood take the nod of the so much more deserving Richard Jenkins´ performance.
Tiffany says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 12:12pm
I have read your other posts Back to 1960, and you prove what an
ugly, ignorant, and mean-spirited loser you are. I think you are hating on Eastwood because of your unfounded hatred for Jolie, that spin was created for vapid bastards like you. You bought that misportrayal hook, line, and sinker and trash anybody who tries to explain the truth and expose the corruption when it has managed to exceed its evil and become worse because of how Aniston feeds into this sick cycle and gets rewarded for it. Lousy people like that just become more conniving and manipulative because the public supports them and increases their power. Most of the public falls for it every time. I read that interview, there was no confession and it is good people are speaking out about it. There is no limits on how the media will claim anything to make everybody believe that spin. Such neurosis. I don’t think people realize the significance of that lie which will confirm the mother of all lies. That was the biggest mislead from her yet but people still bought it. I had too much
doubt to pick a side, but her shameless lie and calculation raised a lot of red
flags I was scared to see before. What a few keen observers have been trying
to explain for years, it is all coming together and making sense now. Dismissing the truth as crap and nonsense when you are spreading the venemous bs most the world was conned into believing years ago.
I think Clint Eastwood is a great underrated actor and a true icon. He should not quit acting just because he is older. However, I was also disappointed with what I saw from the trailer. The movie seems mediocre and his performance in this particular movie seems too gruff and one-note but I might be proven wrong when the film is released. No actor is perfect and every actor has a film when they are a little off. My gut is telling me that Gran Torino won’t get nominated for anything and The Changeling will receive maybe a couple of nominations but won’t win anything. The Changeling was an outstanding film that he should be proud of but is being underrated due to that bias. Eastwood might not be your cup of tea but he does not deserve to be insulted that way. I think it is hatred by association. I know the character supposedly becomes enlightened and releases his racist attitude but I was still turned off. Clint Eastwood is also a good director, producer, and has contributed so much to cinema. Even if I don’t like this movie, I will not just blow
him off as an actor and forget the past 40 years. It is a very competitive award season and I don’t think a more impressive performance from the other contenders who also have a lot of industry clout will be sidelined. However, this might be his last lead performance and they might want to recognize him for it to reward his body of work. I think Sean Penn is going to be the frontrunner for Best Actor.
Jonathan Spuij says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 12:29pm
Clint is an icon. And anyone that is still moaning about the trailer clearly don’t understand what trailers are for.
JR says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 1:00pm
Seriously, Back to 1960…do you have anything postive to say?…like ever?. I’m glad someone else notcied your ignorant behind.
I don’t understand this Clint Eastwood hate at all. The man is almost eighty years old and he still can deliver, but what pisses me off the most is people who judge a film they haven’t seen yet. Man, all this just makes me hope Clint gets a another nomination.
Clint = Icon
filmboymichael says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 1:15pm
I, for one scroll over certain comments posted here….but one thing I do have to say based on other posters is – How can you say that Clint could ‘steal’ someone else’s spot when you haven’t seen Eastwood’s performance yet….that, I find is true ignorance.
backto1960 says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 1:35pm
@ filmboymichael
77th Academy awards, Paul Giamatti, who deserved a best actor nom for sideways, was robbed just so a spot would be secured for Eastwood. Scorcose was also robbed when the best director award was handed to Eastwood for his ability to make Hilary Swank look ugly and mannish ( even though some will argue she’s always been ugly and mannish). Aviator/Ray/Neverland/Sideways were equally robbed when Million Dollar Baby walked away with best picture. All movies in the best picture category were, arguably, better than that million dollar mess Eastwood concoted.
JR says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 1:41pm
“Overrated Eastwood rears his ugly head again and the academy will be more than welcome to kiss her wrinkled and soggy ass”
If that’s the way you decide to express your feelings or opinions, than so be it, but I do have the right to disagree with you or call you out on it. So here we go, no one robbed Scorsese of anything. He would have eventually gotten his due with The Departed which rightfully won Best Picture. Million Dollar Baby was better than all the other nominees that year, especially Finding Neverland.
