Customer Reviews

Clint: The Life and Legend

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

Let's see if I can remember the list of personal character insults against Clint Eastwood in this book.... He's lazy, he's vain, egotistical, manipulative, vindictive, callus, shallow, mean-spirited, chintzy, disloyal, petty, dishonest.... He has a irrational temper and is a bully. He's a sloppy hack of a director, and a lazy, minimally talented actor. That's just a sampling. (I almost forgot: he's also a racist, is homophobic, and a sexist.) Nothing is too petty for this author. He criticizes Clint's dress (and amusingly claims that he is so cheap that he just took home his Dirty Harry wardrobe for his own use) and even tries to make Clint's workout habits seem like a negative and ridicules his dietary habits! Nothing is too low: he repeats some quote from an alleged one-night stand from like twenty-five years ago that Clint is a "bum lay." He begins this whole mean-spirited diatribe against Clint Eastwood with a coarse, negative examination of his family tree.

Supposedly this author is a movie expert but the deepest analysis of Clint's movies he offers is his criticism that Clint takes his shirt off too often. In an interview the author admitted a distaste for rewatching movies, and it shows. A few times the author makes the claim like Clint has a perversion for liking scenes of him in a bathtub, pointing to High Plains Drifter as a reprise of his scene in a bathtub in the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Of course, in the Leone movie it was Eli Wallach who had the bathtub scene, not Clint. Oh well. What's a little detail like that when you have an agenda to push.

And the inside book jacket claims this is a "balanced" book. Hahahahaha. That's pretty funny. An example of how "balanced" and "well researched" this book is: the author reads Sondra Locke's book and repeats her story here, without reserve as the definitive truth of the situation. As if nothing in her version of the story is at all suspect. Uh-huh.

The author claims that Clint, while in his Rawhide days, ran a hopeful actor out of Hollywood. As though a co-star in a popular TV series would have that power, to ruin another's career, and in effect literarily force them out of Hollywood and L.A. The author also claims there is no evidence that Clint showed any interest in directing during his Rawhide days, or had ever made any suggestions about camera shots, or had ever asked to direct an episode of the series. So in effect, Clint is a big fat liar, who has all along manipulated the media and spread his own propaganda to the public. Even though Clint was to very competently direct his first movie, Play Misty for Me, a mere five years after the series ended.

Does Clint have flaws as a human being? Absolutely. His womanizing has been chronicled in at least two other books (including his "official" biography), and he doesn't deny it. Has he made mistakes? I'm sure. Is he the despicable man that the author portrays? I find that very unlikely. The author clearly has a bias (and some very evident psychological issues), and while your average reader won't be in any position to question the validity of facts that occurred in private, there is much in the book that any casual fan of Clint's can spot right off as untrue.

Author's claim: Clint has a history of gay-bashing in his movies (and private life.) Well, I don't know what he's ever said in private and maybe he has said something spiteful at one time-- maybe -- but I would bet the author of this book has said much worse in private. Just my personal assertion. But his movies are out there for anybody to watch, and there's very clearly no instance of gay-bashing in any movie (including The Eiger Sanction), nor does the author actually give an example. He just makes the claim.

Author's claim: Clint has a sordid history of mistreatment of blacks in his films. Author's support: Dirty Harry is clearly a racist. (He's clearly not.) The scene with the black bankrobbers. Portraying a black guy as a pimp in Magnum Force. As though these are the only roles Clint ever had black actors play in his movies. The author will use even the flimsiest of evidence to try to make his case. Watch his movies and decide for yourself.

