Recovering from Hyper-Individualism, Rediscovering Faith: Gran Torino
Clint Eastwood's latest, and likely last acting role, exemplifies how much USAmericans need to recover from the hyper-individualism we've fallen into in recent decades. Our self-centered lives and lack of discipline have unraveled both our families and our faith. But the answer to this problem does not lie in verbal formulations or conspicuous displays of religiosity but rather in a willingness to embrace the other, especially those from the two-thirds world, and to rebuild an inclusive sense of family, one not limited by kinship ties, and ultimately to both let go of the myth of redemptive violence and embrace the truth that there really is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends(John 15:13).
This theme has been present in many of Eastwood's recent films.
In Unforgiven, we see a life seared by violence; a violence rooted in greed that leads us treat others as property.
In Mystic River, we see the vicious cycle of violence and the folly of thinking we have the right to decide who lives or dies.
In Million Dollar Baby(MDB), we see the inclusive sense of family providing renewed meaning to a life that otherwise is basically grasping the ropes. It also affirms the notion that no one should have the right to decide who lives or dies with its bitter-sweet ending, tho I've argued in the past that Eastwood's character did not murder Swank's character.
In Flags of Our Fathers, the message was that the only thing heroic in battle is a willingness to lay down your life for your friends and to keep their memories alive...
So God Bless Eastwood, and may his films be harbingers of the coming revival!!!
-
Comment by dlw on January 15, 2009 at 3:03pm -
on further reflection, it also is clear that Eastwood is saying that it doesn't matter which words you use(ergo the colorful exchanges made with the barber friend), what matters it what you mean by them and how you act on them. When he gave confession(first to the priest, second to Toad), we see him making a character revelation. He never cared much for the Church and "superstitions" but it seems he had tried long to hold himself to its teachings on right and wrong and didn't see serving his country as a soldier as a sin per se. Although, he should have disobeyed the orders of his commanders for the time when he was rewarded for "clearing out" the enemy camp.
dlw
-
Comment by Tony Mills on January 15, 2009 at 5:20pm - dlw, thanks for this Eastwood blog. I just watched Gran Torino and I very much appreciate that Walt (his character) chose not to perpetuate the cycle of violence, which was very much Eastwood's style in his early films. I think the film, though, is asking us to reflect on issues larger than his particular views on right and wrong, or on whether or not what he did as a soldier was appropriate. It takes those heinous acts for granted, acknowledging that they have made him the bitter and troubled person he is for most of the film. The larger issue, it seems to me, has to do with vengeance and the cycle of violence. All along we expect him to take care of the bad guys by killing them, and instead he offers himself up in order to get rid of the gang by the rule of law, i.e. they are seen shooting him and are hauled off to prison. He does this not primarily as an act of vengeance, but an act of love and sacrifice for Tao and Sue. This is confirmed upon seeing his cruciform body after he falls dead. The irony, perhaps we can say, is that for all of his ambivalence about religion, he ends up doing the most Christlike thing, in the one act atoning for both his past sins and opening a future for the neighbors he has come to love.
-
Comment by dlw on January 15, 2009 at 8:00pm
-
If you read my initial post, I agree with you. It is in my comment that I give my interp of the implications of his confession, which basically I see it as a rejection of pacifism and an affirmation of patriotism and the legit uses of the threat of violence by the authorities(with Clint having more or less been a de facto authority in recent history, which is critiqued.).
Well, I'd say, from my own recall, that Eastwood's Dirty Harry was a propaganda tool for the myth of redemptive violence during the Cold War. Eastwood has turned away from that.
I think of the ending of "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", which enabled two not-as-great gunmen to defeat a very good gunman. And then, Clint's character doesn't trust the Mexican, but he does hold to his word this time and not backstab him. Instead, he simply makes sure that he's far away from him when the Mexican is finally able to collect his share of the gold. It doesn't entail reconciliation, but it does say we should keep our commitments.
-
Comment by dlw on January 16, 2009 at 12:28pm
-
I guess what I find piquant for me is that Eastwood's film suggests that one need not be a pacifist to hold the view that it is only self-sacrificial acts of love that can move us forward, ultimately. Moving forward entails finding room for people from other cultures to embrace the "best" of USAmerican culture and to be accepted here as a distinct brand of USAmerican.
dlw
-
Comment by dlw on February 1, 2009 at 12:07pm
-
Saw Changeling at a 2 dollar theater last night. ***spoilers****
Loved it, in part because the pacing and ending were quite different from what one expects... It was real. It offered no pat answers to Jolie's sufferings from the loss of her son and a subtle critique of hell-speak, lovingly coupled with an affirmation of the hope stemming from her son having done the right thing. I think a succinct statement of the implicit theology of my posting about movies is that I view and treat "good" movies in the same way I view "good" sermons. It's not unlike the way the Puritans would listen to long sermons early in US history, albeit with our attention sustained through the infusion of considerable ear and eye-candy...
dlw
Comment
© 2010 Created by J. Christopher LaTondresse
You need to be a member of Recovering Evangelical to add comments!
Join Recovering Evangelical