Clint Eastwood Returns to the Western in Cry Macho

Hello MOFOs. Clint Eastwood, who is 91, is releasing a new movie on September 17th, which he is directing and starring in. A plot description, which has a neo-western theme, is below.

From Warner Bros. Pictures come director/producer Clint Eastwood’s uplifting and poignant drama “Cry Macho.” The film stars Eastwood as Mike Milo, a one-time rodeo star and washed-up horse breeder who, in 1979, takes a job from an ex-boss to bring the man’s young son home from Mexico. Forced to take the backroads on their way to Texas, the unlikely pair faces an unexpectedly challenging journey, during which the world-weary horseman finds unexpected connections and his own sense of redemption.

What does everyone think of this? Does this look like it will be a good movie to you? Could this be a Best Actor play for Eastwood in the twilight of his career?

Trailer is below

Looks like an okay, safe eastwoodesque eastwood. A bit gran torino, a bit honkytonk man, a bit josey whales. A secret sequel to bronco billy ? (Haven't seen that one) Eastwood is good at road movies.

Looks good, but I'm also getting slight Mule vibes...hoping it's better than that.

__________________

Can't wait. Been excited since news broke that he was filming it. Hope i love it as much as I've loved his other recent stuff

I've been an Eastwood fan since his beginnings. He's always made entertaining pictures-- some of course better than others. But I think he simply genuinely enjoys making movies. At his age, and with his fortune, it's doubtful that he yearns for another Oscar. He's already received Academy Awards, DGA awards, Golden Globes, and People's Choice Awards.

Hell, 30 years ago I was concerned that he wouldn't be able to bring off his part in Unforgiven (1992)! But Clint will do just fine in this new picture. I'm not crazy about the title. Perhaps it's a nod to the PC crowd. But I doubt it..

Looking forward to it!

Just read this storyline on IMDB for Cry Macho...sounds like a basis for a good story.

it looked like CGI clint

I'll watch it.

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

I'll watch it, too. But even though I like Eastwood's work, this does look very...on the nose. I feel like maybe I've seen it already. I'll actually see it to make sure, but you know what I mean, probably.

This is the first time I've thought he's really showed his age, though. Dude's held up awfully well overall, of course, but he's 91 and he looks 91 at this point. I'm impressed he's still doing this.

They say the camera makes you look older…

..and 10 pounds thinner

As an Eastwood fan, I almost always enjoy films he acts in more than films which he only directs, so on that level, I'm definitely looking forward to this. At the same time, he chose a cast of mostly unknown actors for this film, and he's had mixed success with that in the past. It It worked well in "A Perfect World" and "Letters from Iwo Jima," but the boy in particular looks to me to be a pretty bad actor, reminding me of the mostly unknown Hmong cast he used in "Gran Torino," the use of which I would argue did not work to the benefit of the film.

On a deeper level, as Yoda stated, this definitely seems to be a film that thematically he's done many other times before. At its heart, this feels to me like a road trip movie that involves an older man mentoring a younger person and using his life to teach and better the life of his mentee through imparting wisdom forged by a lifetime of experience. He's already done that quite recently as both an actor and as a director (Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino, The Mule). This theme was also explored earlier in his career as well ("Honkytonk Man", "A Perfect World"). In addition to hearing more about what all of you think about this project based on the trailer/plot description, I'd also love to hear why you think Eastwood appears to be driven to make the same film over and over again recently, at least thematically?

In addition, this film, like "Gran Torino", "American Sniper", "Sully", "The 15:17 to Paris" and "The Mule", seems to skew quite right-wing, at least socio-politically, so I'd also love to hear everyone's thoughts on why you think Eastwood appears to be attracted to skewing so far in that direction at this point in his decades-long career? His filmography as a whole, with some outlier exceptions, really doesn't have the same slant to it, so I'm struggling to understand why he seems compelled to be offering these thinly veiled right wing socio-political commentaries at this stage of his life and career? What say you, MOFOs?

