Clint Eastwood
Brosnan was a minimalist, much like Clint Eastwood, and his harsh, almost expressionless face made him perfect for playing mysterious tough guys
The words are spoken by none other than Charles Bronson, perhaps the last actor in the world one expects to say these words. The film is the 1975 Western adventure Breakheart Pass, directed by Tom Gries, and no, Bronson is not playing either Jesus Christ or Mahatma Gandhi in the film, though his initial actions in the film might raise suspicions to that account – Bronson’s character, John Deakin, is kicked, slapped around and then cuffed, tied and relegated to the floor of a train, with nary a protest or hint of violence from the macho star, who just keep repeating that he is non-violent. Bronson films are usually filled with violence of every kind, and Breakheart Pass is no exception; the film has action, adventure, mystery, and yes violence too, but it’s still one of those rarest of rare films: a PG rated Charles Bronson action thriller from the 1970s, and that too just a year after Bronson himself took violence in movies to a new level with his vigilante thriller Death Wish. So, the much toned down nature of Breakheart Pass is truly surprising. The film concentrates on building suspense, rather than in random acts of violence.
The film is adapted from an Alistair MacLean novel and this is one of the most faithful MacLean adaptations, maybe because the author himself wrote the screenplay. MacLean usually writes either suspenseful action thrillers set during WWII, or more contemporary twisty thrillers, Breakheart Pass is the lone MacLean novel set in the Old-west, and though every Maclean novel has an element of mystery involved in it, here, he makes the mystery the main aspect of the film. The film borrows equally from John Ford’s iconic Stagecoach(1939) as it does from Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express, which was made into a very popular movie by director Sidney Lumet in 1974.
The plot of the film goes something like this: it’s the 1870’s. A special train is being sent to Fort Humboldt, a frontier outpost, with medical supplies and a relief force to combat the diphtheria that has broken out there. The territorial Governor Fairchild (Richard Crenna) is taking personal charge of the operation, the troops are commanded by cavalry Major Claremont(Ed Lauter). Along for the ride is a U.S. Marshal, Pearce (Ben Johnson), Doctor Molyneux(David Huddleston), Fort Humboldt’s Commanding officer’s daughter, Marica Scoville (Jill Ireland) and Reverend Peabody(Bill McKinney). The train engineer is played by Roy Jenson and the conductor O’Brien is Charles Durning. Governor Fairchild travels in style in a private car with a cook, Carlos (Archie Moore), and a server (Victor Mohica). On the way, they pickup a wanted criminal, John Deakin (Charles Bronson). As the Train makes it journey thought the Rocky mountains, the passengers start getting killed one by one. First, a few of the Major’s soldiers goes missing; then the doctor is found dead; after that, the fireman is thrown from the engine car while the train is crossing a steep wooden bridge. Obviously, there is a killer or a group of killers on the train. It soon become obvious that none of the passengers- including Deakin – are what they appear to be, and neither is the purpose of the journey as clean cut as delivering medical supplies. Deakin turns out to be an undercover government agent (this is revealed pretty early in the film) and it’s up to him to uncover the mystery, which involves corrupt government officials, angry native tribes, illegal arms sales and gold smuggling.
As it is obvious from the plot synopsis, the film boasts of a great star cast , and one of the pleasures of the movie is seeing them play off each other, especially as the mystery deepens and it is left to the audience to guess who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. Bronson, Johnson, Lauter, all veterans of Westerns, does great work here, with Crenna, Durning and others lending great support. Jill Ireland, Bronson’s wife in real life and his regular screen partner, lends her feminine charms to this otherwise masculine drama. The film borrows the basic template from Stagecoach – a group of disparate American characters travelling through hostile Indian territory; only here, the Coach is replaced by a smoky train. Also, Bronson’s John Deakin intrudes into their journey in the same way as outlaw, Ringo Kid (John Wayne) does in Stagecoach; Both Deakin and Kid turns out, not to be the bad guys their reputation suggests, and in the end they emerges as the heroes who save the day. The buildup of the suspense set around a train journey is very reminiscent of Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express, with Deakin becoming the Hercule Poirot surrogate; investigating the murders\disappearances and unearthing clues to the unfolding mystery. The film also borrows from Alfred Hitchcock’s The Lady Vanishes(1938) – another mystery thriller set on a train, with its themes of espionage and political conspiracies.
