Tonight’s inspirational Super Bowl ad featuring Clint Eastwood on behalf of Chrysler is another in a long line of befuddling artistic and socially conscious choices by the famed filmmaker. You see, Eastwood didn’t vote for the man who saved Detroit, he went with the other guy.
What’s even more fascinating is this noted conservative, registered republican since 1951, supporter of republican presidential candidates from Richard Nixon to John McCain has the filmmaking heart of a liberal. Since 1988— with few exceptions— his films have centered around three particular themes: racism, feminism, and the futility of violence. Now this may be hard to imagine from Mr. “go ahead, make my day,” but consider the evidence.
Starting in 1988 with “Bird” his biopic of jazz legend Charlie Parker, Eastwood has consistently tackled social issues in nearly all his directorial efforts. “Bird” was a sympathetic look at the troubled life of the saxophonist Charlie Parker. Eastwood delved into his musical genius, his drug abuse, and his rocky long-term relationship with a white woman. The film was neither judgemental nor sentimental in looking at Parker’s career but it made perfectly clear the effects of racism on the troubled jazz man.
Eastwood has gone on to make three other films looking at the racial divide in this country. In a matter of fact way, “Unforgiven” (through the character played by Morgan Freeman) exposed the casual racism of the old west, but “Flags of Our Fathers” and “Gran Torino” delved more deeply into the subject. On the surface “Flags” would appear to be a very conservative pro-war film. However, take note of the character Ira Hayes as played by Adam Beach and his struggles as a native american trying to assimilate in an unforgiving post-war America. Eastwood makes it clear that although Hayes was a war hero, the USA was no place for a man of color to get ahead in. Now “Gran Torino” makes an even stronger comment than “Flags” by centering his story around the racist character of Walt Kowalski played by Eastwood himself. The character not only learns to accept the asian family that moves in next door to his Detroit home, but befriends them and is, in fact, willing to die for them. For good measure, Eastwood followed up “Torino” with Invictus, a film about Nelson Mandela’s efforts to bring together South Africa, post apartheid.
When it comes to the subject of feminism, Eastwood is probably not the first person whose name comes to mind. But take into consideration these three films, “Bridges of Madison County,” “Million Dollar Baby,” and “Changeling.” With “Bridges” Eastwood took an awful book and turned it into a sterling tale of the sexual awakening of a middle-aged Italian immigrant woman (Meryl Streep). Through her affair with the National Geographic photographer played by Eastwood we see the stifling effects of the 1960s on a traditional woman living in the midwest. Eastwood makes it clear through societal reasons and family circumstances that this is a woman who has not been allowed to live as she would wish. Nine years later Eastwood approached feminism from a more modern perspective with “Million Dollar Baby.” While “Million Dollar Baby” may seem more like a sports movie on the surface than a feminist outcry, Eastwood’s approach reflects the difficulty of a woman trying to enter the traditionally male dominated sport of boxing. Eastwood’s character, gym owner and trainer Frankie Dunn states early on that “I don’t train girls” but finds himself giving in to her (Hilary Swank) persistence and pluck.
More liberal still is “Baby’s” argument that a person not only has the right to live as they choose but also to die as they choose. Jack Kevorkian would have been proud. However, the strongest pro-feminist statement by Eastwood yet is Eastwood’s “Changeling” starring Angelina Jolie. The brilliant “Changeling” documents the true story of the 1928 abduction of a single mother’s (Jolie) son. There are many incredible twists and turns in “Changeling,” so much so that my jaw probably dropped five times while watching the picture. From the insistence of the Los Angeles police department that a boy found after the abduction is Jolie’s son (when he clearly is not) to a sub-plot involving a serial killer, “Changeling” is a doozy of a film. But its main focus is on that of a single mother trying desperately to find her son in the harsh pre-feminist atmosphere of 1920s America. At one point Jolie’s character is institutionalized for not accepting that the shorter, circumcised (her son was not) boy returned to her by the LAPD is not her son. For this she is treated like a hysteric and only freed to continue her search for her son thanks to a crusading minister (John Malkovich). In “Changeling,” Eastwood strikes a real blow against female oppression and for the feminist wave to come.
