Movie Review: Gran Torino

Kowalski is a bigot, without a doubt, but more out of ignorance and habit than malice. He uses racially insensitive terms with his neighbors, but also with his friends, and Eastwood makes it clear that Kowalski doesn’t see the difference.

I really think this aspect is way overstated by reviewers.

The fact that Kowalski uses ethnic references with his friends should indicate to people that it’s just a frame of reference, not a value judgment. He uses the phrases as terms of endearment to his friends and his new neighbors by the end.

I think the judgment that Kowalski is a bigot is a product of our own PC times. He reserves his venom for behavior – gangbangers, both the AA and Asian.

In general, he’s a guy that just doesn’t like other people that much (note his treatment of his family). Anti-social, eh maybe. Bigot? Not really. You have to ignore a significant portion of the movie (how he goes to dinner and is respectful – even of the shaman) to come to that conclusion.

Spirit of 1776 on January 17, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Ed Morrissey on January 17, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Ed, consider the first group of people to whom he expresses contempt: His own family in the opening scene. It’s not bigotry – unless he’s bigoted toward himself too. He treats everyone with the same contempt, based on their behavior.

What’s the issue with him and his kids? Their behavior. Him and his grandkids? Their behavior. Him and his neighbors? Their behavior – this should be evident from how he teaches the kid to take care of his home and his yard, gets him a job, etc – ie teaches him to behave like a man. The people he doesn’t show contempt to are all workers: barber, construction owner, and the kid as he grows up.

I don’t see how he gets better throughout the movie. The very first opportunity for heroics, he takes. The second opportunity for heroics, he takes. From beginning to end, there is not an instant where he could step in and he did not. If anything he is a constant; the idea that the movie is about redemption is an interesting one, but fundamentally flawed – as it is not one that Kowalski would agree with. He only had two confessions to make – what he does at the end doesn’t redeem a stolen kiss or unpaid taxes. So we are left with the argument that he redeems himself of what he himself doesn’t see as flawed.

What I think it shows is that strength of character matters. Even as your neighborhood changes. And that a boy needs a man to grow into a man – surrogate fathers via gangs don’t cut it.

Spirit of 1776 on January 17, 2009 at 11:27 AM

There is no hate or bigotry in his character. That is something we moderns superimpose on him by our current standards. Clint lets us know we don’t get it, lathered us in our righteousness.

patrick neid on January 17, 2009 at 1:08 PM

We agree, I think. As to your point about redemption, that’s interesting, but as you note has nothing to do with his supposed bigotry. In his past, he shoots a kid who is trying to surrender. Granted, that bothers him, but, again as you note, what’s interesting about that is that he tries to prevent Tau from killing. I don’t know if that qualifies as redemption (I obviously lean to ‘no’), but it certainly qualifies as imparting wisdom and trying to help the kid have best life possible.

I appear to be surrounded by PETA members. Animals kill each other and us on a regular basis.

You, apparently, keep interesting pets. Walt’s dog doesn’t terrorize, kill, or eat anyone in this movie.

Spirit of 1776 on January 17, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Replace the dog with a pit bull or doberman and let’s see how people’s attitudes change.

At which point you are making a different argument. As has been explained upthread, people do not like to see suffering of those who are seen as unable to protect themselves. Dogs, children, elderly fall in this category.

But it is part of the American identity that man is self-reliant (see either Thoreau or Emerson or Jefferson etc). The death of a policeman or a soldier is seen as a sacrifice in service – assuming knowledge of risk. Animals in movies (and life) are not cognizant of that risk – therefore it is fitting that man be protective of him and naturally recoil at his suffering.

Spirit of 1776 on January 17, 2009 at 1:26 PM

You’re absolutely right. Dogs are mindless creatures with no rules that never attack or bite or protect or defend or anything.

In a stroke of irony, your’s is the PETA argument.

Your argument denies the superiority of power and position that man has over the rest of the animal kingdom. Where it true that man and beast were on the same playing field, your argument/concern might have merit. As it is, we are not, and your argument does not.

Spirit of 1776 on January 17, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Ugh. Where = Were. Pardon the typo.

Spirit of 1776 on January 17, 2009 at 1:32 PM

MadisonConservative on January 17, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Right, so what you are doing is taken anecdotal evidence of behavior by dogs and extrapolating that to mean that those at the top of the food chain cannot have compassion on those below. That’s fine, if you choose to do so, but it is not irrational for people to have a natural compassion on and for animals.

If a dog bites someone, even our law recognizes the responsibility that the owner has. Why? Because the dog is almost universally accepted as a lower form of being.

Spirit of 1776 on January 17, 2009 at 1:41 PM