Author's claim: That Clint has portrayed women in his movies in a negative manner. The Beguiled, Play Misty For Me, and The Enforcer are three he singles out. Yes, there is sexism at the beginning of the Enforcer, but it's done with humor in mind, and to show how far Harry comes around. The movie could even be seen as an endorsement for affirmative action, though I doubt that was what interested Clint. As for the other two.... well, the author is apparently holding onto some archaic notion that women are pure of heart and only men are capable of greed, obsession, passion, deceit, etc. It's okay for a movie like Taxi Drive to show a man as a sociopath, but not okay to show women as such. In other words, women aren't allowed to have good roles in movies! I guess they're just supposed to look pretty, but not actually do anything. He also claims Clint had a hidden agenda to force Sondra Locke into roles where she's a hooker or is otherwise assaulted. Even though he always gave her good roles, roles that would require real acting, and give her a chance to shine. Whether or not she performed up to the roles is a separate issue. Then girlfriend Francis Fisher also plays a whore in Unforgiven, and a-ha! we have a pattern here, the author claims. If you really, really want to believe that, then go ahead, but Clint's movies speak for themselves. Go back and watch them, and you'll find he always had far stronger women in his movies than any other male star, and that holds true even in this age.

You could go on, but what's the point. His assertions of things we all in the public can see are false lead me think there is nothing in this book that is not questionable. This author isn't the first to parasitically try to ruin a celebrity's reputation for personal profit and spite, and I'm sure he won't be the last, and there will always be those in the public who want to see the worse in stars--they expect it, they even crave it, this idea that stars are by nature depraved and perverse.

One last note. I found it interesting that the controversy surrounding Tightrope was totally glossed over, and Tuggle given full credit for directing it, with the exception of some minor scenes involving Clint and his daughter that Clint directed. Now it's well known that Clint wrested directing duties from Tuggle early on in the production because of dissatisfaction with Tuggle's methods, but was not able to take credit due to a policy that was created after the Outlaw Josey Wales controversy. You would have thought that the author would have found this yet another example of Clint's egotism and... whatever else. But no. It seems that Tightrope is one of the few movies that the author actually likes of Clint's, even going so far as to concede through a quote by Tuggle that Clint can, actually, act when he wants to. Very strangely the author seems fascinated by the sexual content of the movie (which seems to hint at the author's own....no, never mind, I'm not going there.) The obvious conclusion is that the author thinks highly of the movie, and of the directing of the movie, and is not about to give Clint any credit if he can help it. No mention of the controversy is mentioned, not even to deny that there was a controversy, which Schickel detailed thoroughly in his bio of Clint. Interesting. Now tell me the author didn't have some (sick) agenda in this book.

Patrick McGilligan's "unauthorized" biography of film giant Clint Eastwood is dedicated to "Mom." If Mrs. McGilligan bothered to read the book, she might have said "Thanks, but no thanks," and request that her name be removed from such a seamy book. Of course, McGilligan could argue that it isn't his book that's offensive, but the life of its subject. I think it's a little of both.

If McGilligan is correct, Eastwood's public image is a sham. Widely praised for his loyalty, the Eastwood in McGilligan's book banishes lifelong friends from his circle should they dare ask for even a tiny crumb of the pie they helped bake. Producers, directors, editors, writers, all of them working for comparative peanuts, become "non-persons" in the eyes of Clint the squint, and they are exiled from his Malpaso production company and from the film industry itself because, they insist, the big man is vindictive, and uses his considerable influence to deprive them of their right to make a living. But the macho icon is also a coward who loathes confrontation and never fires anyone directly, letting others do his dirty work for him. Rich beyond mere tabulation, Dirty Harry's Republican alter ego slams welfare and brags that he worked for "every crust of bread" he ever ate, yet never pays for a meal, insisting on being "comped" wherever he goes. And as a filmmaker, his legendary habit of delivering films ahead of schedule and under budget is nothing but carelessness and a wiliness to accept subpar work to keep his budgets low and his percentages high.

He's also a womanizer whose relationships produced numerous illegitimate children, an opportunist who used his brief reign as Mayor of Carmel for his own financial gain, and a father in name only.

Then there's that temper. Anyone who dares park in his unmarked space on the Warner lot will know holy terror as Eastwood vandalizes their vehicle with a golf club, hammer, or a pickup truck. Good luck if you sue him in court, especially with a judge who asks for his autograph.