Still, I would say the most fascinating of the three main themes of the last 20 years of Eastwood’s career is that of the futility of violence. Now it may seem strange to think that “Dirty Harry” would make films that are statements against violence, but here again Eastwood subverts expectations. First with his all-time classic western “Unforgiven,” Eastwood made it clear that little good comes from violence. In a particularly telling scene, Eastwood’s vigilante Will Munny says to a member of his gang and first time killer (played by Jaimz Woolvett) that “It’s a hell of a thing to kill a man, you take away everything he has and everything he was gonna have.” The young, shaken wannabe gun slinger then says to Munny “I just don’t know if he (His first victim) deserved it.” Munny’s classic response? “deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”
Eastwood followed “Unforgiven” with his most underrated film, “A Perfect World” starring Eastwood and Kevin Costner. In “World” Costner plays a murderer who escapes from prison and then kidnaps a child (Eastwood is the local sheriff trying to catch them). What’s particularly interesting in “World” is the effort that Eastwood the director makes to understand the criminal played by Costner. He isn’t simply a bad man but more of a person from a terrible family background who never had a chance. Later, in Eastwood’s oscar winner “Mystic River,” Eastwood again returns to the wrong-headed, foolhardy theme of vigilante violence. In “Mystic,” the character played by Sean Penn takes the law into his own hands after the murder of his daughter. He ends up committing the same offense against a wrongly accused childhood friend. Like “A Perfect World,” (and “Gran Torino” as well) “Mystic” argues that people are a product of their environment and if they don’t break the cycle of violence they are doomed to fall victim to it.
Clint’s most recent film, “J. Edgar,” takes a sensitive and compassionate view of the titular, long-term, head of the FBI who was quite possibly gay (the movie insinuates more than it commits). On top of that, Eastwood has recently come out as at least a quasi-supporter of gay marriage.
As Eastwood put in a way that only he can:
“These people who are making a big deal about gay marriage?” Eastwood tells GQ Magazine. “I don’t give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We’re making a big deal out of things we shouldn’t be making a deal out of … Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want.”
Now I am willing to bet that Eastwood, the former republican mayor of Carmel, California (1986-1988) wouldn’t like being called a liberal on any level. I’m sure he would argue that over 50 years as a registered republican would qualify him as a card-carrying conservative. And politically that may be true. But when looking at his work on film over the last twenty years–as well as his pro-Motor City commercial–it’s difficult to reach the same conclusion. So Clint Eastwood the artistic, social liberal is certainly a label he would not feel that he deserves. But then “deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”
You should not make too many assumptions about Eastwood, especially without conducting the proper research first. (Although I appreciate that you appreciate many of his films and that you read them quite well.)
For instance, you call Eastwood a “noted conservative” and write, “I’m sure he would argue that over 50 years as a registered republican would qualify him as a card-carrying conservative.” But the opposite is true: Eastwood has specifically disavowed the idea that he is a conservative. In 2004, he told USA Weekend , “I don’t see myself as conservative.” And in 2007, Eastwood informed longtime film critic Philip French of London’s Observer, “I’m not really conservative.” So according to the man himself, Clint Eastwood is not a conservative. Certainly, he fails to view himself as a conservative and he refuses to identify himself as a conservative. In 1974, he told Playboy that he constituted “a political nothing,” although he supposed that he could be considered “a moderate.” Likewise, in 1976, Eastwood told Focus on Film that “I’m the most moderate person, politically,” while noting that he’d supported both Democrats and Republicans in California. (The recent historical record seems to verify this claim: although a registered Republican since he voted for Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, Eastwood voted for Democrat Gray Davis in California’s 1998 gubernatorial race and then hosted pricey fundraisers for Davis in 2002 and 2003, prior to the governor’s recall. In 2002, Eastwood also donated $1,000 to the reelection campaign of Representative Sam Farr, a liberal Democrat; one would need to presume that Eastwood voted for Farr as well.)
Granted, as he has often admitted, Eastwood believes in fiscal responsibility and smaller government, so in those senses, he is conservative. He has identified himself, for example, as a “fiscal conservative” and a believer in balanced budgets. But in 1974, Eastwood told Playboy that he was “liberal on civil rights” and the New York Times Magazine reported in 1985 that he believed strongly in civil rights (as well as fewer taxes). In 1997, Eastwood told Playboy that he’d always been pro-choice on abortion, a position that he recently reiterated to the Los Angeles Times. And Eastwood has informed multiple outlets in recent years, starting with USA Weekend in 2004 and continuing through GQ and the Los Angeles Times in 2011, that he sees nothing wrong with gay marriage and that he believes that gays should possess the right to marry. He also favors environmental protection (as he recently told the LA Times), worries about climate change or global warming, and has claimed that the best aspect of America is its “diversity” (not its “freedom,” which is the stock answer for conservatives). Indeed, Eastwood recently told the UK’s Daily Mail that he loved the fact that Obama proved multiracial. He has also spoken out against and campaigned against censorship and Eastwood long ago disavowed organized religion (although he admires Buddhism) and has acknowledged that he is at least agnostic, telling film critic Gene Siskel almost thirty years ago, “No, I don’t believe in God” (see the January 7, 1973, edition of the Chicago Tribune). And since becoming associated with the .44 Magnum in the 1970s, Eastwood has remarked that he actually favors gun control to some extent, expressing his belief that all guns should be registered and that ordering guns via mail should be illegal. In 1993, he voiced support for the Brady Bill and its federally mandated waiting period and he has often expressed disdain for hunting. As for foreign policy, Eastwood has long failed to toe a hawkish, Republican-oriented line. In 1969, he stated, “When I was in the Army I was against the Korean War, and I’m against the war in Vietnam” (see page 103 of Michael Munn’s Clint Eastwood: Hollywood’s Loner). And in 2011, he told the Daily Mail that he opposed both the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.