I say: in what way is Cry Macho 'thinly veiled right wing socio-political commentaries'?... I haven't seen the trailer, but I read the story outline on IMDB and I seen nothing that would be 'thinly veiled right wing socio-political commentaries.'
Sounds like you might be confusing the man and his personal views with his art.

I was excited for The Mule and had a great time with that. I don't think it's possible for me not to get hyped over a movie starring and directed by Clint Eastwood.
I know people have accused his films of getting too political lately, but besides the ending of American Sniper they do what Clint has always done: Tell human stories of love, redemption and trying to find a purpose in life. Even if they did contain conservative elements it's not done in a distasteful manner and I'm enjoying myself too much to care anyway.

__________________

He's a conservative person, and people's ideology tend to find an expression in their art, so I don't see anything odd with that. He has his own worldview, sensitivity and opinions, he expresses them. Who doesn't ? When a movie seems politically neutral to you, chances are it simply espouses your default views (you know, the fish's own aquarium water). Ideology is the other person's ideology.

That being said, I usually find his movies more clever, more subtle and more multi-sided that his public postures. Even though I haven't seen many of his latest movies, I always liked their complexities. There are good reasons why this conservative artist is so immensely beloved by right-wingers and left-wingers alike.

As for this specific movie, as I said in my first post, it looks like a patchwork of earlier films, but from that trailer, I expect a deconstruction of manly manhood fantasies (macho models as overrated). Many of his later movies have been this to some extent. Now, Eastwood being Eastwood, I expect a somewhat complex take on this, with both sides of the coin.

But also, even though he has his recurrent themes and discourses, he's also unpredictable (Million Dollars Baby and Grand Torino are movies that don't go in their expected directions, and strongly deviate from their stereotypical premises), so, speculation is pointless to a point.

Citizen Rules, you could be right. We don't really know enough about this film to definitively conclude whether this film will be conservatively-oriented. However, Nick Schenk is one of the screenwriters, and since he also wrote both "Gran Torino" and "The Mule," and both of those were seen by many to be inspired by a conservative ideology or orientation, it is not an unreasonable inference that this film may also be similarly focused.

Additionally, my comments referred more to the arc of Eastwood's recent films than this particular film. In my opinion, even without "Cry Macho" being included, there is a clear trend in that direction in his recent work. For example, it's hard to see "Richard Jewell" without acknowledging that it was partly made to reinforce the belief on the part of many conservatives that the media is unreliable and often can't be trusted to communicate accurate, unbiased, objective information, and that distrust of government bureaucracies like the FBI are also warranted. Both of these themes are foundational to the film and heavily articulated and reinforced by many conservatives today.

In addition, the theme of "Cry Macho" is arguably also influenced by conservative points of view with a white older man teaching a Hispanic younger boy about life and imparting his wisdom. The idea that elders should be respected and that they have things to teach the youth, and that a white man would be looked upon to do that for a Hispanic boy, is a conservative oriented outlook.

A liberal outlook, though not embraced by all liberals, may instead be that an older white man does not know about the experience of a younger boy that descends from an ethnically, disadvantaged, marginalized group, and that an older white man may actually perpetuate ideas from their experience that may be outdated, that may not reflect the boys experience, and that may result from an adherence to traditional and institutional structures and systems that may be outdated and that may need to be changed to better cater to the needs of marginalized groups. A liberal might also argue that older white men already have too much influence in society and that the boy actually may have more things to teach the older white man than the older white man would have to teach the boy as a result. They may also argue that the time for older white men to exercise power and authority may be coming to an end, that the old should yield power to the youth, and that for society to advance fresher ideas from members of more diverse groups need to be embraced. So even with the limited information we have about this film, you can see the influence of a more conservative rather than liberal orientation.

Flicker, this is a very legitimate point. Clint Eastwood is a Republican, and its natural that he'd be influenced by that in his art, but he has spoken about being a libertarian who is fiscally quite conservative, but socially quite liberal. He signed an amicus brief that went to the Supreme Court advocating for gay marriage, he's always been pro-choice, he's also an environmentalist, as he has bought land and then donated it to prevent development in Monterey.

