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

He's directed such good movies, like Mystic River and Gran Torino, but lately he's just made crap. Invictus was alright, but I don't think I could watch it over and over again like some of his other efforts. Hereafter and J. Edgar were just plain awful though, both nearly put me to sleep in a movie theater, which never happens for me. It's just really hard to compare, because none of the movies he's acted in has done this for me, but they all haven't been top notch roles either.

I would say that Letters from Iwo Jima is the best thing that Eastwood has done since Unforgiven. It's pretty good, it flows much better than most of the molasses-slow work he's done in recent decades, and to an extent it earns its emotional weight rather than assumes it has some because of the self-importance of the plotting or the heft of the actors. At times it appears to have actual insight, and there are one or two shocking moments. The acting is good- and let me point out that that is usually the case with Eastwood films: I don't doubt he has a pretty good way with actors, I just don't value that as highly as some do.

While I don't like Gran Torino very much, I dislike it a lot less than most of his recent films. I think I even made it through in one sitting. I attribute much of that to its more relaxed tone- which made it easier to suspend disbelief- and to the use of his character that you mention (he has been an ******* many times, but rarely as gross as here- it's quite a challenge to keep watching this repulsive scumbag). I didn't find any of the poignancy you did (because I did not believe in, and felt nothing for, the characters), and don't really see any depth in it, but I do appreciate that it's a little different from, and less 'boringly average' than the majority of his recent output, for sure.

Unforgiven is not among my favorite Westerns or anything, and I'll take The Outlaw Josey Wales over it any day. But I do see it as way above anything Eastwood has done since, even as he has rehashed some themes, actors, performances and so on. It has the clarity, momentum and force that his subsequent films have lacked. It was the last time I felt he really plowed new ground or found something new to say in a genre. I also see it as Eastwood's last iconic performance.

And I think they are ridiculous films which try to get away with moronic plots by submerging them in tonnes of deadening, dull self-seriousness. That's a characteristic of a lot of this unimaginative director's films, but it's rarely worse than in those two films.

I'm kind of indifferent because although I've seen a close amount of movies he acted in and directed, I think if it came down to it, which it has in this forum, that he is a better actor simply because he makes me laugh. I've always considered him a brittle looking man, even when he was younger. To me that gave him a rustic and old fashioned feel that in itself always made me smile. One of my favorite movies he directed of course is "Gran Torino" The story was sentimental and realistic to current and past situations. BUT! He also acted in the movie and was the main character. I don't even think that when I watched the movie I knew he directed it.

I think you need to rewatch Mystic River. First off, it's based off a Lehane novel, and 2nd I don't think Lehane's plot is moronic at all and I don't know how you could think that. There may be spots were Mystic River may not be the best to some people, but I wouldn't blame the plot.

If you liked "Unforgiven," why don't you like those other films? More than anything else, "Gran Torino" thematically resembles "Unforgiven." They are both strong anti-violence films which show the cost of vengeance and the redemptive power of non-violence. I don't understand how you could like "Unforgiven" but dislike "Mystic River" and "Gran Torino," which dealt with the same themes. I personally did not find "J. Edgar," "Invictus," or "Hereafter" to be as enjoyable, or as interesting, as most of Eastwood's recent work, so on that point we do agree, though I do think they are both worthwhile efforts, while you seem not to.

I'll say director, but the more I think about it, the more I think it's close. He's made some awfully good films, but he's made some fairly dull ones, too. I'm not sure how to compare that kind of peak/trough division with the steady (but fairly one-note) performances he usually gives. I probably enjoy his work as an actor more, but then, I rather like the type of character he usually plays, and tend to like it independent of whatever the degree of difficulty might be on squinting and looking tough.

What were the "awfully good films" and the "fairly dull ones," in your estimation? Overall, what's your opinion of Eastwood as an actor and director? Many feel that Eastwood lacks talent as an actor. I disagree, as you will see if you take the time to read through the earlier posts in this thread. What's your read on that?

I saw only 3 films directed by Eastwood (Gran Torino,Changeling,Million Dollar Baby) but I just didn't like them.Maybe I haven't seen enough but I think he is a better actor than he is a director.

__________________
"Anything less than immortality is a complete waste of time."

Million Dollar Baby was tremendous and Mystic River was very good, (I'd put Gran Torino just a bit below). But I don't have the enthusiasm for Unforgiven that others do, for example. It'd probably be fairer of me to give him an incomplete on this front, since I haven't seen some of his more recent films. I know by reputation that they're apparently pretty slow, but admittedly, I'd have to see for myself to say for sure.

Anyway, I think I agree that he's a talented actor. I think the fact that he plays somewhat similar characters is a) not a huge deal, and b) probably discounting the subtleties of his performances. That said, I don't think it's unfair to suggest that he hasn't demonstrated the widest range as an actor, whether he has it or not. I certainly don't think it'd be accurate to say he's a one-trick pony, or that he can't act, but I definitely wouldn't call him a great actor, either. I think he's a great talent, however.

It sounds like you and me are in agreement on this for the most part. Clint Eastwood is by far my favorite actor and there is no one whose films I am more interested in seeing, but I do admit that he does have a limited range. I do, however, feel as if people who don't think he's much of an actor for the most part are really not very familiar with his career. Like you, "Unforgiven" is not among my favorite Eastwood films. As for his recent work, I am far less interested in the work that he only directs, but of his director-only efforts "Bird," "Mystic River and "Letter from Iwo Jima" are standouts. I would also recommend "Changeling." I think "Letters from Iwo Jima" is one of the best films Eastwood has made, but since it's told entirely in Japanese, and seeks to present the Japanese perspective of America's efforts in World War II, few people have actually seen it. I do think Eastwood is a much better director than he is an actor though, so on that point, we may diverge.

