Cauliflowered

Rating: Null/10 (13 January 2007)

I've been watching films deeply enough to develop a strategy of trust. There are certain persons that if they are involved in a film, I'll go into it with an open soul. Often they'll fail but thats a small cost in an otherwise rewarding life of trust. There are only a few actors on this list, some writers of course and directors.
And there's another list of people to avoid, people who have damaged my soul and compromised my world, folks who require you to repair your encounter with them. I avoided this project until now because it has both types. Swank is an earnest actor not on either list.
Eastwood is someone who has earned my trust because of one amazing project, "Mystic River." Quite apart from the story, it is about direction, a melding of forces. All the major actors in the thing are actors who also direct. All of them understand to a significant degree what most actors don't, that a performance has both inside and outside compositional values. What Eastwood wrangled in that little film was an encounter not only among characters as scripted, and among acting philosophies as often happens, but also among actors situation in what they see as the directorial situation the local composition. And we also have the interaction of all layers with the others. Marvelous, and worthy of trust.
Plus the man is so economical. Economy by itself isn't worth much; Bresson chafes me. But Eastwood can focus and pare so that even the most ordinary effect can seem purposeful. And that's what happens here. This is such an ordinary, derivative, spitefully mundane and worthless script, it says something that he has given it dignity. But that's all it is, tripe with a clean wrapper.
The two men on my list that do not deserve a place in my pantheon of film friends: Freeman and Haggis.
Haggis is a hack, a machine, a cut and paste expert in appealing to the lowest and most uncomplicated sentimentalites. That's allowable in my book so long as there's some novelty, some new handle on life some new angle, something that pulls us up with tools for seeing. Never.
Freeman is simply an annoyance. He's an arrogant actor exploiting black avuncular type. He decided long ago and has often said that he will just be himself, regardless of what the role requires. But that never comes up because he only chooses roles that match what he has chosen to invent himself as a person. Its a fake racist nobility, made ever so more offensive with the fake wisdom that accompanies it.
I'll take a hundred Eddie Murphys exploring the limits of race over one who safely cashes in on it. Listen to his narrative phrasing in the voiceovers. Eastwood should have known better.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.