What strikes me is how culturally conservative his most recent work is. Libertarians are typically more culturally liberal than conservative, but his recent output is quite culturally conservative, so I'm seeking to explore why that's happening at the end of his career when it was not as present in most of his earlier work.

I'd argue that much of his work doesn't have an ideology at all, or may have even reflected a more liberal ideology (Million Dollar Baby, Letters from Iwo Jima, Invictus) Unforgiven and Mystic River (which both show the deleterious consequences of violence), to name just a few, while his recent work is quite culturally conservative. Why is that?

I also agree with you that Eastwood's work is more nuanced and complex than his detractors acknowledge, but even as an Eastwood fan who is open to a variety of political viewpoints, in my opinion, there is a conservative leaning in his work that is recent and which I don't have an explanation for, so interested in exploring that here.

I'm not sure where you get that idea, but we're treading dangerous waters here, forumically.

Libertarians are generally very right-winged. Their major drive is "less state, less taxes", which also means "less social support, more social darwinism, if you're poor in a free market then you deserve it" with the idea that moral virtues lead to wealth. They are neoliberals, which is the opposite of liberals (to make things more complicated, of course, the word "liberal" in the USA means leftist, whereas in Europe it means ultra-capitalist - not even illogically : it's about "liberty" and everyone is pro-"liberty", but given how many freedoms are mutually exclusive, it's all about which ones a "freedom-lover" defends at the expanse of which ones).

But one source of confusion is also the fact that these words flatten everything onto one axis. Political positioning is usually made on two axes, one being economic freedom, and the other being lifestyle freedom. People's positions are often situated along a diagonal (usually socially progressive people have the state control a lot of the economy, and socially conservative people usually want free market), but communists tend to be very controlling in both private freedoms and commercial freedoms, and libertarians tend to be very permissive in both.

Still, the economic axis is usually the one that most determines political affiliations, when it comes to left/right political parties (parliaments tend to be organised around this one main axis).

Then, there's the self-identification to a political side. Left-wing people praise themselves in being left-wing, right-wing people praise themselves in being right-wing. Less than descriptive, labels become their own rewards, and a stake of "loyalty" or "betrayal". Strangely often, people simply vote in knee-jerk accordance to which label signifies "the good guys" in their book, according to their parents, peers, etc. And so, you can have staunch proponents of one side holding sensitivities of the other, but still framing them accordingly to their pre-defined voting choices. And this kind of investment in a political identity is particularly strong in times of polarized "culture wars" ("you sound like one of THEM"), or when family stories are anchored in civil war histories ("THEY killed my grandpa"), etc. See how many people filter facts (on covid, on ecology, on gender violence, etc) based solely on "which political side says what" - and even try to politically situate objective facts (or their implications, or their information origins) before acknowledging or rejecting them.

So, a traditional Republican or a traditional Democrat will generally take the stances that make him or her sound most Republican or Democrat to their peers and to their own ears. Especially when "their side" is under attack. And, by the same logic, will be reluctant to make concede anything to what is labelled "the other side", by fear of betraying their peers or weakening their invested identity.

And then, there's also nationalism. In both traditional conservative and libertarian versions of the right, there's a strong value put on strength, manhood, "macho" values, etc. You know, gun protection, autonomy, dominance, and the protective role of the patriarch (the family's or the State's). Which also means that, in contexts of geopolitical crises, such as the Cold War or the post 9/11, both value armed chestpounding and manly self-affirmation more than pacifism, analytical hesitancy, blame sharing, and other "wimpy" nuances. And Eastwood went full "war on terror" on a few of his recent movies. When the militarist drums of patriotism are beaten, they tighten a bit people's values, identities and affiliations.

So. In short :

1° Libertarians are generally right-winged, and the Republican values on economy are more important to their core than the Democrat values on lifestyle diversity.

2° Plus, Eastwood is a faithful self-identified Republican who will close ranks in times of crisis.

3° Plus, Eastwood is a reagan-era patriot who will more easily support a dirty harry geopolitical response than showing "signs of weaknesses".

