One of my first movie memories was watching Clint Eastwood in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly ride over a large grassy knoll and disappear into the sunset. Ever since then Eastwood has been one of my favorite actors to watch. High Plains Drifter, as well as A Fistful of Dollars, has been on my Netflix list for over two years but I hadn't gotten around to it until now.
Review:
Drifter was made in 1973, at the high point of Vietnam protesting. One of the things I love about science fiction movies is that, if they do it right, they are able to make something so relevant to ourselves appear in an alien planet/ broken space craft/ neon internet wonderland. Westerns can do that same thing. High Plains Drifter, according to the McVeigh, is reference to the guilt and loss of innocence in America associated with the Vietnam war. It's a fascinating comparison that at first glance seems preposterous. But as the film unfolds references to the Vietnam war become apparent.
From a directorial standpoint, Eastwood clearly hits home in the rape scene near the beginning of the film. So much was discussed about this scene in particular yet very rarely did anyone touch on what made it so distressing to watch; the aftermath. To me the worst part of the scene was not watching her squirm (witch by the by was quite unsettling) it was watching Eastwood buckle up his pants and look down upon her. The lighting with just that particular shot was so incredible: Eastwood was almost completely veiled in shadows leaving just enough light to see his smirking face and his hands buckling up his belt. The ground up shot was so distressing, it remains vividly etched into my mind as I am writing this post. How does this relate to Vietnam? In all of the films I've seen Eastwood in (Torino, Pale Rider, The Dirty Harry Series, Unforgiven, Space Cowboys, ect) never once has he been displayed doing such a despicable, unforgivable act. Yes, it has been implied that he has done these things (Unforgiven is the film I am thinking of) but never have we actually seen him doing it, until now. The same goes for The United States at the time; throughout all of the wars we have engaged in up to that point (WWI, WWII, Revolutionary War, Civil War, Korean War, War of 1812) we were always viewed as the defenders of peace, never the aggressors. Yes, we have been accused of aggression (Korean War) but never has it been as blatantly obvious about American aggression until the Vietnam war.
Character wise, Eastwood shines once more. Earlier in McVeigh's article it was mentioned that after the Kennedy assignation the image of the hero changed. To quote "Kennedy was able to attach his persona [and energy] to the frontier hero despite his avowedly East coast character" (163). After his death, that persona and energy disappeared and LBJ could not fill the shoes left behind by JFK. Indeed, that is where Eastwood comes in. The town of Lagos (whose townspeople are despicable and cowardly to say the least) is left without a respectable town Marshall/ Sherriff after watching him fall to the hands of three "cowboys." With no one actually skilled with a weapon, they hire three gunman who Eastwood's Man-Without-A-Name character kills promptly when entering town. Eastwood is then thrown into defending the town. His character then terrorizes the town and seems to do more harm than good in defending the townspeople. If Eastwood's character was a "Kennedy hero" we would most likely see the same character emerge from Pale Rider (Eastwood plays a gun totin' Preacher with no name). Instead, because the ideal of the hero has changed, these morally questionable actions seem to be permissible. On a side note, most of Eastwood's best western movies happen in a span of 5 to 15 years after JFK's death and almost all of his characters perform morally questionable acts at best (A Fistful of Dollars in 64, For a Few Dollars More in '65, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in '66, Dirty Harry in '71, High Plains Drifter in '73, The Outlaw Josey Wales in '76, and The Enforcer also in '76).
Conclusion
Eastwood is my second favorite actor of all time (if you haven't guessed by now, Harrison Ford is my number one). With that being said, I am extremely biased when it comes to reviewing his movies. So, therefore, it will be no surprise that High Plains Drifter receives a 9.5 out of ten, deduction coming from too few "go ahead, make my day" moments. If you would like to see Eastwood's best westerns, in my opinion, rent Pale Rider (acting sucks but the end makes the movie worthwhile), The Good The Bad and The Ugly, Unforgiven, and The Outlaw Josey Wales.
You say the Eastwood terrorizes the town, I don't think that is true I think he is pissing off the town leaders. They are getting angry not becoming afraid. They see no reason to fear the Stranger hurting them, their only fear is him not protecting them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the first comment but only on the fact that he is pissing them off and they are getting angry. I think however that they do fear him, they wouldn't have a need to kill him if they didnt fear him. The only other option would be to tell him to leave, and why wouldnt he, to them he got a lot of free stuff and a lot of alcohol, so he already got more than what he originally showed up for. It took a lot of the reading to finally make me see the whole connection of Kennedy and a Cowboy but and is actually now what i am writing my paper on. Your blog also helped a little to see that argument so I thank you.
ReplyDeleteA Fistful of Dollars and For A Few Dollars More were both on tv the other day. I saw snipets of the Good, the Bad and the Ugly too. I'm totally into Clint Eastwood after watching High Plains Drifter.