I didn't want to color this thread with my own perceptions because I wanted to get other people's thoughts before offering my own, but now that many have commented, I'll give my thoughts. I think he's a much better director than he is an actor. Eastwood's range as an actor is somewhat limited. I don't think it's as limited as many believe it to be, but he is not an especially versatile actor. I don't think a credible argument can really be made that he belongs in the elite class as an actor. There are many actors who are his contemporaries who are much better actors than Eastwood. Gene Hackman and Anthony Hopkins are two that come to mind. I think his range as a director is also somewhat limited, but it is far more versatile than his range as an actor. Eastwood has directed a wide variety of different films, of varying scopes, and with rare exception, he has done so competently. Where I personally believe Eastwood lacks skills is in directing large-scale films. I personally believe he is much better at directing small, character-driven stories than large-scale productions. If you look at the films in his career that have been the best as a director, they are all small, character-driven pieces. "Unforgiven," "A Perfect World," "The Bridges of Madison County," "Mystic River," "Million Dollar Baby," "Letters from Iwo Jima," "Gran Torino." Contrast this with "Changeling," "Invictus," "Hereafter," and "J.Edgar." I think this weakness can be seen even within individual films themselves. The first part of "Space Cowboys," was much better than the parts where the characters were in space. Once the film moved from small and character-driven to the larger space mission the film became much weaker. I also couldn't see Eastwood directing "Harry Potter" or a James Bond film. Large scale, highly technical films are not his strong suit, though a case could be made that that could be due in part to a lack of interest in addition to any perceived lack of ability. Even given these weaknesses, I still think as a director Eastwood's record is pretty impressive.

Not only this, but Eastwood has directed 10 different actors in Oscar-nominated performances: Gene Hackman, Meryl Streep, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Marcia Gay Harden, Hilary Swank, Morgan Freeman, Angelina Jolie, Matt Damon, and himself (in Unforgiven (1992) and Million Dollar Baby (2004)). Hackman, Penn, Robbins, Freeman and Swank won Oscars for their performances in one of Eastwood's movies.

For two consecutive years he directed two out of the four actors who won Oscars for their performances: Sean Penn (Best Actor) and Tim Robbins (Best Supporting Actor) in Mystic River (2003)) in 2004, and Hilary Swank (Best Actress) and Morgan Freeman (Best Supporting Actor) for Million Dollar Baby (2004)) in 2005. (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000142/bioZ)

He has been nominated as a Director 4 times, winning twice. In the entire history of the Academy Awards, only 14 other Directors have won two Best Director Oscars. Two have won three times, only one (John Ford) has won 4. If it weren't for "Return of the King" Eastwood would likely have won for "Mystic River too, so that would have been 3. "Mystic River" was the choice of the other nominated films that had the most critical support. I personally think Eastwood should have won for both "Mystic River" and "Letters from Iwo Jima," but the Academy felt differently. "Letters" is another reason that Eastwood really should be considered one of the best-directors of all time. He directed a film in Japanese with entirely Japanese actors about a subject which he knew absolutely nothing about, and he did it quickly, efficiently and at an extremely high level.

I honestly think any reasonable, objective observer of Eastwood's career would have to conclude that he is a better director than he is an actor. He is certainly one of the greatest screen stars in history, but popularity and abilities are two different things. I prefer movies he acts in to movies he only directs, but his record of accomplishment as a director far exceeds any accomplishments as an actor. His work as a director is more versatile, it is more highly regarded, it is more critically recognized, and it is of a much higher quality.

He is an actor's director. He is not a great technician like Spielberg.

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

Nope, didn't feel anything for those themes at all. If it was a good movie with the exact same themes, I would have. But Eastwood's character lacked verisimilitude (and even taken as a superficial parody, it was still just a gross racist played up for humor before going through an unconvincing transformation) and the other characters had nothing to them.

Mediocre films can 'thematically resemble' good ones.

I like Eastwood both as actor and director.But I think he is a better director.Two favourites :
The Bridges of Madison County.
Letters from Iwo Jima.

Well, I think that he is great both ways. I am not that specialist in acting to have an opinion of his acting skill.

This was a very tough question for me. My quick initial reaction was director, but after some more thought, I voted actor.

He's not a great actor - but he's very effective. He's like Fred MacMurray - is pretty much always the same but can make subtle changes to change how we view his character. That ability is worthy of respect IMO.

As a director, I'm actually not a huge fan. Just feel like something is missing from his films and for me they aren't as good as they should be. However, there are a lot I haven't seen so maybe that impression will change - watching Letters from Iwo Jima this week so that may make me feel differently.

I always felt as an actor he was more of a 'face' than someone who brought great range/complexity to characters like some do, it's not a fault, but a lot of the time the way his characters are in the Westerns I have seen.

Where as, as a director he seems much more mature and complex than me. His films attempt to deal with a variety of issues regarding humans. Mystic River is a pessimistic and haunting portrayal of humans with fantastic performances, Gran Torino is a great film about racism and prejudice etc., Million Dollar Baby turns in to a moral human story at the end. And that's just talking about his recent stuff. Unforgiven is his masterpiece, and shows great maturity in the fact he takes his fabled character from the old West and completely turns him around in the way we look at him, tearing apart old 'Western mythology' and taking a gritty and realistic look at the good and bad of the West, once again getting the best out of his actors along the way.

Letters From Iwo Jima and A Perfect World are his strongest for me. I consider both to be masterpieces.

I've seen most of the films he has helmed and liked them all at least somewhat, even when the melodrama gets a bit thick at times, such as in Gran Torino. I just like the man's style, and the old school sensibility of his work.

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

Rewatched Million Dollar Baby again and the film gets better with age in my opinion. It is a masterpiece of cinema. Particularly love the score of the film too.