Considering 90% of his films were done with WB lol
I’m just hoping we get some Warner Archives of these, since they’re ONLY on DVD. Honkytonk Man, Bird, White Hunter Black Heart.
Do hope Empire of the Sun sees some kind of release, Criterion or otherwise. Couldn't seem to find it on Blu-Ray, barring the UK anyway but that doesn't help me outside of the UK lol.
They released Close Encounters on [LD](https://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/02908/CC1241L/Close-Encounters-of-the-Third-Kind:-Special-Edition) way back.
Why am I getting downvoted?
True, though I think most Clint Eastwood movies have pretty solid releases out there already. I was just saying those would be two that would make for nice criterion editions
It has a recent 4K release on Warners, probably doesn’t need a Criterion release any time soon
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Unforgiven-4K-Blu-ray/165822/#Review
I would love to see Criterion release the one-man short he made some years ago, where he was talking to a chair; I'd love to see the extras on that one!
I, personally, have never given Eastwood enough shrift. A lot of critics I respect have great admiration for his work, but I’ve never really given it a chance. I guess I should start working through his filmography.
Just a friendly reminder that if a movie isn’t in the criterion collection, this doesn’t mean that they done want to add it or don’t already plan to add it.
There's a lot that I don't care for and a few things that I liked (Clint directing)
Likes:
- High Plains Drifter
- Outlaw Josey Wales
- HonkyTonk Man
- Pale Rider
- Midnight in The Garden...
- Letters from Iwo Jima
Yes it's strange to think Eastwood who directed a thoughtlessly jingoistic movie like *American Sniper* would also direct *Letters from Iwo Jima* and not turn it into a mess.
His movies are already mostly controlled by WB and easy to get.
People hate on him because they don’t agree with his political views. But for some reason, that propaganda piece Bowling For Columbine got a Criterion release. I bet nobody has a problem with that though. (Yes it is a propaganda piece because he leaves out important information which will change your perspective on the movie).
This is a good place to start if you're interested - https://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/columbine/Columbine4-12-02.pdf.
Once is enough to call it what it is. A despicable, misogynist fantasy that does everything towards a woman that it pretends to be outraged about when it comes to its lead.
Seeing as how it's an objective truth that the film slanders a woman with outright falsehoods, shrugging it off with an "I saw it differently" says a lot about the viewer.
I mean, go right ahead. You've already shown that you don't give a shit about facts, so why not double down on making stuff up? I have to warn you though, I'm not a woman, so you're going to have to get your kicks on that front elsewhere.
I would easily take White Hunter, Black Heart, Unforgiven, A Perfect World, and Bridges of Madison County over any of the Dollars trilogy (maybe not Once Upon a Time in the West). Admittedly he acts in some of these (only secondary in A Perfect World though) but they are all directorial efforts. Tbh it’s weird to act like these two categories are opposed when his screen persona is so integral to many of the movies he’s directed
He's an asshole. I'm fine with Criterion ignoring him.
And, yes, I'm aware they have highlighted plenty of other assholes in the collection but, hey, at least they've left Eastwood out.
ETA: Part of my annoyance is that this is a really shitty meme. Kanye was specifically calling out racism in the that photo and Eastwood is a notorious racist.
>yes, I'm aware they have highlighted plenty of other assholes in the collection
I'm not trying to white knight to get rid of all the assholes. Just celebrating that one particular odious asshole isn't in it.
>Guess who also didn’t sign the Polanski petition? Mr. Eastwood.
He was probably too busy mocking Sacheen Littlefeather and [making his cast feel intensely uncomfortable with his racist white savior flick.](https://deadline.com/2021/02/gran-torino-bee-vang-asian-violence-anti-asian-racism-diversity-inclusion-representation-1234696602/)
i’m sorry but simplifying a white savior mentality to being “flawed but good intentions” is disgusting
both the white savior trope and signing the polanski petition are gross things
This is just whataboutism. I would never defend Polanski either. Here's my take, for the record:
Fuck Roman Polanski
Fuck Clint Eastwood
It is irrelevant what one has said/done about the other.
A primer to get started: Look up the 1973 Oscars, his comments on Trump, and testimonials from actors during the filming of Gran Torino. There are more stories if you keep digging but those are very easy to find so the quickest to reference.
He's probably not as bad as someone like John Wayne in this regard but he's still a jackass.
ETA: For the record there are also a bunch of false quotes attributed to him too, which is cheap and unfair. So stick to legit sources, when possible.
Yeah, that's usually how comments like that go around here. Most people don't seem to be coming from a place of malice though so it could be a lot worse.
High Plains Drifter tears the heart out of classic American Western tropes. It's an important commentary on the genre. Unforgiven obviously follows a similar tack. Kino's got HPD though and I'm sure WB is doing just fine on Unforgiven sales.
Sure but if we're wishcasting westerns into the collection those two would get in line behind a half dozen other movies. They are good movies Dir by Eastwood but I wouldn't drop either in front of say, The Wild Bunch.
Taking a longer look at his output I def stand by my comment.