As someone who always thought highly of Eastwood personally no matter what I thought of his films (most of which I admire), I found this account of his life rather disturbing, but the book is disturbing in ways that have more to do with McGilligan than Eastwood. The punctuation is often a mess with periods appearing outside quotation marks, and the spelling is often questionable, with the author spelling tires as "tyres" when describing the ludicrous climax of The Gauntlet. Maybe the guy is English and doesn't always Americanize his language but the biographical notes describe him as living in Missouri, so that may not be an excuse.

There are also more substantial errors. McGilligan has Ronald Reagan appropriating Dirty Harry's famous "Make my day" speech from Sudden Impact in March 1983, nine months before the film is released. And he gets other dates wrong: In his world, Paint Your Wagon opened a year later than it did, and Escape from Alcatraz debuts in the Christmas season of 1979 when, in fact, it opened the previous June. One can excuse errors here and there, but release dates can be easily verified, and McGilligan makes them consistently. If he can't get a film's release date right, how much faith can we have in his account of incidents from Eastwood's life, incidents at which the author was not present?

If nothing else, this book's sloppy research suggests McGilligan suffers from one of the same personality flaws for which he frequently reprimands his subject. Eastwood, he says, is always happy with the first draft of the screenplays he stars in and/or directs, never requesting and always resisting rewrites (perhaps because they require shelling out cash, something the miserly multi-millionaire is loathe to do). McGilligan's book reads like a first draft that never made it to the proofreader. Perhaps a quote from the Bible is in order here: "Judge not lest ye be judged."

McGilligan's book is certainly an improvement over Richard Shickel's earlier look at the Hollywood titan. McGilligan is fairly thorough, offering more information about Eastwood's ancestry than we might even want to know about our own, and providing a more subjective view of the star's contribution to the cinema. Thankfully, he never fawns over Eastwood the way "critic" Schickel did in his "authorized" bio, but one may be tempted to wonder if he went too far in the opposite direction.

This is a warts and all biography that is several notches above the tell all/Kitty Kelley genre. The author has a genuine feel for Eastwood's films and his work as a director. Credit is given where credit is due. But that's not the good stuff. When the author digs into Eastwood's personal life, what emerges is a selfish, shallow man who, worst of all, shows no loyalty whatsoever to his old friends. Eastwood seems to have nailed every waitress, starlet and car hop that crossed his path, but that, tho fun, is no reason to discredit the man. It's when you read how he double crossed old friends, fired them, cut them out of deals, etc, that your stomach really turns. Beneath that sombrero and cigar beats the heart of Sammy Glick! In a way this book is as merciless (and readable) as Mommy Dearest. And Clint comes off just a tad better than hanger-weilding Joan Crawford. He didn't beat his kids, you've got to give him that. But when you read what he did to Sondra Locke, who was suffering from breast cancer at the time, it's almost as bad. Eastwood is probably furious about this book, but it is needed, especially when you consider the white wash that Richard Schickle, little more than a paid flack and lackey, published a few years ago. THIS is the definitive Clint Eastwood book. Read it and weep.

It's ironic that this biography received such poor ratings when it is the only true Eatwood biography among Eastwood books. The reality is that most people interested in Eastwood don't want to accept or consider that one of their favorite cinimatic personalities might actually be human with human failings. After reading 'Clint' I had a detailed picture of Eastwood the man and his career.

The author goes to painstaking detail to capture Eastwood while painting a fascinating portrait of the Hollywood landscape. For such an encompassing biography 'Clint' is suprisingly well paced. Both times I've read 'Clint' I couldn't put it down. I first read 'Clint' 6 years ago when it came out and recently reread it it was so engrossing and enjoyable.

If you want to keep thinking of Eastwood as a 'good guy' don't buy 'Clint.' If you want a clear picture of the man this is a fantastic read and book. 'Clint' is a must for those willing to look beyong the vail of the Hollywood PR machine.

I am impressed. Here on the Monterey Peninsula Clint is just one more developer.

This book accurately details the uncomfortable years we endured of Eastwood's early Carmel years when he was trying to influence politics purely to make money and won a single two year term as Mayor.