Though the film is one of the most faithful adaptations of an Alistair Maclean
novel, It does departs from the novel at several points, the most important one being that it is revealed much early in the film that Deakin is a secret service agent, as opposed to the book where it is revealed only very late. Also, in the novel, Marica is Fairchild’s niece, while it’s changed to a sort of romantic relationship in the movie; Richard Crenna portrays Fairchild as a cunning and resourceful person, while in the novel, he’s a rather stupid coward. Bronson wanted to stick close to the book regarding the revelation of Deakin’s identity, but the filmmakers changed it – much to the chagrin of Bronson – so that the last hour of the film could play as a regular Cavalry Vs. Indians Western. I feel the generic last half hour, which provides us with the typical genre pleasures – chases on horseback, shootings, confrontation with Native tribes, derailing of trains, cavalry charges etc. – is inferior to the suspenseful first hour of the film. The climax is also changed from the novel- where the story ends with a spectacular “Bridge on the river Kwai” style exploding bridge and derailing of a train. Maybe producers didn’t have enough budget to shoot that climax, so they set it around a stationary train.
Though the film concentrates more on suspense, the film still has some great action scenes choreographed by the legendary stunt coordinator Yakima Canutt. Canutt had directed the climactic gunfight in Stagecoach and the Chariot race in Ben-Hur, Breakheart Pass was his last film. Here he designed some spectacular scenes, like the one where the troop carriages are detached from the main body of the train and they crash off the rail line into a ravine. But the most memorable action sequence is the thrilling fight between Bronson and boxing champ Archie Moore on the snow covered train roof-top as the train hurtles along though the mountain pass. The scene is superbly shot by the great cinematographer Lucien Ballard – who had shot great westerns for Sam Peckinpah like The Wild Bunch (1969) . Though the film is set in Nevada, shooting was mainly done in Idaho; and Ballard showcases the beautiful landscape to the optimum. The terrific Jerry Goldsmith score complements the film; it is both rousing and ominous, befitting a suspenseful western adventure. The film is directed by Tom Gries, who started off in television and later made his film debut in the late 60’s with some well respected revisionist movies like the western Will Penny and sports drama Number One, both starring Charlton Heston. But by the mid 1970’s, he had become a very traditional filmmaker; he had made the contemporary crime thriller Breakout with Bronson earlier that year. Here, he does a very efficient job of mixing genres, keeping the narrative straightforward, without going into too many twists or turns. He realizes that, at the end of the day, this is very much an escapist Charles Bronson action\adventure movie and he strives to make it a fresh and enjoyable experience for the audience without disappointing the hardcore Bronson fans- and Gries accomplishes this very successfully.
The film was made at the height of Bronson’s career. After doing supporting parts in very successful ensemble dramas like The Magnificent Seven, The Great Escape , The Dirty Dozen etc., Bronson had attained international stardom with Sergio Leone’s Once upon a time in the West. The success of Death Wish(1974) would solidify his American stardom. He was one of the highest paid actors at the time and also the most prolific; in 1975 alone he made three movies, apart from Breakheart Pass and Breakout, he also made Walter Hill’s depression era dram Hard Times. It was also a time when Bronson was trying to expand his image by doing slightly different roles (films) from his regular stone-faced avenging angels; films like Hard Times, White Buffalo, From Noon Till Three etc. were expected to broaden his audience appeal. Unfortunately, none of them, including Breakheart Pass, was commercially successful.