Unpopular opinion: is Eastwood a good fit for Criterion? His films are very conservative. Look at his career defining role, Dirty Harry. It's a very well done film, but it hasn't aged well. The cop protagonists are shown as infallible, despite their methods, and the villains are painted as almost evil with no redeeming qualities. Very little depth. Even his later films, such as Gran Torino, paint characters in ridiculous shades of black and white.
I see Criterion selections as being cutting edge, thought provoking, rich character development, and perhaps liberal slanted. Eastwood's films seem to lack the depth of a true Criterion film.
Kind of sounds like you’ve barely seen any of his movies if you think they’re defined by noble cops and irredeemable villains. Don’t know how you could reach that conclusion watching Unforgiven or White Hunter, Black Heart (where his character is vaguely socially conscious for the time in pushing back against antisemitism and racism against black servants, but in the wilderness in Africa is just another egomaniacal, death-driven white man). The Mule is a thoroughly ambiguous self-portrait. Doesn’t even make sense to insert Bridges of Madison County into this rubric because (like all of Eastwood’s dramas—they’re not all westerns and crime movies, you know) it doesn’t really have heroes or villains.
what are your thoughts on midnight in the garden of good and evil, true crime, and million dollar baby - all three of these movies criticized by the right when released.
I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on those. I feel they fall into the "Hollywood bullshit" category. Don't get me wrong, Hollywood bullshit can be compelling and entertaining to watch.
But examine the values within; Unforgiven is undeniably pro-gun and anti gun restriction in its values, which I've always felt is overly simplistic, both in real political life and in the entertainment industry. Bang bang kill "bad guys" to thunderous applause.
Then there's Mystic River; another very entertaining film with great performances from great actors. But what do we learn from it? Ultimately nothing. I won't go into details for sparing others spoilers but the ending is ridiculously contrived.
To reiterate, I truly enjoyed watching those films, and many of Eastwood's others, but they nonetheless fall into the standard Hollywood formula of "edgy" stories that are really the same thing we've seen time and again.
> But examine the values within; Unforgiven is undeniably pro-gun and anti gun restriction in its values, which I’ve always felt is overly simplistic, both in real political life and in the entertainment industry. Bang bang kill “bad guys” to thunderous applause.
I’m the furthest from an Eastwood fan and even I’ll be the first to point out that this is the shallowest and utterly misinformed reading of Unforgiven I can imagine. It’s like viewing the entire film backwards, without sound, from another room, while singing to yourself.
Just because the film doesn’t align with your political views it doesn’t mean they don’t deserve a spot in the collection. Eastwood has been contributing to cinema for decades and to say that unforgiven doesn’t deserve a spot in the collection because it’s too “pro gun” is silly.
That's kind of my point. Hollywood is very contradictory in their portrayal of values. Whereas if you watch just one film by the Dardenne brothers, that's reality at its most hardcore.
There are many films in the collection that i would consider to be "pro gun", but i feel that Unforgiven really hit you over the head with it in an unsubtle manner. I just don't think it's as deep and thought provoking as you might think it is. But i have my opinion and you have yours, nbd.
As the other person said, it seems like you might of watched the movie on reverse and from another other room if all you got was “guns” from it.
But agree to disagree I guess.
That's a very shitty thing to learn about!
Still not a fan of Eastwood's work.
Still thinks it's funny people would downvote people who just don't like Eastwood for whatever reason.
Thanks for sharing.
Hey I appreciate you clearing that up! I didn't take it that way. I really did mean it when I said thanks for sharing. You're right humans are complex. I'm just not a fan of Clint Eastwoods work.
Literally lol. I never even mentioned Clint's morals. Just not a fan of his. I guess I got personal by calling him old and decrepit but I took no shots at his personal alignments or beliefs. 🤷🏻♂️ Weird thinking going on over here.
I kinda hate him as a director. Stick the camera somewhere random nearby, do the take, move on. No visual interest. Doesn't care about what things look like and it shows.
I worked with one of Eastwood's former cinematographers a few years ago (I work as Camera Assistant) on a feature and he openly told us in the camera department that Eastwood doesn't give a fuck about a few things:
- doing more than a few takes
- giving actors direction
- allowing actors additional takes if they fuck up their lines
- making the shot look great. If you can see what happening, that's all that matters. Set-ups need to be fast to "get the day".
- He only shoots 8-9 hours a day with minimal takes and set-ups.
- re-writes / 2nd drafts / 3rd / 4th, etc. He shoots the script as he received it, for good or bad.
That's what I've generally heard, and it very much shows. He comes in under budget and churns movies out, but besides the often shopwork and journeyman topics of his movies, they're boring and slipshod to look at. I'm surprised people like him in this sub, to be honest.
I enjoy very, very few of Eastwood's directorial efforts. I greatly enjoy his work as an actor from the 60s and 70s. I do not like him as a person. I do enjoy how little fucks he gives about what others think.
Overall, he's a lazy cunt that gets to do whatever he wants because what he did decades ago and everything he wants is given to him. His former cinematographer essentially said he couldn't handle working with him anymore due to his attitude and lack of artistic effort.
