Post by drystyx on Apr 13, 2017 18:16:13 GMT
Totally agree, and it's not even debatable, yet you step on an icon of the feeble minded here.
It's undeniable, even in the examples some have tried to name to show he can do something besides lowly grunt or groan, that we can find in all these movies the gamut of Clint's expressions and emotions...all one of them.
As a director, you're correct, he's technically what Hollywood and what all the estates have loved in directing and arts, even before movies. He is a manipulator. For example, manipulating people into feeling empathy for a homicidal maniac "killer of women and children" in UNFORGIVEN. That works for the sheep and those who haven't been through life in the streets, but to the streetwise he is a predator of naive fools. He certainly fits the traditional mode of director, and in that sense he is one of the best.
I don't trust people who try to manipulate me, for good reason. Barely survived it. Many people don't survive it, or become crippled for it.
I prefer the honest directors, who don't hide behind manipulation. DeMille and Verhoeven in an inspired way. And even Tarantino, in his uninspired negative way, lampoons the very manipulation of others, and gets respect from both sides.
And if we take the one director most people at least slightly respect...Hitchcock...we see a bit of manipulation, but it is very subtle and slight. Not nearly as overpowering and self righteous as Eastwood is.
It's undeniable, even in the examples some have tried to name to show he can do something besides lowly grunt or groan, that we can find in all these movies the gamut of Clint's expressions and emotions...all one of them.
As a director, you're correct, he's technically what Hollywood and what all the estates have loved in directing and arts, even before movies. He is a manipulator. For example, manipulating people into feeling empathy for a homicidal maniac "killer of women and children" in UNFORGIVEN. That works for the sheep and those who haven't been through life in the streets, but to the streetwise he is a predator of naive fools. He certainly fits the traditional mode of director, and in that sense he is one of the best.
I don't trust people who try to manipulate me, for good reason. Barely survived it. Many people don't survive it, or become crippled for it.
I prefer the honest directors, who don't hide behind manipulation. DeMille and Verhoeven in an inspired way. And even Tarantino, in his uninspired negative way, lampoons the very manipulation of others, and gets respect from both sides.
And if we take the one director most people at least slightly respect...Hitchcock...we see a bit of manipulation, but it is very subtle and slight. Not nearly as overpowering and self righteous as Eastwood is.