Is Clint Eastwood a better director than he is an actor?

A lot of people seem to believe that Clint Eastwood is a better director than he is an actor. If you had to choose one, on which side would you come down? Do you think he's a better actor or a better director? Please limit yourself to one. I know that he can do both. When answering this question, please answer it not with respect to whether you personally prefer Eastwood more in the role of an actor than a director, as I think that would be true for most people, and anyone who is an Eastwood fan. What I am asking is, if you had to pick one, do you believe Eastwood has more talent and ability as a director, or as an actor, and why?

In addition, do you believe that it is true that Eastwood has a limited range as an actor? If so, why? If not, why do you think there is the perception out there that Eastwood doesn't have much talent as an actor? Discuss!

Yes, he definitely is. He's a good actor but a great director.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

As sometimes happens with actors, he has become a better actor as he has gotten older, and he also has improved as a director, which is rare.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

For me, as Mr Eastwood has got older he has become a better actor, but his directing is great. I love Gran Torino especially.

__________________
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist – Verbal Kent

Clint Eastwood is an American icon.
As an actor he has created ever lasting charcaters such as Dirty Harry and the cool gunslinger in many of his westerns.
But unlike most other actors that would forever become stereotyped by those roles, Eastwood demostrated a versatility with movies such as Play Misty For Me, The Bridges Of Madison County, Heartbreak Ridge, Space Cowboys and Blood Work. He even showed his comic side In Every Which Way But Loose and Any Which Way You Can.
As a director, even directing himself in many of his movies, he truly came into his own and the " I don't give a damn " and " don't mess with me " action hero showed a meticulous and introspective side to him with movies such as A Perfect World and Mistyc River and gave us gems like Million Dollar Baby and Gran Torino.
He directed the ultimate post classic western " The Unforgiven " and gave us a thought provoking image of war as seen from both sides of the conflict:
Flags Of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima.
For me, there is no choice when it comes to Clint Eastwood. He is the complete movie persona.

He's definitely a better director than he is an actor. It surprises me that I don't like that much of his directorial output, but he's, in my opinion, a very controlled, almost masterful handler of the material he sets out to envision.

Plus, A Perfect World kicks ass.

__________________
"George, this is a little too much for me. Escaped convicts, fugitive sex... I've got a cockfight to focus on."

As a director hes an artist. A sound storyteller, and knows what a fan wants. His acting has mainly been one character, siimilar to John Wayne in that regard, and the only exceptional acting would have to be The Bridges Of Madison County. Other then Every Which Way But Loose his comedic side shows itself in the most subtle ways. He may end up being the last great subtle director. I hope not.

^ Tongo is spot on with the acting. He is most definitely better at directing.

Well I've got to say better director. I say the films that he's been at acting, he's still better at directing (Gran Torino, Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby). Though he's still a good actor, too.

Yes.

To me, an actor should be able to play a wide variety of different roles, and do so convincingly. Clint Eastwood does have a limited range, but I don't think it's actually as limited as people who are unfamiliar with his career believe. I am not meaning to suggest that you are unfamiliar with his career, but this characterization is something that I hear a lot from people whose actual exposure to his films is limited. His character in "The Beguiled" is totally different than "Dirty Harry." "In the Line of Fire" and "The Bridges of Madison County" are very different movies, where Eastwood plays very different roles. To say that every role he plays is some variation of "Dirty Harry" or the "Man with No Name" really isn't true.

Both...I can't decide.

10 people polled for Director and no actors votes...so I voted actor because, his a great actor to!

People, get your head out of the gutter LOL!