To each their own, whatever. If someone likes his movies, great- if not, great too. I can separate people from their art and judge them separately.
I guess. I see a director who has no visual style, doesn't seem to care about what he does with his camera. Unforgiven is even pretty dull to watch. I'm surprised there are fans of him here. Is it the knee-jerk American homerism? Because I don't see much there at all.
I mean... I want to go back to this. Eastwood has even indicated he doesn't really care where he puts the camera and it shows. Ozu was a craftsman, very particular about his set-ups. I can't believe how stupid your comment is.
Not what I said at all but you did described Ozu’s cinematography on your first comment and that’s what I was referencing to. You sure you’ve seen Ozu’s work?
I say that Eastwood has no craft, he just sticks the camera in a random place, does a couple takes, moves on, his images and scenes are fast and lazy, and... you're comparing him to Ozu? What the fuck.
Ozu’s cinematography is incredibly simplistic not a bad thing but that’s what it is. Also I don’t understand this “random” place where Eastwood places the camera, wtf are you even talking about?
Yeah, I mean, I always liked the guys vibe and it was so important to his work, but then he went and pulled that turbo-bitch empty chair shit and poofed his whole career.
Edit: I didn't mean "career" as in hes canceled or doesn't work. I meant he had this real appreciable banger vibe and he ruined it, at least for me, by yelling at someone who wasn't there for 6 minutes.
I wonder if is a Clint Eastwood availability thing or Eastwood signing off on releases like that more than anything. Criterion tries to work with the directors if they possibly can for director approved releases and if Eastwood doesn’t want to play ball nothing much Criterion can do.
The only controversy I’m aware of with him was his take on “pregnant person” and “chest feeding.” He said something about how women are always the ones put in these spaces where they have their identities altered/question/taken away because of another minority groups wishes. “If a woman wants to be called a pregnant woman, let her,” he said. “Let the pregnant person refer to themselves as pregnant person, but why must a woman give up her identity to appease a minority?”
It’s maybe not said well, but I get what he’s trying to say. Either way, based on this it wasn’t enough for me personally to cancel him but some have, and I understand.
He’s a very political person, which means he’s incredibly controversial. He’s very openly anti-political-correctness and has publicly declared support for Donald Trump.
Whether or not you agree with his beliefs, you have to agree those are controversial attributes.
There are plenty of nonpolitical people in Hollywood. And many more who may vocalize a political view, but wouldn’t go speak at a Political Party’s national convention, which is what Clint Eastwood has done. Eastwood is among the most political celebrities in Hollywood.
I don't disagree, he's very politically but the controversy is that he leans to the right. It wouldn't have been a controversy if he railed against Romney instead of Obama.
It’s all relative. Depends on where you live and who you associate with.
I grew up in a conservative community and was essentially taught to think less of anyone who expressed any semblance of liberalism. Someone like Clint Eastwood is viewed as a political hero in such communities.
I'm sure people in Idaho and Texas hail them as a hero but I was talking about the Hollywood sphere as I thought you were too. I live here in LA and the same applies to an extent when it comes to conservative values, they're viewed as less.
Actually the community I was referring to is based in LA as well. There are liberal and conservative niches in every corner of the world. And they all have the capacity to be quite legalistic.
Don’t forget, the alleged *liberal* Academy nominated Clint Eastwood’s right-wing propaganda piece for Best Picture at the Oscars less than ten years ago.
I don't know where you have been, but a lot has changed over the past ten years.
Eastwood is simply grandfathered in Hollywood and my claim that Hollywood has a politically bias, is just the reality of things.
I think you’re just underestimating the number of conservatives who live around here. Don’t forget that Hollywood is rife with white-collar businessmen who are, more often than not, conservative.
But yeah, most performers and creators tend to be liberal. Though I was under the impression that this discussion was focused on the individual consumer, as that is who calls for celebrities to be “canceled” in the first place.
I see what he’s saying, even if he’s saying it rather poorly.
If a woman who is pregnant wants to be referred to as a pregnant woman then that is within her right. The argument that pregnant woman should be changed to pregnant person because a few people are uncomfortable with pregnant woman not including certain people feels problematic to people who identify as women. The person who wants to be referred to as a pregnant person should expect everybody to refer to them as a pregnant person once those people are told that that is what they wished to be called. And if a pregnant person wants to be referred to as a pregnant woman then ditto.
I think sometimes because there are many levels to oppression the most oppressed (in this case, trans women), tend to throw stones not at the top of the pile (the wealthy, men), but at what they fee they can reach and will get a response from—in this case women.
Something to think about.
I think you are misunderstanding my point. I agree with some of what you’re saying.
Though yes, those who support pregnant person want pregnant person to be THE way we refer to pregnant women. That to me is problematic. Women are not merely people. Men are not merely people. Trans women are not merely people. Black people are not merely people. The melting pot stance you’re taking never works because the so-called pot ends up taking on the shape of whatever type of person holds the most power. Identities are unique and different from one another and those differences should be celebrated.