JR says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 1:50pm
And if this is gonna turn out to a Scorsese thing, you need to take that back to the 1980 where he should have won for Raging Bull and then you need to take it back to the 1990 where again, he should have won for Goodfellas because the films (Ordinary People, Dances with Wolves) that beat those two are nowhere near as great.
backto1960 says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 1:57pm
Yes! it’s my OPINION and my writing style. Ryan Adams uses sexual innuendos all the time in his writing, why is he not attacked? I just find it hilarious that when I state my opinion, everyone launches an attack on me. When I defend myself, I am immediately called the bully and the moderators of this site start deleting and editing my comments. LMAO!
Well, I thought Neverland was a hundred times better than Million dollar baby. It had A PLOTLINE…it was much more interesting to watch…Kate Winslet delivered AN AMAZING PERFORMANCE despite the subtlety of her role…Depp was great as usual, the cinematography was breathtaking and the score was whimsical and magical, just like the movie.
None of the above can be said for Million Dollar Baby (MDB)
Ray was definitely better than MDB
Sideways ( shockingly snubbed) was way way way better than MDB
and Aviator was a hundred times better than MDB
So, why did Eastwood win? as I said before, because the “academy” is always waiting in excitement “to kiss his wrinkled and soggy ass
Rob says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 2:09pm
What utterly tedious news. I mean seriously how many Oscars does one man need. I always thought Clint a better director than he was an actor.
KB says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 3:42pm
So, I’m thinking….
1. Penn
2. Rourke
3. Lanella
4. DiCaprio
5. Eastwood
guany says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 3:48pm
UGH. I don’t hate Eastwood, but I am so sick of seeing him at the Oscars all the time this decade. Seriously the novelty has worn off and he is so overexposed. His directing is a mixed bag, but his acting is all the same: the angry (now old) man who doesn’t like to talk but has so much emotion that is eventually brought out by those around him, whether it be a paralyzed female boxer or some Asian neighbors, etc. For the fanboys defending him, the rest of us all know what his performance is going to be because its always the exact same thing.
If he takes away the spot from Jenkins or somebody else who is doing something new and exciting, or somebody that hasn’t even been nominated yet, I will be pissed.
Jason says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 3:58pm
“Could be a lock”?
Isn’t that a bit of an oxymoron.
Alfredo says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 4:32pm
The thing is that an actor or actress has to be nominated because of what he or she has done in that particular year not because who they are.
Simple as that
JR says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 4:35pm
Wow, now Clint Eastwood would be stealing the spot from someone who hasn’t even been mentioned.
Ivan says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 4:49pm
JR show more respect for Mr. Richard Jenkins
Jenkins= Actor
so the category in duscussion is Best Actor nor Best Icon dumm ass
guany says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 4:50pm
Hasn’t even been mentioned?
Not to be rude, but have you been living under a rock for the past few months? Richard Jenkins?
JR says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 5:09pm
I’m kidding. Of course Richard Jenkins is in the running, but it’s ridiculous to say he’s better than Clint when no one has seen Clint’s performance.
Harry says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 5:14pm
Okay, so while I don’t think he’s been making his points all that well, I do think backto1960 has a general point about Eastwood. I think it’s the same kind of point that could be applied to any number of actors turned directors. There’s a double standard. If Scorsese or Spielberg make a movie like Million Dollar Baby or Mystic River, they get picked to death by critics and moviegoers alike who view them as auteurs and dissect every move they make. But if a famous actor makes a movie that’s good, the tendency is to overpraise. (The same principle often applies to good looking actresses playing ugly, plain or just slightly less hot).
I’m not saying his movies are bad (Unforgiven is truly a great movie any director could be proud of), but I do think they are considerably overrated because he is Clint Eastwood, the film icon.
Mark says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 5:14pm
Never count out Clint. People should know that by now.
guany says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 5:15pm
You have a point, but I’m just weary of Clint. However, if Clint knocks it out of the park and delivers something powerful that feels new for him I’ll be the first to praise him for it.