Benjamin Franklin said "Need wants a few things, Greed wants many things -- but Avarice wants everything."

Even if you like his films, McGilligan uncovered that ugly facet of Eastwood that Clint tries so hard to hide.

Good book. I'm going to give it away as presents.

john steinbeck said that all good books can be described in one sentence.
following that reasoning, i'd say this: "clint eastwood is not a good person".

according to the 4 year research by the author, eastwood always treated women like garbage, is given to attacks of fury, is an egomaniac, a sloppy director, lazy, holds grudges, is a sadist, is stupid, is a total coward, has no character, is a shmuck... etc.

clint was a sort of a teen idol of mine, i've seen all his films. according to the author, clint's career and myth are a triumph of publicity, of projecting a false image to a worldwide audience.
we all know that people under the spotlight of fame are exposed to false accusations, etc. but even steve mcqueen, with all his faults, had, according to at least 2 biographies, a very human side. according to this book, clint is a block of ice without remission. sometimes, it feels the author is not talking about a human being.

like other reviewers said, the author of the book may have a grudge against clint. but many of the episodes and stories contained in the book are checked and confirmed by 2 or 3 sources, on the record. either this is an extremely violent personal attack or, if it's the truth, well, clint eastwood is a despicable individual.

the author writes well, it's a very readable book. but it's not pleasant to know that dirty harry is, in fact, a "rotten clint".

there are 2 misinformed reviewers here. one says clint sued. but the book doesen't say he beat his ex wife. the book is still in circulation and the judge apparently decided that way. and there is another book by sondra locke which confirms many of the facts presented here. other reviewer says that the author of the book didn't get good reviews. i'd advise him to read the back cover, with praise from prestigious newspapers and magazines. someone also says here that it's an attack on eastwood political values and the author of the book is biased. eastwood supported nixon all through the watergate. any people with any sense of decency or any degree of honesty couldn't ever support nixon's activities in the watergate. need i say more?...

This book is an apparently balqanced review. But is Clint different than what he appears to be in his publicity? An interesting read.

J. Robert Ewbank author "John Wesley, Natural Man, and the 'Isms'"

By his own words the author identifies himself as a typical, Hollywood, hate-America, far-left limousine liberal who never misses a chance to tell you how much he hates Ronald Reagan - As if the reader should care. Small wonder, then, that he also hates Clint Eastwood.
And there is the problem. If a politically motivated biographer detests the politics of his subject, can he be fair? Probably not, so that makes his biography nearly worthless. Clint may be a liar, a thief, a wife-beater, a backstabber, a miser, and a pill-popping narcissist, to name the lesser character defects the author ascribes to him, but how reliable is the source? If the author had had the wit to keep his mouth shut about his own beliefs he would have done a more credible hatchet job. Megalomania will out.
The author attributes Clint's good press to either smoozing with reporters(male) or sleeping with them (female). Maybe the author should try that himself; It's the only way he'll ever get a good review for this book.

This is the best and no contemplative biography of Eastwood I had never read. No kisses in his ass. No sucking the dust. They're sources that talk whit care in prewing a possible menace. All of his girls-in-love were used as prostitutes in his films. Scripts that Eastwood realized whithout kowning them. A man of usura. And etc. It's not the artistic but the real man in his every day life what is narrated. Of course, american people don't like to see one of his idols cut down to earth as a man. I knew before the kind of Clint.

I've read this book 4 or 5 times now and I still find it fascinating. Though there are some errors in it, it's still tarnishes Clint's reputation-somewhat. Despite being overtly negative, and sad for those of us who are big fans, Clint will still be Clint to the vast majority. I find it disappointing that he fathered so many kids that he wasn't really a father to, and that he could distance himself from people who were once his friends without so much as a backward glance, but the quote at the end of the book says it all, really. It says: "If you like Clint's films, that's all that matters". I agree, sort of. I just feel let down knowing that someone I admire so much has so many deep character flaws.