Customer Reviews

Clint Eastwood

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

There's plenty of opportunity to gripe about this biography: The writing style is ponderous and sometimes downright clumsy, there's not enough details about Clint's private life, there's too much trivia about incidental movie roles (i.e. Witches.) But that aside it is nice to see a serious examination of Clint the Film Maker, which I might add does offer good critical examination of his movies, pointing out many of the movies' weaknesses as well as their strengths, and offering solid reasons for why the theme or story appealed to Clint. Pigeonholed early by narrowminded critics for his supposedly anti-establishment, brutal movies, he had to wait another twenty years for the critical tide to turn and for there to be a re-evaluation of his contribution to cinema (at least here in the U.S. -- in other parts of the world he'd long been recognized as a great director and actor.) And still some of the best movies he's done (whether he directed them or not) are not given the credit they deserve by self-important critics: Beguiled, Play Misty for Me, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, The Outlaw Josey Wales, White Hunter Black Heart, Bird all come to mind as well as many others. In forty years of making movies beginning with A Fistful of Dollars, most of the time coming out with a movie a year, he's been involved in less than a handful of mediocre movies, none of them ranking as truly bad. The Rookie and City Heat come to mind as truly mediocre movies, certainly bordering on bad, and there's a couple of others that had good potential but turned out to be bad decisions on his part, but I consider that a fantastic track record. He knows story and he knows how to get the most from out of a movie, and it's the reason he's stayed at the top of the box-office for all these decades despite the fact that he's never done just what "the audience" wants from him.

I recommend the book Interviews, for those interested in Clint the film maker, which is an excellent collection of interviews in which Clint very articulately discusses his ideas of film making.

I can't help but add that I have to wonder about one of the reviewers who wrote that whether Unforgiven was a great movie was "questionable." Then does there exist a unquestionably great movie?

If you are looking for a thick book about actor/director Clint Eastwood's life and career, illustrated with some unusual photos, then this will fill the bill. If you want an objective biography of Eastwood, together with an objective analysis of his film work, this is not the book you want. Schickel was basically an employee and friend of Eastwood during the researching and writing of the book, and he tends to ignore or downplay the dark side of Eastwood's activities, particularly his alleged "women are like kleenex" philosophy, and his alleged cruelty toward former collaborators.

The long book is made longer by merciless padding, including detailed and completely unnecessary plot summaries of the films.

Viewed from 2004, Clint Eastwood is an important actor--- as good an actor as Jimmy Stewart and as iconic an actor as John Wayne. He is also an important and stylish director, and justifiably famous for his gentle ways with cast and crew, as well as his efficiency in coming in under budget. One of the author's continuing themes, brought up on nearly every page, turns upon the consistent misunderstanding of Eastwood, both as actor and director, by two generations of famous mainstream film critics. This theme wears thin quickly when one realizes that there is probably not a single case in which famous mainstream film critics have had the slightest clue as to the value, importance and significance of any new film or film star.

Eastwood is an important figure in 20th Century cinema, and he deserves an objective, scholarly, independently-researched analysis of all aspects of his life and career. I don't know of one... we'll keep looking.

Richard Schickel is a friend of Clint Eastwood. That itself shouldn't disqualify him from writing this book.
The problem with the book is that it is very biased, he spends an absurd portion of the book defending Eastwood from an assortment of negative movie critiques, predominantly those of Pauline Kael.
I am a fan of most of Clint Eastwood's films and movie critics have never been a factor in formulating my opinion of any particular movie. And I don't see why Clint Eastwood's work needs defending!

"Clint Eastwood-a Biography" is otherwise loaded with some fascinating facts about Eastwood's life and career.

Schickel describes how Eastwood obtained various scripts for movies that he was involved in as an actor, director, and sometimes both.
The details include his relationship with other stars, directors, and producers.

Who proposed the forming of Malpaso and how monumental that company became is another topic in the book.

I found it interesting that Clint turned down the part of "Harmonica" in "Once Upon a Time in the West". That's the role that Charles Bronson accepted in a movie that eventually came to be regarded as one of the best westerns of all time and a personal favorite of mine.

The book details Eastwood's inherited musical talent and how deeply jazz has influenced the actor both musically and in film.

Clint solves the mystery of the identity of his character in "High Plains Drifter".

Another aspect of Eastwood as a director is the location of shoots for the "Eiger Sanction" and "Unforgiven". His sense of realism can be extreme, but admirable.

Overall "Clint Eastwood-a Biography" has a lot of trivia-type information and can be entertaining. What downgrades the book considerably is the seemingly endless ranting about the negative reviews from movie critics.

This is an excellent book about the life and work of a legend. Richard Schickel gives us a close look at the free spirited man that's living inside of the veteran actor. Very detail work about Mr. Eastwood's movie making process and his no bulls**t attitude toward the studio execs and anyone who stands on his way. Ms. Pauline Kael should just say it out loud that she's begging for the legend's attention or just shut the hell up. Any Eastwood fan will really appreciate the author's work.

