"Gran Torino" a solid Eastwood addition

At the first racial slur, the theater full of white people didn’t know whether to laugh or offer up one of those "ohhh" noises that says: "My God, what nerve; I would never use racial slurs like that...out loud." In time, Clint Eastwood's latest film Gran Torino leveled the racial playing field, laying out a deluge of harsh monikers akin to a '90s Andrew Dice Clay stand-up routine.

In a society where we can blaspheme on public television but must euphemize racial slurs by speaking only the first letter, it becomes clear that we aren't really sure what our values are anymore - just that we don't want to offend anyone. Now, don't misunderstand, the absence of staunch values is not the same as being valueless or immoral: I can't speak much to my own values, but I'm a good person who contributes to society and works everyday toward developing my character.

But, in Torino, the dialogue's potential to offend is quickly mollified by Walt's (Eastwood's) indiscriminate use of it, and the fact that his affection for his neighborhood does little to rectify his preference for the seemingly vulgar vernacular.

What speaks far louder are Walt's values and ethics, which is a wonderful picture of his era. I'm not going all Brokaw on you - I believe each generation has its strengths - but Korean War vet Walt's values include many finer things that he imbues in his atrophying neighborhood, letting the not-so-fine things such as stubbornness and distaste fall away.

While I have no beef with the long-winded nature of Eastwood's films (I rather like it, actually), some have found them a little too lengthy, but in Torino, the majority of the scenes are purposeful and add to the film; there is little I'd whack were it my job to make the film tighter.

It was also refreshing to see the total absence of the whole, trite "I'm gettin' too old for this" line from Eastwood. To be frank, it's what turned me off of the Lethal Weapon series and Space Cowboys. You can speak to the generation without speaking to the inabilities of it over and over: such facts are tacit and obvious.

Now for the downside: the acting is pretty bad - all but Eastwood, of course. This is likely due to under-directing on Eastwood's part, as it is random throughout the film who's going to act poorly next. To me, this smacks not of poor casting but too few takes, leaving some scenes stiff and hurried. While I don't have the eye of someone trained in continuity, it would not surprise me to learn that there are several continuity errors, as well, and for the same reason.

I'll not speak to the end of the movie or spoil any plot devices, but it is a work typical of Eastwood both in pace and content, but with a very human element that keeps your emotions tied to the film's development. I would say that any of Eastwood's contemporaries would greatly appreciate the film, and that there are plenty of nuggets for younger generations to glean from it, not the least of which is enjoyment.