Free says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 5:43pm
Overrated Eastwood rears his ugly head again and the academy will be more than welcome to kiss her wrinkled and soggy ass.
As far as I’m concern, Eastwood should head East…far, far, far East, right into the nursing home where he belongs.
-I’m sorry, I laughed out loud when I read that. You rarely hear “soggy ass” spoken with such disdain.
Now I wouldn’t necessarily go that far, but I would agree that, while I do like Eastwood and think he’s a viable actor and a better filmmaker, I’m getting sick of seeing him pop up all the time. I’m even sicker of seeing him pop up as a last minute entry. It’s not a very good complaint. I know. If you’re good, you’re good, and you should be recognized as such. But it’s like watching a baseball team or the Patriots or whoever continue to win and win and win. They’re good, but sweet Christ, am I tired of seeing them win.
Alex says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 5:53pm
I was absolutely appalled when Eastwood was nominated for MDB over Paul Giamatti’s fabulously understated performance in Sideways. What a kick in the teeth.
And then, MDB to win over the best film of the year–Sideways–was terrible.
I didn’t hate MDB, but I thought the film was so cliched, especially the writing (and what do you know, it was written by fellow Canadian Paul Haggis, whose writing I didn’t even know I hated at the time!).
If Eastwood gives a worthy performance, then great, he should be nominated. However, if he does the same old shtick, he should be left out, and wonderful actors like Jenkins should be in.
Gentle Benj says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 5:57pm
I’m seeing a lot of Eastwood fatigue on this thread, and I’m feeling it myself. I wonder if it extends into Academy membership as well.
Jonathan, I’m not sure I understand your remark. Trailers are supposed to sell a film, right? Maybe the GT trailer does that, but if the clips therein are indicative of the quality of acting in the film, you can’t fault people for having doubts.
ETA: Ooh! Alex! I always enjoy a good bitch-fest about the writing in Million Dollar Baby. When the narrator said “I don’t think he had anything left” I very nearly choked on my Raisinets.
Lincoln says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 6:08pm
Eastwood=ICON, MOVIE STAR, RESPECTED DIRECTOR, OLD HOLLYWOOD. The trailer reflects Eastwood’s special place in film, all the old Dirty Harry growls, face-downs, etc. It’s likely that that alone will give the old guy a place on the roster. Because everyone else is so strong this year — Eastwood will win by default….life achievement awards are hard to pass on.
Helena says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 6:19pm
Alex
Agree if Eastwood’s performance in Grand Torino is exceptional, he deserves a nod .
But to give him an acting nod mainly based on the fact that he an award winning and respected director , who has lots of friends in the Academy, and the fact that this role might be his last acting role=NO
Zed & No Noughts says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 6:26pm
“Karger Says Eastwood’s Could be a Lock”
Good lord, how annoying for OW’s resident Eastwood haters. Truly, there must be a God!
daveylow says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 7:03pm
I don’t hate Eastwood but he needs more Oscars like a hole in the head.
I guess I’m still a bit annoyed at him because he dissed Lord of the Rings when it was competing against one of his films.
Of course if he gives a great performance in Gran Torino, nominate him. If not, let another actor have his slot. I would love Richard Jenkins to be nominated but it’s not a flashy performance so it may be overlooked.
cc says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 7:22pm
“The only good thing to come from this movie is that we now know who will do Christian Bale’s Batman voice in the third film.”
Nice one, Chase Kahn! That joke is just as funny the 30th time as it was the 1st time.
Unfortunately, this was the 50th time I read that joke. So, it sucked.
Can there be an Original Jokes Only rule here, please?
Gentle Benj says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 7:41pm
“I guess I’m still a bit annoyed at him because he dissed Lord of the Rings when it was competing against one of his films.”
I know right? I’m still mad about that one too. He basically declined to take Lord of the Rings seriously because it has hobbits and elves and so on, instead of grim working-class Catholic men. It was so emotionally rewarding when ROTK beat out Mystic River for Adapted Screenplay. One of my favorite Oscar-watching moments since I got into all this.