This was the reason why he never became a star of the magnitude and durability of a Clint Eastwood, and he was soon relegated to his bread and butter B action movies and countless Death Wish sequels. Bronson was 53 when he made this movie, and though his face showed the ravages of age – he was never a conventionally good looking movie star to begin with anyway – he was in superb physical shape, clearly evident from the fighting scenes in Hard Times. In this film, he is fully up to the challenges of doing difficult stunts; whether fisticuffs on the roof of the train or gunfights on the horseback. As an actor, Brosnan was a minimalist, much like Clint Eastwood, and his harsh, almost expressionless face made him perfect for playing mysterious tough guys, whether it is the avenging angel Harmonica in Once upon a time in the West or the secret service agent masquerading as an outlaw here. In that regard, Breakheart Pass is one of the best Charles Bronson films, where he is perfect.
Clint Eastwood
Mystic River: Why Clint Eastwood’s Best Movie Still Holds Up Today
A filmmaker of Clint Eastwood‘s caliber is going to have a filmography full of gems. Primarily known for his work in Westerns, biopics, and military dramas, every so often, Eastwood steps outside his comfort zone and delivers in a genre that would seem completely unexpected on paper. That happened in 2003 with Mystic River, a neo-noir murder mystery drama that seems a bit forgotten or overlooked, even though it was a financial success and earned six Academy Award nominations. It represents Eastwood at his very best, breathing vivid life into complex characters as he examines a plethora of themes that range from loyalty, friendship, revenge, and, ultimately, forgiveness.
Mystic River is based on the 2001 novel of the same name by Dennis Lehane, and it follows the lives of three childhood friends, Jimmy Markum (Sean Penn), Sean Devine (Kevin Bacon), and Dave Boyle (Tim Robbins), living in Charlestown, Boston in 1975. Dave is kidnapped by two men claiming to be police officers, and he’s sexually abused by them over a four-day period until he escapes. The traumatic event shapes the three friends, and they ultimately lead very different lives twenty-five years later.
Jimmy is an ex-con that now owns a convenience store in the neighborhood, Sean works for the Massachusetts State Police as a detective, and Dave is your everyday blue-collar worker that still lives with the trauma of being abducted and raped. Their lives are forced together once again through tragedy when Jimmy’s daughter Katie (Emmy Rossum) is found murdered, and friendship is tested when all signs point to Dave being the murderer.
Mystic River Is a Departure From Clint Eastwood’s Other Work
Eastwood tackles the material in Mystic River with a sure and confident hand. It also represents a unique departure from some of his other films. Much of the action takes place under the cover of darkness, and Eastwood is able to find beauty in that darkness. The filmmaker focuses on a character’s eyes or the gleam of a weapon, for instance, as darkness permeates most of the scene.
For the scenes that take place during the day, the filmmaker opts for tight close-ups that linger over the emotions of his impressive cast. There is something uncomfortably intimate about Mystic River, and that has much to do with the subject matter. None of this story is particularly easy to digest, and Eastwood adds to that discomfort with his choices to frame scenes in such a way that’s almost intrusive. The audience feels a growing sense of dread and tension as more of the story unfolds.
Using Lehane’s novel and Brian Helgeland’s screenplay as a blueprint, Eastwood profoundly explores generational trauma and how the sins of the past can leave a permanent mark on our present. Even though the abuse only happened to Dave, the effects of the event leave a mark on all three friends, with Dave being the primary victim and the others feeling a sense of survivor’s guilt for not being subjected to it themselves.
The ordeal forever changes their union because they’re never quite able to look at each other the same way again, as each friend deals with the trauma differently. Jimmy is stunned by the act of abuse but can’t give Dave the support he needs, which then bleeds into their present when Jimmy begins to suspect that Dave had something to do with his daughter’s murder. He doesn’t want to consider that his friend would do something like this because of the trauma he endured as a child, but as evidence mounts against him, Jimmy has to decide if friendship and loyalty overshadow his need for vigilante justice. The story is rich with so many complexities that make it some of Eastwood’s most compelling work as a filmmaker.
Eastwood also takes his time with the story and lets it unfold as it should. Mystic River is very nuanced, and he knows he’s dealing with heartbreaking subject matter that requires patience and respect. The story is grounded in so much reality that Eastwood seems keenly aware that a viewer might be an actual victim of this kind of abuse themselves, so he delicately approaches the topic and gives it the emotional weight it deserves.
