Is "Gran Torino" the new "Shawshank"?

First off, please don't read any further if you have not been to see Clint Eastwood's beautiful hand-carved little creation, "Gran Torino," that is currently blowing the doors off the box office. I wouldn't want to think that I've spoiled even a moment for you by writing about it. But seeing as how it is well on its way to a $150 million domestic BO -- and the 78-year-old Eastwood is heading to the biggest surprise hit in a career full of surprises -- I think it's safe to write this column right now, because enough of you have seen it to appreciate what I'm about to say.

"Gran Torino," as you may know, will be taking a pass at the Oscars next month, because it wasn't nominated for any major Academy Award. So in a sense, its work is done. The smart set has weighed in, and the audiences are pouring in regardless -- and leaving happy.

We sure did. Immediately after seeing the movie last night I updated my "pecking order" tweet listing "Gran Torino" my third favorite movie of the season, with a bullet. This morning, Mrs. TVB and I agreed -- it's probably a better film than "Frost/Nixon," for much the same reason it's a better film than "Doubt": It's a real movie, with movie sets (however humble), a large cast (though many of the Hmong actors are not professionals) and a storyline that couldn't possibly have been confined to the stage.

Now, whether it's a better film than "Slumdog Millionaire" is sort of academic, or I should say, more academic than most movie discussions going on right now. The topic du jour around the world seems to be whether "Slumdog" deserves all the praise it's gotten, and on that note, I'm delighted that Patrick Goldstein has weighed in with an unapologetic defense of "Slumdog," which I recommend you read (if, that is, you've seen the movie).

So let's just declare "Gran Torino" and "Slumdog" co-champs of the 2008 movie season. One's an Oscar contender, the other isn't.

It's hard not to draw parallels to 1994, the year a certain crowd-pleaser with a major movie star and a fanciful screenplay by Eric Roth dominated an Oscar field filled with contenders. The difference is that the crowd-pleaser, "Forrest Gump," was also nominated for the Academy Awards. The film I'm thinking of as that year's "Gran Torino" was a movie that wowed nobody but Oscar nominators at first.

"The Shawshank Redemption" grossed less than $30 million in theatres. Brett Jones has a nice piece on his blog arguing that the movie's promotion was all wrong. The only reason it wound up on TNT, I read somewhere, is that Ted Turner produced it, and so was able to license it to his own cable channel for a cut-rate fee.

However, once "Shawshank" was sold to cable, its redemption began. The movie quickly established itself as one of the great schedule fillers in American television history, surpassing even "Top Gun's" ubiquity on HBO. I must have seen that damn thing 10 times all the way through, and probably another 20 times in pieces. It was a story that just never got old for me, and I wasn't alone. As people discovered the movie, and Internet fandom became a phenomenon, the movie's long tail started to wag the critical dog. Reassessments followed rewatchings. "Shawshank" is now included in some critics' best-film-ever lists and recently was issued in a lovely Blu-ray edition -- quite an achievement for a 15-year-old film that few people saw until it was interrupted by commercials every 12 minutes.

This morning Mrs. TVB walked in and said, "I think 'Gran Torino' is the new 'Shawshank.'"

Other than the wildly disparate initial public receptions, I think she's onto something. Can't you see this thing playing over and over on TNT? Consider what it's got:

• Eastwood's transformation from unlikable atheist coot to semi-redeemed neighborhood hero is managed so effortlessly over the course of the film's 110 minutes, you just want to see it again to see how a real actor acts.

• There's a prison break. In this case, the prison is the ghetto and the prisoners who escape are the two young people who befriend Eastwood and give him a reason to live -- and die. His act of sacrifice, like the prison warden's suicide in "Shawshank," is an enabling death (the warden would have been the only one with the incentive to chase Andy Dufresne to Mexico).

Jay Leno's Gran Torino

• There's an irresistible mixture of violence leavened with humor that is the mark of the "grown-up" film. One of the reasons "Gump" didn't age as well as "Shawshank" (though trust me, I recognize that not every cineplex favorite spawns its own restaurant chain) is that it was just a little too fantastic. It became ripe for parody, and with the YouTube era upon us, made it possible to undermine Roth's current film, "Benjamin Button," just by pointing out how Gumpy it is. With the "Slumdog" backlash in full force right now, I shouldn't be counting out BB, but I do think Oscar voters have regrets about "Gump" that will work against it -- and anyway, it won't be getting much air time in five years.

