Sunday, May 03, 2009

The Occidental vs Clint Eastwood


Edmund Connelly does not like today's movies and writes against them in The Occidental Observer. He specially hated Gran Torino, which I saw on DVD. Clint Eastwood is a 78 years old actor and director, one that is impossible not to admire, if only for his financial success (the film cost 30 million and collected 250 million) at his advanced age. He looks wonderful, blue-eyed, tall and slim, all-American, as this fat shortsighted Jew remembers and admires.

He plays Walt Kowalski, a retired Polish auto worker, who holds onto his prejudices despite the changes in his Michigan neighborhood and the world around him. Kowalski is a grumpy, tough-minded, unhappy an old man, who can't get along with either his kids or his neighbors, whose prize possession is a 1972 Gran Torino he keeps in mint condition. When his neighbor Thao, a Hmong teenager under pressure from a gang, tries to steal his Gran Torino, Kowalski sets out to reform the youth. The film has strong scenes showing the savage jungle his cute middle class Michigan neighborhood has developed into, including a scene where a black street corner gang is about to rape a girl while her White companion is looking on frightened. Old Clint saves her, of course. The faces of the Hmong gangsters are among the most horrible ever shown on screen, racist stereotypes of the most explicit kind. Clint Eastwood, the White Hero, sacrifices himself to save those foreign savages, all in the best American cowboy film tradition. Except for The Occidental Observer, that virtual used toilet paper, that hates him:
Tough guy Clintwood used to stand for the average white man, but lately he’s gone multicultural on us, especially with his latest, Gran Torino, in which he mentors a Hmong youth.
Given the public success of Gran Torino, it is amazing how out of the American mainstream The Occidental is. The Occidental hates America. I am happy that the sentiment is mutual and America hates The Occidental.

4 comments:

latté island said...

J, you don't live in America, and you don't realize that Clint Eastwood doesn't know how it is in real neighborhoods. In real life, mentoring a Hmong youth is a lost cause. They're a primitive, vicious stone age people who destroy every town they live in. There are exceptions, but in general, they don't belong in the West.

I share your feelings about the Occidental Observer...I don't even read it except for KMac, and then I'm sorry...but in this case, they're right. Clint has made some great movies, but he hasn't lived in a real neighborhood in what, 40 or 50 years? He is being judgemental about people who are prejudiced against Hmong, when actually that is the only way to protect oneself from them.

Maybe I'll go read the review. It will be refreshing to read something over there that isn't about how Jews are to blame for everything, or did they manage to work that in?

J said...

The review is worth reading if only for its anti-mainstream position. And, as you say, it manages to oppose Hollywood without even once mentioning those Eeeevil Joooos. Gran Torino certainly depicts the Hmong as the vicious savages, the Hmong gang member's faces are the most frightening Asiatic stereotypes I ever saw in a film, it could easily be called racist. The film also shows a Black gang in action, about to rape a girl on scene while its frightened white companion looks on. The Occidental people (including the note we are talking about) is always crying tht Hollywood never shows the Blacks are they are, but here in Clint Eastwood's film you have a very strong description of them. Mr Connolly manages to NOT to see that scene. Against the colored jungle that Michigan has became, you have Kowalski, a blue eyed white elderly man, who teaches valor and integrity to all them. I feel that Connally got the message of the film absolutely wrong.

Public Enemy No. 0 said...

Dear J,

I love your writing, but your genders are confusing me. The white girl was almost raped while ____ white companion looked on frightened.
???
You tried "his" in the OP and "its" in your last comment. Surely you mean "her" or I'm very very lost.

(I never saw this movie, so I have no opinion. Also I've heard radically different things about the Hmong, with no research of my own.)

And this is way too much blogging about rape for me. I think I'll look at a catalog from a mail-order flower company now. Or pet my cat.

J said...

Thanks for the correction. I meant "her".

Regarding the Hmong, I never saw one in flesh. I am only reporting how the film shows them.