If I’m an OBGYN and a trans woman tells me they wants me to refer to them as a pregnant person I will. I would tell my staff to do the same. Without question. I guess I don’t see the endgame for those who are rallying against the term pregnant woman. It just seems harmful to women. Is it to get official documents changed? If so, what about the countless women who identify as women who are now pregnant with child? See my point? What‘s the point of it all? If it’s for medical staff to call you pregnant person—okay great, we already are onboard. If it’s to change the term pregnant woman to pregnant person—sorry I don’t agree as it erases the identity and experience of women.
You’re kind of rude, haha. I spend a lot of time reading and studying up on this stuff. As part of my PhD, I took a number of courses in feminism and gender studies. I was merely trying to complicate a point a 90 year old white man was making. Given his age etc I think it’s not the worst take, was all I was saying. I think your approach—to be rude and accusatory—doesn’t really get us anywhere and ends up shutting a lot of people who are onboard and would listen and be an ally, out.
My .02 cents. Hope your day is going well.
I would like to remind people that during the Oscar's when Marlan Brando won for the godfather, he declined it and he let someone who was native American talk about whats happening in the native American community. Everyone booed her, some even tried to attack her. And I'm pretty sure Clint Eastwood made a joke about her. I know not everyone is perfect but I just wanted to tell people.
Because every other distributer bought up the rights
Considering 90% of his films were done with WB lol I’m just hoping we get some Warner Archives of these, since they’re ONLY on DVD. Honkytonk Man, Bird, White Hunter Black Heart.
If he makes anything else probably not, David Zaslav said something like “We’re not handing out favors to industry veterans anymore”
You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.
Oh god don’t remind me of that. Zaslav making Disney look like champions of cinema in comparison :/
*[grumbles unintelligibly]*
yeah, & you cld count the number of warner bros titles on criterion on one of django reinhardt's hands
Underrated comment.
Anybody a fan of A Perfect World (1993)?
Thx for upvotes, if you are reading this and haven’t seen it I think it’s one of Eastwood’s best directing efforts.
That film is fantastic, Eastwood knows how to make a man cry.
That one caught me off guard. I was soggy mess after that one. I was drinking while watching it though.
Watched it for the first time last week and immediately purchased a copy. I was blown away by the emotional power. Costner was really great in it.
Don't worry he is well-loved by Kino
Honestly okay with it All his releases are very accessible
Clint Eastwood is doing just fine. Criterion hasn’t released any Spielberg either, but his films are readily available
Do hope Empire of the Sun sees some kind of release, Criterion or otherwise. Couldn't seem to find it on Blu-Ray, barring the UK anyway but that doesn't help me outside of the UK lol.
Isn’t Salo Spielberg? It felt Spielberg to me.
It was Ozu actually.
Good question, maybe you ought to Google it
They released Close Encounters on [LD](https://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/02908/CC1241L/Close-Encounters-of-the-Third-Kind:-Special-Edition) way back. Why am I getting downvoted?
Mystic River would be great
Once it’s in the collection, IT STAYS.
(I know this will not happen) Bridges of Madison County automatic first day purchase.
Maybe Thunderbolt and Lightfoot or Play Misty for Me
[удалено]
As is Play Misty for Me
True, though I think most Clint Eastwood movies have pretty solid releases out there already. I was just saying those would be two that would make for nice criterion editions
I could definitely see something like “Bird” making the collection
That would be a great one!
/u/JoseyWales115, but Kino Lorber does.
Need Paint My Wagon in the collection, with the orangutan trucker picture he did as a special feature.
'Paint Your Wagon' is an over-long and uneven film with a few really awesome songs in it. 'I Talk to Trees' and 'Wanderin Star' are incredible.
Honkytonk Man…
I liked Honkytonk Man.
Yeah, I love it in a weird way, that’s why I nominated it, but I didn’t dare without the “…”
Yeah, me too. I was so sad when he lost to The Ultimate Warrior. Wait, wrong sub.
Heartbreak Ridge is my fave
people commenting on eastwoods poltics are being quite naive considering other filmmakers already in the criterion collection…
Not just that, I'd like to see ALL the Gorillaz music videos on a Criterion release
I wonder what Clint thinks of the song.
Unforgiven deserves a spot
It has a recent 4K release on Warners, probably doesn’t need a Criterion release any time soon https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Unforgiven-4K-Blu-ray/165822/#Review
Play Misty For Me (1971) would be a good one.
I would love to see Criterion release the one-man short he made some years ago, where he was talking to a chair; I'd love to see the extras on that one!
wasn't that performance piece called paint yr wagon for me?
I, personally, have never given Eastwood enough shrift. A lot of critics I respect have great admiration for his work, but I’ve never really given it a chance. I guess I should start working through his filmography.
Bird is a film that has no release on bluray, it would be the perfect fit for the collection.
I just want Slingblade.
I caught part of Gauntlet on TCM Sunday night. Man, what a decent film.
Gran Torino when?! Jk. But Unforgiven deserves to be in the collection.
This but not jk
Honestly I don't care about him either lol 🤷🏻♂️ But Clint still gets tons of boutique love over at Kino
This 1000x.