It is obvious that Mr. Schickel is a movie critic, a good friend of Mr. Eastwood and an apologist of practically everything the film icon has done that is questionable. The book is a sympathetic portrayal and does a fine job explaining the movie star's rise in the entertainment field. Thankfully, this is not a slimy celebrity biography in the likes of Kitty Kelly's works. Instead, Mr. Schickel spends a great deal of time explaining many of Mr. Eastwood's films and how his choices are related to his growth as an individual. A fascinating subject matter who has endured in an industry that usually makes cannon fodder of most celebrities' having long-term careers. Elements of luck, intelligence and perseverance enabled Mr. Eastwood to remain an entertainment force for over four decades. Well-written and informative. If you've ever had a keen interest in how this man became an American movie icon, you'll probably enjoy the book.

Several folks here have given this book a bad review simply because the author and subject are friends. So what? Clint will not write an autobiography so this is the next best thing. He simply chose to focus on the film making process that Clint uses and stay on the positive side of his personal life. He admits in the book that he cheated on his wife numerous times but doesn't go into great detail about it. We all know this anyway, why should we hear the details? Reading this book gave me great insight on Clint's life growing up, his family, his Army days, behind the scenes of "Rawhide" and all his greatest movies. I know Clint was not a saint in his personal life but that's not what I want to read about anyways. I want to read about his work which is why I'm a fan to begin with. If you want to read the gossip which may or may not be true, read the enquirer or Pat McGilligan's book which paints Clint as just a step above Hitler!

Eastwood has always been one of my favorite action stars. Generally a stiff and unsurprising actor, he has played virtually the same character in all his movies. Which is not a problem (for me). My problem is biographies like this one written by Schickel, a usually intelligent and perceptive critic. I'm assuming he had to kiss up to Eastwood in order to get certain information in this book, and his writing reflects this position. Toadish and lacking in objectivity, Schickel finds nothing wrong with Eastwood's constant cheating on his first wife, his inability to work with other directors (he is a control freak), and his hiring of sycophants who would not question his motives--and if they did, they never worked for him again. A major disappointment for anyone seeking an honest evaluation of Eastwood's film career. However, if you worship the ground he walks on--as Schickel obviously does--then this is the book for you!

Richard Schickel's biography of Clint Eastwood is very informative and immensely readable, though Schickel's critical distance may be marred by his closeness to Eastwood. (This book is sort of an authorized biography and had Eastwood's cooperation.) An interesting look at the last great icon of American cinema.

It's a cliché, but it's true: With Clint Eastwood, either you love 'im or you hate 'im. Fortunately for the actor/director, there are far more who do the former-though it's questionable whether any moviegoers are bigger fans than Richard Schickel. That, too, is a stroke of luck for Eastwood. Schickel, a longtime film reviewer for Time, has produced a massive critical biography of America's favorite strong, silent symbol of manly authority, a biography that's insufficiently critical. In his 14th book, Schickel isn't exactly obsequious toward Eastwood, but he comes close, frequently crossing the line to hagiography. He seems driven to right every wrong done Eastwood-or "Clint," as the author familiarly refers to his subject throughout-by critics and audiences.

Beginning with Eastwood's Northern California childhood and early blue-collar career ("he was forging a link with the people who would one day form his audience"), Schickel describes how Eastwood edged into acting, got himself named a rising young Universal star, got cast in several smallish roles, and made it to the cast of "Rawhide," which in the course of eight TV seasons made him a star big enough for Sergio Leone to cast him in a trilogy of edgy spaghetti Westerns; those made him popular enough for title roles in American crime dramas and Westerns. In 1971 Eastwood directed "Play Misty for Me" and starred in "Dirty Harry;" two years later he was named "the nation's number-one box-office star." He's held that position pretty consistently since-an amazing run-through a quarter-century of unexceptional genre movies, smallish personal films and the occasional blockbuster, plus two years as bureaucracy-busting mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

"Clint's gift is to let us see the dark comedy in the American male's contorting, distorting attempts to achieve his masteries of the moment while at the same time not entirely discrediting the tradition that bids him make this effort," Schickel writes. "[I]t is the secret of his stardom's longevity, for thi! s quality also humanizes heroism, draining it of its tiresome and threatening elements. Put simply, irony is both the source of that cool that he has personified for our time and the heart of that unknowability that causes men and women alike to draw in as close as they can to him, trying to catch his message." Eastwood's message is what Schickel's after. The tall, squinty actor "has taken the American male deeper into the country of disaffection than he has ever ridden before, reversing the great theme of our adventure movies, which has been male bonding, and insisting upon the opposite, the difficulty men have in making connections-not just with other men, but with communities, with women, with conventional morality, with their own best selves."

