I don’t remember Dustin Hoffman saving anybody in that movie.
Well, there’s Younger Bear.
Thanks. I linked to that blog because it’s available online for free, and it does cite scholars. My sense from already having done a lot of reading of scholarship on white savior films is that the academic consensus is pretty much that Gran Torino is one, e.g.,
Matthew Hughes also lists it in his widely cited studies of white savior films.
But hey, if you want to keep defending a movie that yet again uses stereotypical, cartoonish non-white characters as a backdrop in order to highlight by contrast yet another heroic white protagonist whose story is presented as the REAL story, that’s your call.
2 Likes
I get that you don’t like the film, though like most critics and moviegoers who have seen it - including many Hmong - I found it surprisingly good, and very unlike the stereotypical “white savior” movie. Was there any particular scene in the movie that annoyed you?
Now I’m curious as to which Eastwood films you found less offensive.
You advised me to do some reading, so i think it’s fair to ask that you do some in return; the first link I provided is pretty much how I remember the movie’s depiction of race relations being problematic.
I might look into the Hmong studies journal tomorrow on this film, thanks for that idea.
2 Likes
I did read it, and don’t see Viet Thanh Nguyen as agreeing with your characterization of the neighbors. Moreover, he’s simply wrong about a few things; for example, he criticizes the setting, saying that most Hmong “ended up in rural California and Wisconsin”, while in fact Minnesota had a much larger population of Hmong than Wisconsin, with a big concentration in the Twin Cities. The change from Minneapolis to Detroit was made by the author for a variety of reasons he has detailed in interviews. Also, in my neighborhood the young Hmong loved to drive big American cars, not little Japanese cars as Nguyen speculates.
Yes, that interpretation has problems (thus my use of “pretty much”), but it seems to me that you’re focusing on them at the expense of the larger picture/issue, that of Gran Torino as a white savior film, which you claim it’s not.
Thanks again for the ref to Hmong Studies, which is, nicely enough, open access, yay. Have you read the interview there with Bee Vang, who played the film’s Hmong male lead? I’m wondering if you think he too is a poor judge of the film’s basic premise?
LS: The story, as we know, takes place in Detroit and centers on a white man who is probably dying and doesnít have much time left. His Asian neighbors are a backdrop to his search for redemption from acts in the Korean war–
BV: Of course, those Asians are nothing but FOBs or youth on the streets killing each other…
LS: Right. So Walt has to teach them the “right” way to behave, and to save the good ones from the bad. In the process, he valiantly takes the fall. Talk about your impressions of the plot, the script itself.
BV: The thing is, the story can’t take place without those Hmong characters, especially mine. But in the end, it’s Walt that gets glorified. We fade out in favor of his heroism. I felt negated by the script and by extension in my assuming the role. It’s almost like a non-role. Strange for a lead…
Vang also says that as the movie was being shot, he felt limited in how he could portray his character" “most of the script was not very open to interpretation and it was premised on [my character] not having any dignity. He needs to be clueless and have no self-respect in order for the white elder man to achieve his savior role.”
You’ve gathered that I don’t like this movie, and I might hazard a guess about why you do, if you’re a middle-aged white guy (and I have no idea if you are). Vang also addresses that sector of the movie’s fan base:
Y’know a middle-aged white guy was telling me the thing he loved most about Gran Torino was the interactions between Walt and the Hmong people – that the film “rings true” to him in some kind of way. A lot of people say this. Well – “rings true” for who? Maybe to people who live in a world where whites are the only heroes.
Another article at Hmong Studies points out that the stereotypical portrayals of Asians (which you brush away as no problem because the film isn’t a documentary) is not just offensive, but also a plot element that helps further the film’s inclusion in a certain genre – the white savior film:
the film allows the central figure of the white American to complete the project of saving Asians from each other that was so humiliatingly aborted in Southeast Asia. More specifically, it sets up good Asians and bad Asians, coded in predictably gendered ways. To enable Walt‘s heroic narrative, perpetual warriors beget their counterparts on American soil. Not exactly model minorities, those worthy of being saved are feminine, vulnerable, unable to defend themselves on their own turf, and ultimately, raped. Meanwhile, the hyperviolent bad Asians are bumblingly macho, ruthless, and most importantly, uncivilized, as marked by the ultimate transgression – violation of the incest taboo when gangbanger Spider is alleged by Eastwood to have raped his own kin.