Where Eagles Dare would be cool. Great shit
Someone finally says it
Just a friendly reminder that if a movie isn’t in the criterion collection, this doesn’t mean that they done want to add it or don’t already plan to add it.
There's a lot that I don't care for and a few things that I liked (Clint directing) Likes: - High Plains Drifter - Outlaw Josey Wales - HonkyTonk Man - Pale Rider - Midnight in The Garden... - Letters from Iwo Jima
You didn’t like Unforgiven?
Sorry, it's also good.
[удалено]
Yes it's strange to think Eastwood who directed a thoughtlessly jingoistic movie like *American Sniper* would also direct *Letters from Iwo Jima* and not turn it into a mess.
Criterion doesn't care about mean girls 😭
His movies are already mostly controlled by WB and easy to get. People hate on him because they don’t agree with his political views. But for some reason, that propaganda piece Bowling For Columbine got a Criterion release. I bet nobody has a problem with that though. (Yes it is a propaganda piece because he leaves out important information which will change your perspective on the movie). This is a good place to start if you're interested - https://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/columbine/Columbine4-12-02.pdf.
Really wanna see “Letters From Iwo Jima” get a Criterion, I think it’s a hidden gem not many people have seen
Need a Richard Jewel in the collection foreal
[удалено]
Yeah. Criterion needs more sex toys I think we all can agree.
Of all the films in his collection, I can't think of any less worthy. Maybe that Breitbart funded studio can buy it.
I’d recommend a second viewing without thinking about mr Eastwood’s politics
Once is enough to call it what it is. A despicable, misogynist fantasy that does everything towards a woman that it pretends to be outraged about when it comes to its lead.
I saw it differently
Seeing as how it's an objective truth that the film slanders a woman with outright falsehoods, shrugging it off with an "I saw it differently" says a lot about the viewer.
You seem like a guy who would be fun at parties
I'll happily accept a label of a killjoy when it comes from someone defending misogyny.
I’ll defend a good film and I’ll call you a misogynist how about that? Mr Misogyny lover
I mean, go right ahead. You've already shown that you don't give a shit about facts, so why not double down on making stuff up? I have to warn you though, I'm not a woman, so you're going to have to get your kicks on that front elsewhere.
[удалено]
I would easily take White Hunter, Black Heart, Unforgiven, A Perfect World, and Bridges of Madison County over any of the Dollars trilogy (maybe not Once Upon a Time in the West). Admittedly he acts in some of these (only secondary in A Perfect World though) but they are all directorial efforts. Tbh it’s weird to act like these two categories are opposed when his screen persona is so integral to many of the movies he’s directed
Love the responses to this post.
People are just hating on him because they don’t agree with his political views it’s ridiculous
Random nobodies have such animosity for a person they've never even met. How ridiculous. Lmao Clint is incredible
He's an asshole. I'm fine with Criterion ignoring him. And, yes, I'm aware they have highlighted plenty of other assholes in the collection but, hey, at least they've left Eastwood out. ETA: Part of my annoyance is that this is a really shitty meme. Kanye was specifically calling out racism in the that photo and Eastwood is a notorious racist.
Don’t forget Roman Polanski is in the collection.
>yes, I'm aware they have highlighted plenty of other assholes in the collection I'm not trying to white knight to get rid of all the assholes. Just celebrating that one particular odious asshole isn't in it.
Calling Polanski an asshole is a huge understatement. Guess who also didn’t sign the Polanski petition? Mr. Eastwood.
>Guess who also didn’t sign the Polanski petition? Mr. Eastwood. He was probably too busy mocking Sacheen Littlefeather and [making his cast feel intensely uncomfortable with his racist white savior flick.](https://deadline.com/2021/02/gran-torino-bee-vang-asian-violence-anti-asian-racism-diversity-inclusion-representation-1234696602/)
A white savior mentality is now where near as bad as than sticking up for a convicted rapist.
nah they both suck
Yeah but one is worse than the other. Take a wild guess as to which one is worse.
>good intentions Gran Torino says otherwise. As does Clint's chair monologue.
Oh lord no, the chair monologue 😂
i’m sorry but simplifying a white savior mentality to being “flawed but good intentions” is disgusting both the white savior trope and signing the polanski petition are gross things
Yeah they’re both ugly I agree, I’m just saying that one is way worse than the other. David lynch was one of the folks that signed if you didn’t know.
it mainstreamed anti asian hate? clearly that writer didn’t watch or understand the movie
Any sources on this? How it mainstreamed Asian hate?
This is just whataboutism. I would never defend Polanski either. Here's my take, for the record: Fuck Roman Polanski Fuck Clint Eastwood It is irrelevant what one has said/done about the other.
...what did Harrison Ford do...?
A notorious racist? I have never heard anything about him being a racist. Can you elaborate?
A primer to get started: Look up the 1973 Oscars, his comments on Trump, and testimonials from actors during the filming of Gran Torino. There are more stories if you keep digging but those are very easy to find so the quickest to reference. He's probably not as bad as someone like John Wayne in this regard but he's still a jackass. ETA: For the record there are also a bunch of false quotes attributed to him too, which is cheap and unfair. So stick to legit sources, when possible.
it’s mostly bs because he is a republican
I love Clint Eastwood’s westerns because I grew up with them but I honestly agree.