ReplyDeleteI like how you relate Eastwood's rape scene in Drifter to America being the aggressor in Vietnam. In many ways, America raped the Vietnamese people during that conflict. Both literally and figuratively.
I wonder where the vengeance aspect of the film ties into this reading, though. Clint is apparently the ghost of the marshall, a being pretty much made for retribution. After he clenses the town, punishing everyone including the baddies, he disappears into the hot desert atmosphere.
ReplyDeleteI like the reading, I understand the metaphor, but I wonder how this subtle yet over arching theme of revenge fits into the narrative.
Was our reasoning for Vietnam somehow vengeance driven? I can't see that.
Wasn't our involvement in Vietnam due to the US fight against communism. I suppose in that manner we have a vengeful drive against the North Vietnamese. This anti-commi cleansing program was our REASONING behind our involvement in the war.
ReplyDeleteBecause America doesn't always have to be right, we just have to have good 'reasoning' behind our actions... but good intentions don't always produce good results.
This post is interesting because you compare the movie with a lot of American history. I'm not awesome with history so I liked reading what you had to say about Eastwood and Vietnam (furthering the reading). And I definitely agree that the DP of the film did an excellent job with the rape scene and how Eastwood was seen after.
ReplyDeleteThat angle shot after the rape scene is unsettling. That just makes the point about him having so much power of these people amplified. This shot portrays him as a towering figure, having complete domination over this woman and what he has done to her. There really was no fight between him and her, minus her feeble struggles of kicking and yelping(i think yelping works here, as she really didn't scream at the top of her lungs). He was just so masterful in the way he handled her, the other woman in the hotel and just the people of the town itself. I also found it really interesting that everyone has commented on the rape scene in some sense, but it appears to be different things that people are noticing. I never really noticed or paid attention to the lighting and the angle until your post. I actually went back and watched the scene to get the full affect.
ReplyDelete"To me the worst part of the scene was not watching her squirm (witch by the by was quite unsettling) it was watching Eastwood buckle up his pants and look down upon her."
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you brought this up in your post. I was super surprised that they added that shot into the film. It would have been much less shocking if it wasn't shot at the angle it was, looking up at Eastwood. As much as I wasn't as affected by the actual rape, because there seemed to be a sense of enjoyment by the end (both in the sounds she was making and the way she caressed his back). But I think it brought the situation back to reality when we see Eastwood's face and the way he just buckles his belt and leaves. Even if she did enjoy it to an extent, she doesn't deserve to be treated that way under any circumstances.
Man it sucks that I got to this post so late because i feel like I'm missing out on all this discussion. I loved this post, really insightful. Regarding the section about the rape scene, I think it's really important to remember exactly what that specific shot (Clint Eastwood buckling up his pants) does. It's a p.o.v shot from an extremely low angle where he dominates the frame. This shot is so unsettling in part because of the angle but also because we are put in the position of and seeing things from the perspective of a person who was just raped. Point of view shots are a way to bring people into the action. What better and more effective way of creating an unsettling mood than to film it in this particular way? By the way, awesome connection and analysis of this shot and how its composition and lighting create meaning.
ReplyDeleteI also thought it was a great that you brought up the connection between Clint Eastwood's character and LBJ. His actions really reflect America's actions in Vietnam in that we claimed and were thrust into a position of "defending" the Vietnamese when actually we were doing more harm than good, taking advantage of them because of our own interests.
Just a side note: I thought the comment about revenge was an interesting point. I'm still trying to find the connection but I do think that when the stranger was put in a position to carry out his revenge, he abused it and humiliated the people. This is very similar to our involvement in Vietnam where we were put into position of power and authority and eventually abused it humiliating and even massacring innocent people.
wow, you've made some really good observations, and you noted a lot of things that would have gone completely unnoticed by me. I think what you say about Eastwood's character and his rape of the blonde woman aligning with US aggression in Vietnam is a really insightful parallel to draw and one that could be seen as a stretch but could also definitely hold a lot of truth--I think a lot of times when symbolic acts in a movie, a piece of writing, etc are meant to be metaphorical (and in doing so are meant to allude to a certain event or idea), they usually they are kind of a stretch, but that's what makes them even more engaging and intriguing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with 'the friendliest bob' when it comes to the vietnam war. This was the first war where such heavy media coverage was allowed and broadcasted on television. Up until this point people received updates here and there about war efforts but really had no idea of the mayhem and bloodshed. However once this was all shown on television people started to throw a fit and involve themselves in anti-war movements. There is nothing pretty about war, we all know that...but even to this day- unless you are at the battlefields- most of us will never understand its true terror. So in comparison to the movie this is the same idea with Eastwood actually performing the evil act rather than just having it being implied like in his other films. Because we see it it makes everything seem a lot more horrifying than if we were to just hear about it. What if the upward shot of Eastwood everyone is talking about wasn't used and they just cut right to the next scene? It seems like most of you would agree that the scene probably wouldnt have been as disturbing...just something to think about.
ReplyDelete