Indeed, you are “willing to bet” that Eastwood “wouldn’t like being called a liberal on any level” and you claim that “the artistic, social liberal is certainly a label he would not feel that he deserves.” Yet Eastwood has actually described himself as “a social liberal” (see the March 1999 edition of Premiere) and he has said (in a 1998 interview with the American Enterprise Institute) that his idea of a liberal was someone who believed in equality, a concept that he thoroughly supports. In 1982, for example, Eastwood donated to groups supporting the Equal Rights Amendment for women (see page 380 of Richard Schickel’s Clint Eastwood: A Biography), even though the Republican Party had turned against the ERA. As Eastwood stated to film critic and writer David Breskin a decade later, “I’m not in the Republicans’ camp.”
Indeed, let me also note that while Eastwood was a registered Republican, he was not the “Republican mayor” of Carmel, California because the position of mayor in that town was nonpartisan. Eastwood thus did not run on a Republican ticket or under a Republican banner, as that supposition amounts to yet another misnomer.
By the way, I would recommend studying Eastwood’s directorial films prior to 1988 as well. His two directorial Westerns from the 1970s, “High Plains Drifter” (1973) and especially “The Outlaw Josey Wales” (1976), expose bigoted stereotypes toward Native Americans and his 1985 Western, “Pale Rider,” critiques the rape of the land. “The Eiger Sanction” (1975) and “The Gauntlet” (1977) explore institutional corruption and the price of patriotism and loyalty in America, while “High Plains Drifter” explores the costs of capitalism and “The Outlaw Josey Wales” examines the ghosts of war and the legacy of violence. As for feminism, “Sudden Impact” (1983) is the film where Eastwood famously growls, “Go ahead, make my day,” but the movie also constitutes a feminist-revisionist neo-noir that sympathizes with the femme fatale and depicts the horror of rape. Likewise, the neo-noir “Tightrope” (1984), which Eastwood unofficially directed (official credit went to screenwriter Richard Tuggle), reveals the misogynistic threat of sexual violence in a big city. Indeed, in 1984, film professor Tom Stempel wrote in the Los Angeles Times that Eastwood amounted to “the most important and influential (because of the size of his audience) feminist film maker working in America today.” Back to the subject of racism, “White Hunter, Black Heart “(1990) examines the fallacies of colonialism and the racial arrogance that fueled it.
Really, Eastwood has been a fascinating, iconoclastic, subversive filmmaker since he began directing films at start of the seventies.
Yet he still voted for McCain. Fascinating.
McCain was at least a credible, decent candidate, not like the array of misanthropic nutjobs on offer now.
Once upon a time McCain actually had all his marbles and could be considered as a fairly decent Republican.
When he picked “that woman”…that crazy woman, as his running mate, I concluded that the old man had indeed “lost his marbles”.
Eastwood voted for McCain on the basis of his superior experience compared to Obama, later hinting that he may have voted for Hillary Clinton had she won the Democratic nomination.
Additionally, Eastwood had known McCain since 1973, when Ronald Reagan (then California’s governor) held a major welcoming function for Prisoners of War returning from Vietnam.
Eastwood was a Republican long before it became a dirty word that means “wing-nut extremist”. I hope that he and others who are starting to stir take back the GOP, (See “Wanted: One Sane Republican Voice”, http://thepoliticali.blogspot.com/2012/01/wanted-one-sane-republican-voice.html), so that there are two viable parties in this country. A real re-shuffling is in order.
Great post, David. I also know first hand that Clint route a large checks to restore the sea wall and many other environmentally sensitive areas in Carmel. He seems to fit the mold of an Eishenhower Republican which is fine by me. I would love to see him debate the rest of the Republican clowns running for president.
Debate? Aww hell that wouldn’t be any fun.
It’s Clint Eastwood, y’all.
Clint rocks!