Paul Outlaw says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 8:45pm
Since he didn’t win for Unforgiven (yikes, Scent of a Woman) and didn’t get nominated for The Bridges of Madison County (Cage won, Penn should have), he better be better in Gran Torino than he was in either of those films if he ends up pushing Brad Pitt out of the Final 5.
backto1960 says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 8:55pm
As much as I hate Brad Pitt, I would prefer him for a best actor nom over Eastwood. At least, Pitt’s face allows him to show emotion and we can see it. Eastwood’s face is so ingloriously crinkled and dilapidated beyond repair, the flaps of wrinkles have covered his face completely hence whatever emotion he is trying to convey is unnoticeable to the audience. All he has left is that mean face he does all the time; pouting his lips, squinting his eyes and frowning.
Joao Mattos says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 9:09pm
To me, all praise to him it’s not enough. Clint is a absolute genius as a director (bad movies? Of course,”Blood Work”, I hate “Midnight In The Garden…”, a film that some friends think it his best), and really improves as a actor throught the years. Can’t remember a living director all over the world that achieve such a awesome body of work, with several masterpieces like him, since 1990 (“White Hunter, Black Heart”, point zero of the Golden Age, and even before that he is a talented moviemaker); in terms of artistic greatness, yes, of course, but in such a large number, no.
But it’s pretty clear that people (and the Academy) is becoming tired of the all recognition. Nobody likes a public person with such love for a such long time. When the project of “Flags Of Our Fathers”/”Letter To Iwo Jima”) is announced, guess a lot of us thought “favorite for sure, possible victory at the Oscars”, and nothing happened.
IMO this is what’s gonna hapenned: a) “Changeling” and “Torino” will remembered with some noms: maybe Angelina, maybe Malkovich, maybe script, him as Actor, the script of “Torino”, etc. But not for Picture and Director. b) Both are gonna win, if so, one, two Oscar (like sound editing for “Iwo Jima” b) It’s will be difficult, if not, impossible, that Eastwood ever again receive Academy love in the intensity he already receveid. Maybe ten years have to pass d) No, he is not ever gonna matched John Ford wins as a director. Remember reading somewhere, after “Million” triumph, that he will do that.
Pierre de Plume says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 9:15pm
Dave Karger knows what he’s talking about and is often correct, so we’d best take this tidbit seriously whether we like Eastwood’s acting or not. It could be that his role is Oscar bait. When you combine that with with his popularity in Hollywood and reasonable acting ability, it would come as no surprise at all to see him nominated, in which case he could have his wrinkled ass steam-pressed (he’s one tough SOB) before the awards ceremony to avoid grossing out those of us with frail constitutions.
backto1960 says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 9:20pm
what was so outstanding about “Changeling” and the “Million dollar Mess”? am I missing something?
His earlier work was good, very good, but his recent work can’t match what’s he’s done in the past. Hollywood and some obsessed fans of the good, bad and the ugly are so nostalgic of Eastwood’s past art that even something as bad as his million dollar mess wins best picture because when they watch it, they see only the past and not the mess in front of them.
I am still bitter than Paul Giamatti was snubbed for Sideways only for the academy to sneak in Eastwood into the best actor category at the last minute; for what reason? for pouting his lips and limping around?
JR says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 10:02pm
Never did I believe we would be having discussions where Clint Eastwood’s face and ass will be mentioned so many times. It’s kinda hilarious if you think about it.
I don’t care, I’m a fan of Clint and I’m not ashamed to say it. Long Live Clint Eastwood.
Joao Mattos says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 10:26pm
Haven’t seen “Changeling” yet. It’s just a hunch. Giamatti is great (can’t believe how “Hawk is Diyng” attracts zero atention); and very well liked amog his peers (Emmy, two SAG). An Oscar for him is just a matter of time, and the right role. Does anyone knows what “Cold Souls” is about?
guany says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 10:38pm
Joao,
1. “Can’t remember a living director all over the world that achieve such a awesome body of work, with several masterpieces like him, since 1990″.
