Gran Torino really “zooms” into all sorts of uncomfortable situations. (Har har, a lot like that pun!)
Our first stop on the road of analysis takes us to a problem that can be seen in many entertaining mediums: complex characters with simple titles (think: good guy and his best friend, bad guy). When characters with a range of emotion and endless moral options are represented to the viewer as good OR bad it’s easy forget that good can also be bad and bad can also be good. Therefore, we are watching the film and thinking “or” instead of “and”. This gets tricky when we decide that one character is most definitely bad and then naturally assume that the other characters must be good; as long as our role of “evil villain” has been filled it is easier to forgive and forget other characters.
For instance, using the illness of a not-so-nice character as a way to gain sympathy allows us to be more compassionate and forgiving. So even if a character say… constantly stereotypes, discriminates, and even points a gun at other humans just for being on his lawn the viewer may find it easier to sympathize with him if he is coughing up blood and his son is also seen as a trivial bad guy, too. Similarly, if that character shows a progression of compassion we too find ourselves growing in our fondness of him. But does that change who he was or what he’s done? At the end of the movie, Walt (Clint Eastwood) finally foes to Confession and his confession is quite telling– how much have his views (the viewer sees him “grow out of” or learn from) changed if he feels no need to repent them? So, this complex character looses his complexity in our assigning him the role of “bad guy turned good”. His is our Martyr (literally falls to the ground in a pose like Jesus on the cross, let’s be real), our White Savior, our changed man who makes it all better for this Hmong community. Is this where I’m supposed to swoon…?
Our second stop is one not too far from our last and involves the same dangerous bumpiness. This film definitely illustrates racism but the obviousness of it overrides the more subtle racism and sexism. When Walt meets Youa (Choua Kue) he intentionally calls her Yum Yum. By the ages of those around her, I believe it safe to assume she’s around 15-17. Walt is well past half-century age. So with his “ha-ha look, I’m nicer” attitude it’s easy to overlook his intentional botching of her name because it’s “funny” and “innocent”. But. Not really. In calling her Yum Yum he is exhibiting his feeling of entitlement in sexualizing her. And, as an elder white male he gets away with it. Even others who hear him call her Yum Yum accept it and laugh.
Our third and last stop: more sneaky racism (when juxtaposed with the more in-your-face racism), what does the movie leave out? What stereotypes does it accidentally perpetuate? Notice how the two other groups represented (three Black males and a group of Latino males) were represented as “Gangbangers” or “thugs”. When we see other white people in the movie represented we see them as vapid and vulgar (Walt’s family, his barber) however when you compare this kind of representation there is a major difference. Being vapid and vulgar is innocent and forgivable; their personality is more of a statement on “American culture” (in and terms of the barber “the way to be a man”), whereas with both the Black and Latino representations are stereotypes that are not innocent. By internalizing the gang/thug/criminal stereotype both of these marginalized groups are put into danger in true reality.
This film was predictably entertaining but I’m not looking to be entertained by it gain.