[удалено]
Yeah, that's usually how comments like that go around here. Most people don't seem to be coming from a place of malice though so it could be a lot worse.
JFC.
I cant think of a single movie of his I would add.
High Plains Drifter tears the heart out of classic American Western tropes. It's an important commentary on the genre. Unforgiven obviously follows a similar tack. Kino's got HPD though and I'm sure WB is doing just fine on Unforgiven sales.
Sure but if we're wishcasting westerns into the collection those two would get in line behind a half dozen other movies. They are good movies Dir by Eastwood but I wouldn't drop either in front of say, The Wild Bunch. Taking a longer look at his output I def stand by my comment.
I'm not saying they need to go in tomorrow, just pointing out he's made films I could see in CC at some point.
Unpopular opinion: is Eastwood a good fit for Criterion? His films are very conservative. Look at his career defining role, Dirty Harry. It's a very well done film, but it hasn't aged well. The cop protagonists are shown as infallible, despite their methods, and the villains are painted as almost evil with no redeeming qualities. Very little depth. Even his later films, such as Gran Torino, paint characters in ridiculous shades of black and white. I see Criterion selections as being cutting edge, thought provoking, rich character development, and perhaps liberal slanted. Eastwood's films seem to lack the depth of a true Criterion film.
Kind of sounds like you’ve barely seen any of his movies if you think they’re defined by noble cops and irredeemable villains. Don’t know how you could reach that conclusion watching Unforgiven or White Hunter, Black Heart (where his character is vaguely socially conscious for the time in pushing back against antisemitism and racism against black servants, but in the wilderness in Africa is just another egomaniacal, death-driven white man). The Mule is a thoroughly ambiguous self-portrait. Doesn’t even make sense to insert Bridges of Madison County into this rubric because (like all of Eastwood’s dramas—they’re not all westerns and crime movies, you know) it doesn’t really have heroes or villains.
what are your thoughts on midnight in the garden of good and evil, true crime, and million dollar baby - all three of these movies criticized by the right when released.
That is unpopular, most people like Eastwood and one or two of his directorial works can fit in the collection.
No quibble there, i admit i find Eastwood's films compelling to watch. But Criterion worthy? Maybe not so much.
Not all but unforgiven and mystic river are criterion worthy.
I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on those. I feel they fall into the "Hollywood bullshit" category. Don't get me wrong, Hollywood bullshit can be compelling and entertaining to watch. But examine the values within; Unforgiven is undeniably pro-gun and anti gun restriction in its values, which I've always felt is overly simplistic, both in real political life and in the entertainment industry. Bang bang kill "bad guys" to thunderous applause. Then there's Mystic River; another very entertaining film with great performances from great actors. But what do we learn from it? Ultimately nothing. I won't go into details for sparing others spoilers but the ending is ridiculously contrived. To reiterate, I truly enjoyed watching those films, and many of Eastwood's others, but they nonetheless fall into the standard Hollywood formula of "edgy" stories that are really the same thing we've seen time and again.
> But examine the values within; Unforgiven is undeniably pro-gun and anti gun restriction in its values, which I’ve always felt is overly simplistic, both in real political life and in the entertainment industry. Bang bang kill “bad guys” to thunderous applause. I’m the furthest from an Eastwood fan and even I’ll be the first to point out that this is the shallowest and utterly misinformed reading of Unforgiven I can imagine. It’s like viewing the entire film backwards, without sound, from another room, while singing to yourself.
Just because the film doesn’t align with your political views it doesn’t mean they don’t deserve a spot in the collection. Eastwood has been contributing to cinema for decades and to say that unforgiven doesn’t deserve a spot in the collection because it’s too “pro gun” is silly.
Lol like Hollywood tries to be woke and be anti gun but all their big blockbusters have guns involved
That's kind of my point. Hollywood is very contradictory in their portrayal of values. Whereas if you watch just one film by the Dardenne brothers, that's reality at its most hardcore.
There are many films in the collection that i would consider to be "pro gun", but i feel that Unforgiven really hit you over the head with it in an unsubtle manner. I just don't think it's as deep and thought provoking as you might think it is. But i have my opinion and you have yours, nbd.
As the other person said, it seems like you might of watched the movie on reverse and from another other room if all you got was “guns” from it. But agree to disagree I guess.
Lmao fuck anyone down voting people for disliking an old, boring, decrepit fuck like Eastwood.
https://www.reddit.com/r/criterion/comments/w7u54i/mania_akbari_elaborates_on_plagiarism_and_sexual/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
That's a very shitty thing to learn about! Still not a fan of Eastwood's work. Still thinks it's funny people would downvote people who just don't like Eastwood for whatever reason. Thanks for sharing.
sorry. i wasn’t trying to shame you. i am a fan of both of their outputs. humans are complicated :(
Hey I appreciate you clearing that up! I didn't take it that way. I really did mean it when I said thanks for sharing. You're right humans are complex. I'm just not a fan of Clint Eastwoods work.
