Gran Torino

[DemonSlayer]

One of the best films I saw last year, I did not anticipate how good it would be.

[rhetoricfemme]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='15 May 2010 - 11:40 PM' timestamp='1273981221' post='2111291']
I thought it was a terribly implausible and naive ending, given that what all those witnesses saw was the same thing that caused the thugs to do what they did. If I were a witness, and I saw Clint do what he did, I'd say, "Yeah, looks like they might have been justified in doing what they did."

Hardly a "confession" he made, too. His character reeked of the typical fallen-away Catholic "I Did It My Way" cafeteria Catholic attitude. Archbishop Fulton Sheen rightly called that ditty "The theme song of Hell."

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Since it's a movie, I wouldn't call it naive, considering they were more than likely trying to make a point rather than convey precisely what would happen. Still, I think that if a situation did go down just as it did, that they were still entirely unjustified in pulling their weapons on him. There were plenty of them, and one of him.

I don't like the thought of judging someone's confession (even if they're fictional, lol), even if it was as simple as his was. Those things were apparently on his mind and heart for a long time, and he said what he felt he needed to say.

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='16 May 2010 - 01:53 AM' timestamp='1273989180' post='2111340']
i dont think he was ever really a catholic in that movie, he went mostly for his wifes sake.
[/quote]
Yeah, I think he mentioned toward the beginning that his wife was why he went.

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='16 May 2010 - 11:18 AM' timestamp='1274023110' post='2111426']
I was responding to the statement, "I really like how Catholicism is sort of a character itself in the movie, and certainly portrayed well." I didn't see how Catholicism was portrayed well, except in the priest, of course. I saw Catholicism portrayed in an impious way, "I can do it on my own" and "I can get to heaven, if it even exists, on my own terms."

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
I still think Catholicism is a character itself in the movie. This is what else I saw in my watching it:

A horribly disrespectful family in and out of the church, and a clearly disgusted Walt. Regardless of his personal feelings for the Church, he clearly [i]sees it as a place that is sacred[/i], and doesn't care for how his family is behaving in it. I'm sure plenty of that disdain was also meant for how they're behaving on the day they celebrate his wife. From this it seemed to say that the most unsavory of people need church, too, and no one should be turned away.

The fact that Walt [i]makes it to that confession[/i] at all. Sure, his wife wanted him to go. Still, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it.

[i]Everything about the priest[/i]. He's honest, persistent, he listens, and is involved with his parishioners and community (we see him in the bar, showing up at Walt's place, at the neighbor's after the abuse, and he mentions that he does work with the gangs), and he seems to never forget that God is who he's really working for.
[i]
The church itself[/i]. The few shots we get of the church are beautiful, and at least to me, they are images of [i]strength and comfort, and you just get the idea that it's going to be there long after any of these people are gone[/i]. That what stays behind is its ability to bring people God, which I think is also evidenced by the aforementioned points.

That's just what I got out of it.

Edited May 17, 2010 by rhetoricfemme

[kamiller42]

There was no justification for them shooting. One old man vs. a dozen young guys with automatic weapons. Did they really feel threatened? Even if he had a weapon, he would have never hit anyone one. The odds were overwhelmingly against him.

The portrayal of Catholicism was much better in this movie than the other Clint movie, the horrible Million Dollar Bore.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='16 May 2010 - 11:14 AM' timestamp='1274022863' post='2111422']
Tell that to Amadou Diallo, and tell that to the police. They do it all the time. And get away with it. Putting one's hand in one's jacket so quickly and causing someone to reasonably fear for his life makes such a reaction justifiable. But not usually not on the part of the police, who deliberately put themselves in those situations, often by unnecessarily stopping someone, backed up with the threat of violence, for a malfunctioning tail light or a safe rolling stop. There was a recent case of a man who had just about enough of police interference in his life. He was pulled over for not wearing a seat belt. He killed the aggressor officer (though I doubt it was a justified level of violence) with an M-1 Carbine. He wasn't a violent criminal. He wasn't a druggie. He was an old man who was tired of getting robbed of $100 every time he chose not to wear a seat belt. It had happened multiple times before.

The thugs in the movie could have probably told a consistent story, even under individual questioning, about what this guy had already done that led to their belief that he was going to do them harm. A little "get off my lawn" incident with a Garand, for example.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
You don't get it. The cops can do whatever they want. That is a given. Therefore, your example is not applicable. If I were talking to you and put my hand in my jacket and you shot me, you would not be justified, even if you feared for your life

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='17 May 2010 - 11:44 AM' timestamp='1274121875' post='2112008']
You don't get it. The cops can do whatever they want. That is a given. Therefore, your example is not applicable. If I were talking to you and put my hand in my jacket and you shot me, you would not be justified, even if you feared for your life
[/quote]

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/local&id=7433661

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='rhetoricfemme' date='09 May 2010 - 02:18 AM' timestamp='1273382319' post='2107525']
I really like how Catholicism is sort of a character itself in the movie, and certainly portrayed well. Has anyone else seen Gran Torino? What did you think of it?
[/quote]

Sorta... all except for that wussy priest.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='17 May 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1274121875' post='2112008']
You don't get it. The cops can do whatever they want. That is a given. Therefore, your example is not applicable. If I were talking to you and put my hand in my jacket and you shot me, you would not be justified, even if you feared for your life
[/quote]

Reminds me of another movie -- one of the best of all time

"That's not a gun! It's your finger! Go back to the Sixties where you came from!" (I may be paraphrasing a little...)