He also shows the uncomfortable side of abuse where the victim, unfortunately, can be shamed because of the event. Dave becomes an outsider later in his life, even with his close friends, something that sadly comes along with this kind of trauma. Eastwood approaches all of this responsibly and provides a very balanced outlook to all the events transpiring on screen.
Mystic River has become known for its powerhouse performances, and Eastwood pulls the very best from his ensemble cast. While the scenes with the young actors are brief in the beginning, they set the tone of who these people will be twenty-five years later. Dave becomes the outcast because of the event; Jimmy lacks empathy and doesn’t trust authority, while Sean becomes the grounded one of the bunch and a police officer in an attempt to prevent a tragedy like this from ever happening again.
Clint Eastwood Pulls Powerhouse Performances From His Cast
Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, and Kevin Bacon do a great job conveying the unspoken tension between all three of these characters. There is a sense of loyalty, but so much has taken place over the years that it has forced them all to lead very different lives. As a group, they are uniformly excellent. You feel the history between the characters and the bonds that were broken, only to be reopened by a new traumatic event.
On their own, Penn gives the performance of a lifetime as Jimmy, and it’s not a shock that this turn finally earned him his first Academy Award for Best Actor. Penn is a dominant presence in all of his scenes, and there is a sense of uncertainty whenever he’s around because you don’t know exactly what move he will make.
That’s not to say he doesn’t display layers. All of that bravado is broken once he finds out his daughter is murdered. It’s hard to pinpoint a director’s best scene on film, but what Eastwood pulls out of Penn during the “Is that my daughter?” sequence represents some of his very best work as a filmmaker.
Robbins also received an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his work here, representing a much-deserved win. As Dave, Robbins is the tragic and emotional heart of the story. The viewer feels instant empathy for Dave due to what he went through as a child, but you’re also left questioning everything when it seems like Dave could be the one who murdered Katie.
Robbins keeps you on your toes throughout, making you question his innocence while also seeing the tenderness in him as he interacts with his own child, who is just about the age he was when he was abused. As for Bacon, of the three male leads, he gives the most subdued performance, but it suits the character. He’s trying to make everything right and keep it all together. It’s a subtle performance that carries its own emotional weight.
Eastwood also makes the supporting roles worthy of attention. Marcia Gay Harding, as Dave’s wife Celeste, puts in powerful work here that earned her a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination, while Laura Linney more than holds her own with Penn as his second wife, Annabeth. In addition, Laurence Fishburne also fills in as Sgt. Whitey Powers in another excellent part.
Mystic River is a haunting and poetic motion picture that showcases a director laying it all out on the table. Eastwood gives the audience everything he has as a director and pours it out across the screen in a film that is just as powerful twenty years after its initial release.
Clint Eastwood
Clint Eastwood’s Most Iconic Non-Western Role Was Only Possible Because Of This Actor
SUMMARY
Clint Eastwood’s role in Dirty Harry is considered one of his most iconic, and the film is a classic in the crime genre.
Paul Newman initially turned down the role of Harry Callahan in Dirty Harry but recommended Clint Eastwood for the part.
Newman declined the role due to his liberal beliefs, and Eastwood’s portrayal of Callahan differed from Newman’s perspective, but both respected each other.
SCREENRANT VIDEO OF THE DAY
Although Clint Eastwood first built his impressive career on Western movies like The Man with No Name franchise and The Outlaw Josey Wales, the actor’s biggest non-Western role in Dirty Harry is one of his most iconic, and it might have never happened without this one actor. Clint Eastwood began acting in the 1950s, and over several decades, became a staple in the Western genre. What makes Eastwood stand out is the fact that he has not only appeared in countless films, but has also directed them himself. Films like Unforgiven and Gran Torino have defined his career. However, Dirty Harry is by far one of Clint Eastwood’s best films.