Some will be unhappy with Schickel's refusal to dwell on Eastwood's multitudinous affairs and delve deeper into his troubled relationships, particularly his unconventional pairing with actress Sondra Locke, whose tell-all memoir is expected in bookstores all too soon. But that would have lengthened this 557-page book even more-and diluted its efforts to explore Eastwood's work. So, except for more-or-less oblique references-"The need to have many women was a fact of his life, his nature if you will, and it remains an undeniable fact of his history"-Schickel sticks with the movies. If he examines the plotlines of "For a Few Dollars More" and "Every Which Way but Loose" and the behavior on the sets of "City Heat" and "A Perfect World" a bit too closely, he had little choice: Eastwood, singularly closemouthed onscreen, appears equally inarticulate in interviews. In three years of research, Schickel elicited barely a memorable quote for his book. Director of 20 films, the star is never less than likable and appealing, but he's no font of wisdom, insight or anecdotage. Indeed, Schickel repeatedly points out that Eastwood, spare and economical in thought and practice, resists close scrutiny of his life, thoughts and films. "He is not accustomed to, is in fact flummox! ed by, close ideological examination of his motives and works, because quite literally he can't see anything that grand and abstract in them," Schickel writes.

But the author persists in drawing meaning from even Eastwood's least significant performances and productions. He devotes two full pages, including a full plot rundown, on a 1962 appearance on "Mr. Ed," and nearly four pages to Eastwood's 1966 role in one segment of a virtually unreleased Italian "vanity production." "[T]here is a kind of indolent self-regard about Clint's Charlie, an utterly unexamined projection of male superiority, that slyly satirizes the most basic subtexts of conventional movie masculinity to come," he writes. On 1974's middling "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot": "What the movie says," Schickel writes, "is that the American center, if there ever was one, has not held and, perhaps more important, that ordinary people know it-or, rather, in their inarticulate way sense it. Cast loose from their traditional moorings they drift into misdirected rage and paranoia." The problem here is that most of Eastwood's films-and certainly his understated performances-can't withstand the weight of such critical analysis, even if that attention is respectful and even laudatory. A fact that Schickel fails to note is that while Eastwood has been making movies for more than four decades, his filmography lacks a single no-argument four-star classic. (1991's "Unforgiven" is his Oscar-winner, but whether it's a great film is questionable.) He didn't work with a great actress until "The Bridges of Madison County" in 1995.

Schickel sees this as the fault of not Eastwood but of America's movie reviewers. Throughout the book, he hotly defends Eastwood against the slings and arrows of "the critics," who, he insists, usually are flat-out "wrong" (except, of course, for the times he deems them "correct"). His game plan is to attack: The New York Times' Renata Adler "knew almost nothing about movies"; in his review of "The Enforcer," the Times' Richard Eder r! eached "new heights of cluelessness"; Michael Medved and Richard Grenier are "right-wing ideologues masquerading as movie reviewers." Schickel goes ballistic over the writings of Pauline Kael, who's cited on 23 pages: He derides the former New Yorker critic as "prissy," "naive" and "the most fashionable voice in her field" (that's Schickel's field too, right?); he dismisses Eastwood's detractors as "Kael and her coterie." The onslaught's centerpiece is a five-page dissection of Kael's four-page "vicious assault" on "Dirty Harry"-which, if you go back and read her review, is actually overly generous to this clumsy, dated, amoral film. Grasping at her prudent use of the word "fascist"-though she was hardly the only critic to wield the word-Schickel sputters, "One still gropes for some rational justification for [her review]."

Eastwood deserves better than these name-calling distractions: The quality of his critics, or of his films, matters far less than what he has meant to American moviegoers. Sure, Schickel sounds silly in explaining that "What is in his soul is in all of our souls-that rage that we spend so much of our time suppressing and denying.... Acting out for himself, he acts out for all of us." But he accurately judges Eastwood's "great theme" to be "the difficulty men have in making connections with any sort of community." It's that difficulty that has made Eastwood a household name and an important figure to millions of Americans. Clint Eastwood and his times are certainly important enough for a 500-page critical biography; it's too bad that this one peers too closely at its iconic subject. "Missing the forest for the trees" is another cliché, but it's appropriate: Schickel looks at the films and misses the audience.

The author treats the life of Eastwood as an aside ... basically, this is a book of the author's analysis of Eastwood's films, great for film students, but a absolute disappontment for anyone seeking a biography of the star's life. Actually, I found myself feeling cheated by the author luring me in to the book expecting to find out about Eastwood's life ...nortoriously private ... and having to weed through 500 pages of the idiot author's film chatter in order to gather the few tidbits the author gave concerning the subject. Has this guy ever read a biography? He just used Eastwood to pander his cinema reviews. Utter, complete bullshit .... if Eastwood every read this he would be furious.