[MissyP89]

They showed it at my parish.

[Winchester]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='17 May 2010 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1274112905' post='2111908']
There was no justification for them shooting. One old man vs. a dozen young guys with automatic weapons. Did they really feel threatened? Even if he had a weapon, he would have never hit anyone one. The odds were overwhelmingly against him.
[/quote]
If I think someone is about to pull out a weapon (especially when said person has a history of carrying and threatening with the weapon), I am under no moral obligation to wait for him to whip one out as he reaches for something I can't see. Nor am I under any obligation to count on someone else shooting him. Numerical and/or material superiority does not oblige one to not defend oneself.

Where do you come up with him not being capable of hitting anyone?

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Winchester' date='18 May 2010 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1274203976' post='2112877']
If I think someone is about to pull out a weapon (especially when said person has a history of carrying and threatening with the weapon), I am under no moral obligation to wait for him to whip one out as he reaches for something I can't see. Nor am I under any obligation to count on someone else shooting him. Numerical and/or material superiority does not oblige one to not defend oneself.

Where do you come up with him not being capable of hitting anyone?
[/quote]
Slow down Dirty Harry. Put the itchy trigger finger away.

1. He never killed anyone in the movie. The dog had bark, but showed no bite.
2. He's an old man who could barely walk. No way is he whipping any gun out and getting a shot off before those young gangsta killed him.
3. He had no gun. If he had a toy gun that looked like a real gun, then you would have some reason to shoot. But, a hand?
4. He was in the light. They were masked in the dark. It would be blind luck if he was actually able hit anyone. Meanwhile, they could more easily see him.
5. This sort of ties to #2. The gang was carrying automatic weapons, which would take no effort to fire. The old man would have had a pistol which would have required engaging the hammer via trigger. Another reason for his slow speed.

Sure, you are obliged to defend yourself, but be smart about it. Make sure it's the secondary effect of your double effect and not the primary.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='17 May 2010 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1274125258' post='2112029']
Sorta... all except for that wussy priest.
[/quote]
It annoyed me at first, but I think it's a clever device. He stands in contrast to Clint's character in so many ways, and it enhances the story.

Clint, old.
Priest, young.

Clint, worldy experience.
Priest, just out of the seminary.

Clint, gruff and rude.
Priest, soft spoken and patient.

Clint, lacking hope.
Priest, hopeful. (Clint believes idealistic.)

Clint, soldier of mortal war.
Priest, soldier of spiritual war.

[Maximilianus]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='19 May 2010 - 12:40 AM' timestamp='1274240444' post='2113414']
Slow down Dirty Harry. Put the itchy trigger finger away.

1. He never killed anyone in the movie. The dog had bark, but showed no bite.
2. He's an old man who could barely walk. No way is he whipping any gun out and getting a shot off before those young gangsta killed him.
3. He had no gun. If he had a toy gun that looked like a real gun, then you would have some reason to shoot. But, a hand?
4. He was in the light. They were masked in the dark. It would be blind luck if he was actually able hit anyone. Meanwhile, they could more easily see him.
5. This sort of ties to #2. The gang was carrying automatic weapons, which would take no effort to fire. The old man would have had a pistol which would have required engaging the hammer via trigger. Another reason for his slow speed.

Sure, you are obliged to defend yourself, but be smart about it. Make sure it's the secondary effect of your double effect and not the primary.
[/quote]

A man that can hold an M1 Garand with authority is hardly feeble and a M1911 may be single action, but it's semi auto and it would be foolish to assume a veteran that had one issued to him during his time in the military would not know how to carry it in atleast condition one or be able to simultaneously charge it while drawing.

Edited because of the fiddler.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Maximilianus

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Maximilianus' date='19 May 2010 - 03:57 AM' timestamp='1274255837' post='2113500']
A man that can hold an M1 Garand with authority is hardly feeble and a M1911 may be single action, but it's semi auto and it would be foolish to assume a veteran that had one issued to him during his time in the military would not know how to carry it in atleast condition one or be able to simultaneously charge it while drawing.

Edited because of the fiddler.
[/quote]
All I am saying is that Walt isn't going to be able to handle that gun the same way he handled it when he was issued it. It is a fact that people's reflexes and motions slow as they get older. Clint is 79 years old, and he looked and played a man that age in the movie.

We are not going to see the Walt character do anything like this...
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7HN7THecwg[/media]

I can act the part of holding a gun with authority, but I am not a great shooter.

[rhetoricfemme]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='18 May 2010 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1274241050' post='2113419']
It annoyed me at first, but I think it's a clever device. He stands in contrast to Clint's character in so many ways, and it enhances the story.

Clint, old.
Priest, young.

Clint, worldy experience.
Priest, just out of the seminary.

Clint, gruff and rude.
Priest, soft spoken and patient.

Clint, lacking hope.
Priest, hopeful. (Clint believes idealistic.)

Clint, soldier of mortal war.
Priest, soldier of spiritual war.
[/quote]
Nice comparison!

[Maximilianus]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='19 May 2010 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1274281340' post='2113596']
All I am saying is that Walt isn't going to be able to handle that gun the same way he handled it when he was issued it. It is a fact that people's reflexes and motions slow as they get older. Clint is 79 years old, and he looked and played a man that age in the movie.

We are not going to see the Walt character do anything like this...
[media][url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7HN7THecwg"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=r7HN7THecwg[/url][/media]

I can act the part of holding a gun with authority, but I am not a great shooter.
[/quote]

You may not be a great shooter, but maybe Walt was. We will never know.