I get that you like this movie, but I’m not convinced that I should, nor that the many Hmong and other Asian American who don’t like it should, nor (to the main point) that it’s not another egregious white savior movie.
1 Like
I’m not generally a big fan of standpoint theory, as it would say that it is hopeless for either of us (or Schein, or even Viet Thanh Nguyen) to discuss the film. I share very little of the worldview of most of Eastwood’s characters (let alone the man himself), which is why I think this film stands out from the rest of his ouvre. In any event, I promise not to suggest that the reason you don’t like this film is because as a woman you must prefer Hallmark romances.
The reason I suggested looking at the Hmong Studies journal, and Schein’s articles in particular, is that they have a nuanced view of this film, which your selective quoting misses. For example, the article you link by Schein and Va-Megn Thoj concludes:
Under the shadow of these disciplinings of Hmong American masculinities, it is not surprising that Hmong actors and audience have been deeply ambivalent about their portrayal in Gran Torino. But the actors who participated in the Gran Torino process from casting, through shooting, to its popular reception have gone through significant transformations in their perspectives on the film. They urge us toward more flexible and variegated outlooks, that take account not only of the text and its contents, but also of the fact of the film as a novel cultural development. They point out that despite egregious malportrayals, Gran Torino‘s focus on Hmong is unprecedented, that it is an opening, with the potential to make formerly untutored audiences curious to learn more about who the Hmong are. Some suggest that stereotyping is something all people engage in, and that this film, far from presuming to be documentary, presents simply what is seen through the eyes of a crochety old white guy. They enjoin us to go back and watch the film again with an eye toward understanding the dramatic reasons for exaggeration of social and cultural practices. They request that we attend to their performances, their craft. “[Gran Torino] is not about the Hmong community,” provokes Bee Vang. “We will only let this film define us if we are weak and we let it define us. We define who we
are.”
(The first sentence refers to the fact that the Hmong gang activity in Wisconsin had been big in the news prior to the filming, and some members of the community were justifiably unhappy with anything that might give a distorted view the importance of these gangs in Hmong-American life. There were no such gangs in my neighborhood.)
Movies have to be about something, and if it not about the thing that defines its subject for you, then it will be unsatisfying, but that is an unfair criticism. For example, I might have preferred the WWII movies I grew up with to spend more time on the Holocaust, but the omission doesn’t make them bad or antisemitic.
I don’t care about the labels, but think that grouping this movie together with others where the white guy (or American or Brit) sweeps in and saves the day misses differences that are genuinely important. The Eastwood character doesn’t really save anything, except possibly himself. The Hmong are treated with respect and dignity (more than every white actor in the film, especially Eastwood and his family), and are not portrayed by Italians in yellowface. It is not perfect, but far more than we are used to or have any reason to expect from a CE movie. I see value in the movie, in its examination of Eastwood’s transformation and in the way it chose a community few Americans are familiar with to highlight our tendency to stereotype and group. As a pure “white savior” movie it is not very good, and anyone looking primarily for that side of the movie would probably not rate it highly.
Thanks for the taking the time to explain further.
Dude, your quoting is “selective” too – all quoting is, no?
Anyway, I selected quotes in which people expressed agreement with my claim – which you initially refuted – that GT is a white savior film.
I never said that in terms of quality (however measured), and of equitable representation, white savior films are all the same. Of course some are “better” than others. Generally, though, I prefer films that don’t use the boring old, white-favoring staging of white protagonist’s stories played out against the contrasting, instrumentalized backdrop of stereotypical portrayed people of color. YMMV, of course.
Thanks for finally acknowledging that it is one. Anyone who can rate it highly while overlooking that it is one, well . . .
1 Like
[quote=“milliefink, post:29, topic:103079”]
Dude, your quoting is “selective” too – all quoting is, no?[/quote]
Fair enough.
Anyone who can rate it highly while overlooking that it is one, well . . .
My high rating is because of that. Had I thought it would be just another “white savior” film I wouldn’t even have made an effort to see it.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