You must not watch a lot of films lol. Let’s see: Scorsese, Mike Leigh, PTA, the Coens, David Fincher, Danny Boyle, Robert Altman and Anthony Minghella (RIP), Ang Lee, Wong Kar Wai, David Lynch, Pedro Almodovar, Jane Campion just to name a few. Hell even Tarantino and Peter Jackson are more consistent than Clint.
2. “But it’s pretty clear that people (and the Academy) is becoming tired of the all recognition.”
YEAH. You have no idea how much.
3. “IMO this is what’s gonna hapenned: a) “Changeling” and “Torino” will remembered with some noms: maybe Angelina, maybe Malkovich, maybe script, him as Actor, the script of “Torino”, etc. ”
Nope. Changeling and Jolie have no chance at this point. In fact, I would be absolutely shocked if Jolie got a nom now. Only thing that Eastwood can get for any of his films is an Actor nomination for himself. Even the pundits who have seen Torino are only saying Best Actor, that’s it.
4. “Both are gonna win, if so, one, two Oscar (like sound editing for “Iwo Jima” b) It’s will be difficult, if not, impossible, that Eastwood ever again receive Academy love in the intensity he already receveid. Maybe ten years have to pass”
Once again, I highly doubt that. What statue is AMPAS going to throw at Changeling? It won’t stand a chance in any of the techs with films like Benjamin Button and The Dark Knight in the mix. Also, Clint won’t be making movies in 10 years if he is even alive that far ahead.
5. “No, he is not ever gonna matched John Ford wins as a director.”
Well, maybe there is a God after all.
Joao Mattos says:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 11:35pm
Guany,
A watch a lot of movies. But it is not just matter of seeing a lot, just the right ones
1 – As I said, in terms of quality, there several names that could match him. But Clint directed more than ten wonderful, masterful films in that period. I can’t remember somebody doing the same. Once again, quality + the number of great work.
PTA is great, but to “green” to call him one of the finest. In my list there is no room for Boyle (not at all), and Minghella (fine, interesting producer, cool job at the BFI, as a director, so, so, at his best; who the hell is gonna remembered that stupid “Breaking and Entering” years from now?). Jackson did LOTR, “Heanvely Creatures”, but also “The Frighteners”. Agree with other names, specially about Almodovar.
Diferent names: Tim Burton, Scorsese, Woody Allen, portuguese Manoel de Oliveira, Hou Hsiao Hsien, Tsai Ming Liang, Bela Tárr, brazilian Eduardo Coutinho (a documentarist like few other the world have), Jacques Rivette, Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Eric Rohmer, portuguese Joao Pedro Rodrigues (just saw “Odete” again last weekend; the movie made “Smells Like Teen Spirit” a litany when a woman crazy in love with a gay man that she never knew, stand by his graveyard in a state of shock. Over all a mix of Douglas Sirk, Fassbinder, Pasolini, with such a audicity in the last scene, it’s bizarre, touching, insane, provocative and totaly ridiculous as passion could be; but well some of my closest friend stop to talk to me for a few days after I recomended), Claude Chabrol, Amos Gitai, Aleksandr Sokúrov, spanish Julio Medem, etc, etc, etc, etc.
4 – “Also, Clint won’t be making movies in 10 years if he is even alive that far ahead.”
I hope is alive and well. Oliveira began to be noticed in the early’s eighties en Europe, and a lot of people think he is a filmmaker in the end of his career, because he is then in his 80′s. He gonna be a 100 years old in december and is preparing a new movie. BTW, in the last Cannes festival somebody made a beatiful photo with the two fraternizing with each other .
Lincoln says:
Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 7:43am
Eastwood has cache in Hollywood like no other. While I’m not completely in his camp, you can’t deny the artistry in his most recent films or his knack with actors. His personna is that of a tough guy who sees through the B.S. around him and goes with gut instinct. This appeals to people who would never even think of crossing that line. You can say a lot of things about him (and his politics!!!) but he is an original. If he’s good in this film and breaks hearts with his performance, he’s as good as in, and for the win.
Alex says:
Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 12:00am
Love this line from Gentle Benj:
“He [Clint Eastwood] basically declined to take Lord of the Rings seriously because it has hobbits and elves and so on, instead of grim working-class Catholic men. ”
Haha.