In 1971, Clint Eastwood starred in the neo-noir action film Dirty Harry. The film, and its adjoining sequels, follow Inspector “Dirty” Harry Callahan, a rugged detective that is on a hunt for a psychopathic serial killer named Scorpio. The Dirty Harry franchise lasted from 1971 to 1988, and has since been considered a classic. In fact, Dirty Harry was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress because of its cultural significance. However, this film might have been vastly different if Clint Eastwood had never been in it, and scarily enough, this definitely could have happened back in 1971.
Paul Newman Rejected Dirty Harry Before Suggesting Clint Eastwood For The Role
Dirty Harry went through many production challenges before it was actually made, and one of those included casting the iconic detective. In the film’s early stages, the role was offered to actors such as John Wayne, Robert Mitchum, Steve McQueen, and Burt Lancaster. However, for various reasons, including the violence that permeates the film, these actors all declined. For a time, Frank Sinatra was attached to the project, but he also eventually left the production. In reality, Clint Eastwood wasn’t even in the cards for portraying Dirty Harry, but his big break came when Paul Newman was offered and declined the role.
Paul Newman, like many amazing actors before him, was offered the role of Harry Callahan, but ultimately said no. However, what makes his refusal stand out among the rest is that he recommended another actor that could be perfect for the role: Clint Eastwood. At this time, Eastwood was in post-production for his first film Play Misty for Me, meaning his career was taking something of a turn. Also, unlike his predecessors, Eastwood joined up with Dirty Harry, just as Newman thought he would. Because of his Western roots, the violence and aggression that made up Dirty Harry didn’t bother Eastwood at all.
Why Paul Newman Turned Down Dirty Harry
Paul Newman turning down the leading role in Dirty Harry may not seem too surprising considering the host of other actors that also declined the movie, but Newman definitely had his reasons. While previous actors had condemned the movie for its incredible violence and themes of “the ends justify the means,” Newman refused to take the role because of his political beliefs. Since Harry Callahan was a renegade cop, intent on catching a serial killer no matter the cost or the rules that would be broken, Newman saw this character as too right-wing for his own liberal beliefs.
Paul Newman was an outspoken liberal during his life. He was open about his beliefs, so much so that he even made it onto Richard Nixon’s enemies list due to his opposition of the Vietnam War. Other issues that Newman spoke out for included gay rights and same-sex marriage, the decrease in production and use of nuclear weapons, and global warming. As a result of his politics, Newman quickly denied the role of Harry Callahan. In an interview with Entertainment Weekly as reported by Far Out Magazine, Clint Eastwood commented that he didn’t view Callahan in the way Newman did, but still respected him as an actor and a man.
Would Dirty Harry Have Been So Successful Without Clint Eastwood?
Ultimately, it’s hard to say whether Dirty Harry would have been successful without Clint Eastwood. Arguably, any big-time actor could have made the film succeed solely based on their fame. However, one aspect of Dirty Harry and its carousel of actors is that the movie had various scripts, all with different plots. So, if Dirty Harry had been in a different location with a different serial killer and a different lead actor, there’s a chance it wouldn’t have been nearly as successful. In the end, Dirty Harry is a signature for Clint Eastwood, and most likely, audiences are lucky that it was made the way it was.
Clint Eastwood
The story of how Clint Eastwood prevented Ron Howard from embarrassment
-
Entertainment10 months agoJohn Wayne’s son speaks on military service, Hollywood life and his dad, ‘The Duke’ – My Blog
-
Entertainment10 months ago40 Legendary John Wayne Quotes – My Blog
-
Entertainment11 months agoNew biography reveals the real John Wayne – My Blog
-
Entertainment1 year agoWhy one POPULAR ACTOR was FIRED from THE SONS OF KATIE ELDER and lost his career as a result! – Old western – My Blog
-
Entertainment10 months agoHow Maureen O’Hara Broke Her Hand During Iconic Scene With John Wayne – My Blog
-
Entertainment11 months agoRio Lobo (1970) marked the last collaboration between John Wayne and Howard Hawks. – My Blog
-
Entertainment11 months agoDid John Wayne really have a good time filming 1972’s The Cowboys? – My Blog
-
Entertainment10 months agoJohn Wayne and the ‘Bonanza’ Cast Appeared in This Epic Coors Light Commercial – My Blog