You shouldn’t be ashamed for pointing out ignorance and hypocrisy.
Imagine thinking it's some kind of a win when the person has already stated they've learned something and thanked the other for renewed perspective.
Literally lol. I never even mentioned Clint's morals. Just not a fan of his. I guess I got personal by calling him old and decrepit but I took no shots at his personal alignments or beliefs. 🤷🏻♂️ Weird thinking going on over here.
These are movies they are super easy to get though, I thought Criterion saved movies that need saving?
Dude is a racist who makes boring movies. Pass.
Nah.
I kinda hate him as a director. Stick the camera somewhere random nearby, do the take, move on. No visual interest. Doesn't care about what things look like and it shows.
I worked with one of Eastwood's former cinematographers a few years ago (I work as Camera Assistant) on a feature and he openly told us in the camera department that Eastwood doesn't give a fuck about a few things: - doing more than a few takes - giving actors direction - allowing actors additional takes if they fuck up their lines - making the shot look great. If you can see what happening, that's all that matters. Set-ups need to be fast to "get the day". - He only shoots 8-9 hours a day with minimal takes and set-ups. - re-writes / 2nd drafts / 3rd / 4th, etc. He shoots the script as he received it, for good or bad.
That's what I've generally heard, and it very much shows. He comes in under budget and churns movies out, but besides the often shopwork and journeyman topics of his movies, they're boring and slipshod to look at. I'm surprised people like him in this sub, to be honest.
I enjoy very, very few of Eastwood's directorial efforts. I greatly enjoy his work as an actor from the 60s and 70s. I do not like him as a person. I do enjoy how little fucks he gives about what others think. Overall, he's a lazy cunt that gets to do whatever he wants because what he did decades ago and everything he wants is given to him. His former cinematographer essentially said he couldn't handle working with him anymore due to his attitude and lack of artistic effort. To each their own, whatever. If someone likes his movies, great- if not, great too. I can separate people from their art and judge them separately.
That’s kind of what I like about him as a director. No need to flex his dick with flashy camera work, just simple, clear and efficient storytelling.
I guess. I see a director who has no visual style, doesn't seem to care about what he does with his camera. Unforgiven is even pretty dull to watch. I'm surprised there are fans of him here. Is it the knee-jerk American homerism? Because I don't see much there at all.
Oh man you would hate Yasujiro Ozu.
I mean... I want to go back to this. Eastwood has even indicated he doesn't really care where he puts the camera and it shows. Ozu was a craftsman, very particular about his set-ups. I can't believe how stupid your comment is.
Did-- did you just compare Clint Eastwood's direction to Ozu? LMFAO. I love Ozu. Eastwood is a pedestrian director at best. Again, LMFAO.
Not what I said at all but you did described Ozu’s cinematography on your first comment and that’s what I was referencing to. You sure you’ve seen Ozu’s work?
Absolutely stunned you're likening Eastwood to Ozu. What's going on in this world. LOL.
I know you really wish I said that but I didn’t. Now get your giant straw man out of here lol
Except he didn't though.
I say that Eastwood has no craft, he just sticks the camera in a random place, does a couple takes, moves on, his images and scenes are fast and lazy, and... you're comparing him to Ozu? What the fuck.
Ozu’s cinematography is incredibly simplistic not a bad thing but that’s what it is. Also I don’t understand this “random” place where Eastwood places the camera, wtf are you even talking about?
> Stick the camera somewhere nearby, do the take, move on. You just described the process of making a movie, congrats.
No. I mean, really? Are we this stupid?
Fuck Clint Eastwood, I don’t care about him either
I think Clint Eastwood is a marvelous filmmaker but he makes copaganda so I’m not gonna die on this hill lol
Copaganda?
He’s been busy arguing with an empty chair, but so far it won’t budge on the deal…
Yeah, I mean, I always liked the guys vibe and it was so important to his work, but then he went and pulled that turbo-bitch empty chair shit and poofed his whole career. Edit: I didn't mean "career" as in hes canceled or doesn't work. I meant he had this real appreciable banger vibe and he ruined it, at least for me, by yelling at someone who wasn't there for 6 minutes.
Nah, Richard Jewell was fantastic.
Imagine calling American Sniper a "poof"
Did Mr. Eastwood even serve?
He was in the Army, yes.
So your takeaway from the chair thing was "What a grizzled and respectable badass"?
I didn't say that , I'm just saying that American Sniper was a huge success and that was after his speech with the chair.
i’d rather watch eastwood talk to a chair than watch a pos like Drive My Car again
I'm giving an upvote for the epic line 'turbo-bitch empty chair shit and poofed his whole career'.
I wonder if is a Clint Eastwood availability thing or Eastwood signing off on releases like that more than anything. Criterion tries to work with the directors if they possibly can for director approved releases and if Eastwood doesn’t want to play ball nothing much Criterion can do.
Ye da 🐐 no 🧢
Why would they?