4° Also, he's an old school conservative with values from the John Wayne era. He's 91 years old, of course he doesn't have the same sensitivities as the next generations of Eastwoods. He hasn't been socialized the same way.

So, I really don't see anything confusing in his conservatism. On the opposite, he always surprises me when he nuances it and shows a very strange, touching reflexivity on characters where he both mocks and justifies himself.

All his recent themes are studies of impossible moral dilemmas, but impossible dilemmas in real time situations, where you cannot afford an 6 months ethics seminary to cleverly untangle them. Real time situations where you have to opt for one of the unsatisfactory options, and then will be judged for it by people who have had all the time in the world. But... in a way, it also feels like his take on life, and his own in particular. A blink-and-you-miss-it lifetime (like ours all) where we have to choose what we are, say, think, feel, based on what we have at hands. As the communist poet Louis Aragon wrote : "by the time one learns to live, it's already too late". Eastwood is a product of ancient cultural constraints, his eyes open on the current cultural constraints and the discrepancies between both. My impression is he knows he isn't free from them, he know we aren't free from ours, and he hangs onto what seems to make (or used to make) most sense to him, as his feet lose stability on those shifting grounds he describes. His contradiction is that, even in uncertainty, he prefers to express a strong opinion than a timid one. I think it's very existential, a matter of self-affirmation. It's what being a man means to his eyes. Right or wrong, he prefers to make a choice, in the instant of life, rather than feeling inhibited by doubt.

His films and his life are in this hesitation. In this hesitation, he knows he doesn't always make the ideal choice. His movies tell us he knows. His movies also tell us to piss off with our judgments on that.

__________________
Get working on your custom lists, people !

I seen both Gran Torino and The Mule and I didn't see any endorsement of right wing/ conservative ideology in either film.

Bashing the current media and not trusting the FBI cuts across all political persuasions, it's not just a conservative/right wing thing.

Ugh. So you're having problems that an old white man (Eastwood) would have his character showing support to a young Hispanic male? I'd call that Eastwood's way of showing support for Hispanic Americans. If he befriended a young white male he'd be called a racists for not having a more diversified cast.

Oh good grief! You need to replace the word 'liberal' in your that last paragraph with the word 'uber-wokeness' because that's what you actually described.

Flicker, thanks for your thoughtful analysis on political labels and categorizations. I can't comment on all of the substance, as I'm not as familiar with the precise meaning of the political or socio-cultural labeling that you describe, and how it differs in the US vs other places. But, I have always read that libertarians are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal, and that they have a live and let live mentality and are typically not prone to supporting government intervention to regulate people's behavior. To me, that's a very liberal orientation. I do agree with you that this kind of labeling is reductive, that it may not fully represent the range of most people's views even within a political party, and that there has been a tendency for an in group/out group mentality to grow recently, which does lead to polarization and the adoption of more extreme views across the spectrum.

I've never heard Eastwood's work described in quite the way you have, but I like the analysis. I do agree that much of Eastwood's work involves men who must act quickly, who must decide on the appropriate course of action without complete information, who are often failed by institutions and systems who are ostensibly there to protect them, and who must act alone to do what is believed to be right or just. I also think that Eastwood's work highlights the frailty of the human condition, the darkness in men's souls, and the penchant for many of us to succumb to our darker impulses. It is also an examination of the consequences that result from those choices. To name just a few films, "Bridges of Madison County, ""Million Dollar Baby," "Gran Torino," "The Mule," "Unforgiven" and "Mystic River" all explore these themes.

Citizen Rules, when I described the liberal point of view, I was not describing my own view. I was describing how a liberal may perceive the main conceit of the film in order to substantiate my earlier point that the plot and characterizations of the film appeared to be influenced by a conservative orientation or ideology. I don't actually hold these views. Like you say, I think they are a bit extreme, but they are a growing influence in the Democratic Party, and I think are ascending. While moderate/conservative Democrats do still hold the power and those candidates appear to be winning elections now, the future of the Democratic Party, and the views that are gaining strength, are consistent with what I described.