I was thinking about this thread the other day, and it occurred to me that other actors have a similarly limited range but are considered to be far better actors than Eastwood. An example that came to mind was Tommy Lee Jones. Tommy Lee Jones is great in the "Fugitive" type roles that he plays, but he is always pretty much the same. The loner, no-nonsense, ornery, cantankerous figure whose focus and determination shines through. He's good at the role, but with rare exception, it's all he ever really does. In addition, in interviews and in anecdotal accounts of people who have worked with him, he has always been portrayed in a similar way as well. Unlike Eastwood, who appears very different in interviews and in the accounts of people who have worked with him than he does onscreen, Jones roles seem to be entirely consistent with who he is as a person. As a result, I think it's fair to say that Jones is almost always playing some version of himself. I like Tommy Lee Jones as an actor, so this is not a personal criticism. It's a discussion point which is relevant to the analysis of Eastwood's acting ability. In my view, what Jones does takes far less acting ability than portraying characters that are actually very different than how you are in real life, which is what Eastwood has done. In fact, I think a case can be made that the fact that so many people think that Eastwood actually is that way in real life is evidence of a greater than acknowledged acting ability. He has been able to convince millions of people that "he is that guy," when people who actually know him tell us that he is not.

Why does everyone think that actors like Tommy Lee Jones, who also have a fairly limited range, and who portray characters that are much closer to their real life personas, are recognized and thought of as great actors, while Eastwood, to many, is not?

I like Clint Eastwood, but to compare him to Tommy Lee Jones, you must be kidding.

Jones is a trained actor with experience on the stage. Eastwood isn't, he was discovered for his look as was many actors who were known for westerns like John Wayne, Gary Cooper, and Randolph Scott. It took awhile for Eastwood to develop as an actor while he appeared on screen. Jones was already there. Jones may be in a rut lately, but he has an intensity and way more memorable performances than Eastwood. Eastwood started developing a persona, which is what non stage trained actors do, then went deeper as he matured, so he was no longer collected mannerisms. Jones went the other way, the Jones screen persona started around the time of The Fugitive. Can you see Clint Eastwood as Gary Gilmore? Well, yes, but it would have been a more tightly controlled detached performance. Jones can disappear into a role, or could do it in the past. Not Eastwood. It is always degrees of Eastwood.

Substitute Eastwood for Jones while watching this. Eastwood is much more a minimalist in his acting.

&feature=relmfu

Thanks for your insights, Will. I honestly haven't really seen Jones work pre-"The Fugitive." I also was unaware of his stage work earlier in his career. I think you do make some good points, but I do think that my initial point does stand. Jones may not be the best example, but I do believe that there are actors that have a similarly limited range but whose reputations are strong as actors. I wonder why Eastwood, who admittedly also has a limited range, is seen as a much weaker actor than many others whose abilities are also narrow in scope.

For those who don't know, Jones went to Harvard, became good friends there in the '60s with Al Gore, and that he and Gore are supposedly the basis of Ryan O'Neal's character in Love Story. Not coincidentally, Tommy Lee's first film was Love Story.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I generally can't stand the films Eastwood has directed, and think they have got worse (or at least less interesting) over time. They have degenerated into silly, lumpy, tedious sludge. He did have a spark once upon a time- I really liked The Outlaw Josey Wales for one, and his films in the 70s and 80s were generally less self-conscious and usually more fun, but I haven't really liked an Eastwood film since Unforgiven. They're not all awful (though some are, Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby for example), but they are never more than boringly average- I've seen most of his films since, and there are none I'd choose to watch again.

He does have quite a presence as an actor though.

Steve, would you care to expand on your thoughts on this? What it is about Eastwood's post-Unforgiven work that you don't like? Have you seen "Gran Torino?" I don't think it's awful or "boringly average." I found it to be poignant and emotionally resonant. Given Eastwood's history as an actor, I found it's conclusion to be a perfect commentary on his work up to that point. It perfectly tracked his evolution as an actor and filmmaker, and was very effective at subverting his image. What about "Letters from Iwo Jima?" Have you seen that? It's not exactly "fun" but I do think it's extremely well made. Since you did like "Unforgiven," what to you was different about that film that made you like it more? It seems to me that Unforgiven is quite in line with much of his later work.

I think it is ridiculous to say that they are awful.