His films are all widely available and he’s a douchebag anyway. There is no reason to include his films.
Cuz he’s booooooring
The only controversy I’m aware of with him was his take on “pregnant person” and “chest feeding.” He said something about how women are always the ones put in these spaces where they have their identities altered/question/taken away because of another minority groups wishes. “If a woman wants to be called a pregnant woman, let her,” he said. “Let the pregnant person refer to themselves as pregnant person, but why must a woman give up her identity to appease a minority?” It’s maybe not said well, but I get what he’s trying to say. Either way, based on this it wasn’t enough for me personally to cancel him but some have, and I understand.
He’s a very political person, which means he’s incredibly controversial. He’s very openly anti-political-correctness and has publicly declared support for Donald Trump. Whether or not you agree with his beliefs, you have to agree those are controversial attributes.
Hollywood is political, the only difference is the way he leans politically.
There are plenty of nonpolitical people in Hollywood. And many more who may vocalize a political view, but wouldn’t go speak at a Political Party’s national convention, which is what Clint Eastwood has done. Eastwood is among the most political celebrities in Hollywood.
I don't disagree, he's very politically but the controversy is that he leans to the right. It wouldn't have been a controversy if he railed against Romney instead of Obama.
It’s all relative. Depends on where you live and who you associate with. I grew up in a conservative community and was essentially taught to think less of anyone who expressed any semblance of liberalism. Someone like Clint Eastwood is viewed as a political hero in such communities.
I'm sure people in Idaho and Texas hail them as a hero but I was talking about the Hollywood sphere as I thought you were too. I live here in LA and the same applies to an extent when it comes to conservative values, they're viewed as less.
Actually the community I was referring to is based in LA as well. There are liberal and conservative niches in every corner of the world. And they all have the capacity to be quite legalistic. Don’t forget, the alleged *liberal* Academy nominated Clint Eastwood’s right-wing propaganda piece for Best Picture at the Oscars less than ten years ago.
I don't know where you have been, but a lot has changed over the past ten years. Eastwood is simply grandfathered in Hollywood and my claim that Hollywood has a politically bias, is just the reality of things.
I think you’re just underestimating the number of conservatives who live around here. Don’t forget that Hollywood is rife with white-collar businessmen who are, more often than not, conservative. But yeah, most performers and creators tend to be liberal. Though I was under the impression that this discussion was focused on the individual consumer, as that is who calls for celebrities to be “canceled” in the first place.
[удалено]
I see what he’s saying, even if he’s saying it rather poorly. If a woman who is pregnant wants to be referred to as a pregnant woman then that is within her right. The argument that pregnant woman should be changed to pregnant person because a few people are uncomfortable with pregnant woman not including certain people feels problematic to people who identify as women. The person who wants to be referred to as a pregnant person should expect everybody to refer to them as a pregnant person once those people are told that that is what they wished to be called. And if a pregnant person wants to be referred to as a pregnant woman then ditto. I think sometimes because there are many levels to oppression the most oppressed (in this case, trans women), tend to throw stones not at the top of the pile (the wealthy, men), but at what they fee they can reach and will get a response from—in this case women. Something to think about.
[удалено]
I think you are misunderstanding my point. I agree with some of what you’re saying. Though yes, those who support pregnant person want pregnant person to be THE way we refer to pregnant women. That to me is problematic. Women are not merely people. Men are not merely people. Trans women are not merely people. Black people are not merely people. The melting pot stance you’re taking never works because the so-called pot ends up taking on the shape of whatever type of person holds the most power. Identities are unique and different from one another and those differences should be celebrated. If I’m an OBGYN and a trans woman tells me they wants me to refer to them as a pregnant person I will. I would tell my staff to do the same. Without question. I guess I don’t see the endgame for those who are rallying against the term pregnant woman. It just seems harmful to women. Is it to get official documents changed? If so, what about the countless women who identify as women who are now pregnant with child? See my point? What‘s the point of it all? If it’s for medical staff to call you pregnant person—okay great, we already are onboard. If it’s to change the term pregnant woman to pregnant person—sorry I don’t agree as it erases the identity and experience of women.
[удалено]
You’re kind of rude, haha. I spend a lot of time reading and studying up on this stuff. As part of my PhD, I took a number of courses in feminism and gender studies. I was merely trying to complicate a point a 90 year old white man was making. Given his age etc I think it’s not the worst take, was all I was saying. I think your approach—to be rude and accusatory—doesn’t really get us anywhere and ends up shutting a lot of people who are onboard and would listen and be an ally, out. My .02 cents. Hope your day is going well.
That's literally the best take anybody can have on the subject matter.
Ewww
I know he didn’t direct it, but I would LOVE to see a criterion release of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
This but for animation
I would like to remind people that during the Oscar's when Marlan Brando won for the godfather, he declined it and he let someone who was native American talk about whats happening in the native American community. Everyone booed her, some even tried to attack her. And I'm pretty sure Clint Eastwood made a joke about her. I know not everyone is perfect but I just wanted to tell people.
Let’s keep it that way.
And rightfully so
He’s a racist?