• There's a timelessness to "Gran Torino" that works in its favor as a perennial. "Doubt" and "Frost/Nixon" feature some fine individual acting performances and strong writing but are the exact opposite of timeless classics: they're great films because they perfectly capture a moment in American time that is lost forever. "Gran Torino" could have taken place in 1990 as well as 2010. "BB" tries so hard to turn back the clock -- literally -- that it uses every movie contrivance of the past 20 years and, thus, dates itself.

• The Christ story is always a big draw, and Eastwood plays Walt Kowalski's redemptive martyrdom shamelessly. (Notice he Walt sprawls, arms outstretched, when he falls.) If only Walt weren't dying already! That and his effect on the film's other major character, the parish priest played by Christopher Carley, is so obvious -- the stooge of organized religion is turned into an authentic, 3-D Christian by the selfless act of an individual -- are the film's weakest parts. And yet, this story is so familiar to Americans that I suspect Eastwood will get bonus points, rather than demerits, for incorporating it so blatantly in a major Hollywood motion picture.

The swearing that dominates "Gran Torino's" barbershop scenes will make translation to basic cable a little tricky. But it can be managed, certainly easier than it could be 10 years ago. I didn't watch the movie's most violent scene -- I can always see those moments coming in a film, and I'm not too proud to say I have sat through cinema's most grisly hackings, beatings and shootings with eyes tightly shut -- but nothing I heard suggested that it couldn't be modified for TV.

In short, "Gran Torino" has the potential to move from the box office to television and continue winning over audiences, and repeat viewings, for a long, long time. I can't say that about any film in this year's Oscar field, and when it's all said and done, Clint Eastwood's alleged swansong (if you're a major studio executive, would you let him retire after this one??) may wind up at the top of many a moviegoer's best of 2008 lists.

Comments

[mark pokorny]

After all this praise you seriously suggest the movie be modified to suit TV?
As a European, I am not quite sure whether tis is to suit the American 'holier-than-you' hypocrisy or plain ignorance.
'Gran Turino' is exactly right as the cinema version intended by Eastwood.

[Hey, if it were up to me it would run uncut. --AB]

[Rick]

What's ridiculous and outrageous is that Shaun Edwards at Fox4 gave the movie "0" popcorn boxes out of a possible "5."
In his esteemed view the film was "racist." Now there is a reviewer who understands cinema!!
Maybe you should do a story on our area's top quote whore.

[BJ]

I thought Gran Torino was excellent. America is used to highly polished film, perfect actors, perfect scenes - blemishless cinema. Gran Torino is not perfect. There were moments I remembered I was in a movie theatre. Because of that, I like it even more. There was no bad acting, it just wasn't a star studded cast.

Instead of shock and awe, Mr. Eastwood decided to tell us a story - dangerous to do so unless you have a story to tell.

Gran Torino reminded me of a western, in a way. Perhaps it's that our story could have happened in an imagined era long ago, but instead it took place in an urban neighborhood that might be just across the river or highway in your city or town. The danger is the type we see on the evening news. The escalated threat is one we can identify with and the solution that our hero delivers is one we can admire.

Did it wrap up a bit too nicely? Maybe. Where there moments of whimsey that you might not find in everyday life? Yes. Is the point of the film to be perfect? No - it's to tell a story and also deliver a message. I felt the film not only did both, but it wrapped the two elements together, and spoke to an amazing number of constituencies.

I don't remember the last time my friends (all of them, minorities included), parents, and seniors who fought in Korea and Vietnam could all agree that a movie was good and the message was right on.

Thanks for making a real movie, Clint. What you said was not lost on me.

[Brett Jones]

Great article, I can't wait for this movie to come out on DVD ;)

I'm the Brett Jones you mention about the Shawshank article. I just wanted to let everyone know that it was written by a good friend of mine, Scott Graveline. I want to make sure he gets the credit.

Thanks!
Brett