Sofia Coppola’s Remake Improved on This Clint Eastwood Western
THE BIG PICTURE
Sofia Coppola changes the perspective of The Beguiled to explore the complexities of 19th-century gender dynamics.
Coppola gives more depth and motivation to the female characters, unlike the original film where they are portrayed as lustful women.
The complexity of Colin Farrell’s character makes the central incident more interesting, and Coppola adds a touch of humor to the film.
The Western has been one of the most popular American film genres since the silent era of cinema. Even if 1939’s Stagecoach is credited with creating the modern version of the genre, Westerns existed before John Ford’s classic, and they have evolved significantly in the eight decades that followed. Many of these stories have become timeless, and remaking a beloved Western can sometimes create surprising results; for example, James Mangold’s 2007 remake of 3:10 to Yuma added more character depth to the 1957 original. While some Westerns don’t necessitate a remake, Don Siegel’s 1971 Clint Eastwood Western The Beguiled was one that was absolutely necessary. By changing the perspective of the story altogether in her 2017 remake, Sofia Coppola fixed the flaws in the original source material and turned a relatively disposable thriller into a modern classic about the complexities of 19th-century gender dynamics.
The Beguiled
The unexpected arrival of a wounded Union soldier at a girls school in Virginia during the American Civil War leads to jealousy and betrayal.
Release Date June 30, 2017
Director Sofia Coppola
Cast Colin Farrell , Nicole Kidman , Kirsten Dunst , Elle Fanning , Oona Laurence , Angourie Rice
Rating R
Runtime 93 minutes
Genres Drama , History , Thriller
What Does Sofia Coppola Add to ‘The Beguiled’s Characters?
Both Siegel and Coppolas’ versions of The Beguiled are based on the 1966 novel of the same name by Thomas P. Cullinan. The original film follows the wounded Union soldier John McBurney (Clint Eastwood), who escapes from the perils of battle to find shelter at the Miss Martha Farnsworth Seminary for Young Ladies in the middle of Mississippi. It’s far away from the conflict itself, and the all-female residents of the school are forced to choose what to do with this enigmatic stranger. While some of the residents like 12-year-old Amy (Pamelyn Ferdin) and the schoolteacher Edwina Dabney (Elizabeth Hartman) believe that it is their duty to help an innocent life, no matter which flag he fought for, the strict headmistress Martha Farnsworth (Geraldine Page) insists that a man will only end up causing problems within their secluded learning environment.
While Don Siegel may have been attempting to reflect the restrictive gender dynamics of the era, the depiction of Farnsworth as a hardline man-hater obsessed with castration (and McBurney as a completely innocent bystander) comes off as incredibly problematic. Although Siegel is certainly one of the great filmmakers of his time (responsible for classics like Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Dirty Harry), he’s treating a very complex novel as the inspiration for a thriller where an innocent man is preyed upon by a group of lustful women. Comparatively, Sofia Coppola uses the story to mine a different type of tension. Instead of making a thriller, Coppola turns the concept of one man in the company of five women into a fun, occasionally campy melodrama.
Sofia Coppola’s version tells the same exact story, but the perspective is changed by giving more insight into how Miss Farnsworth’s (Nicole Kidman) school operated prior to the arrival of McBurney (Colin Farrell). It’s revealed that since the beginning of the war, many of the teachers and students have abandoned the school out of fear of invasion, as they’ve heard of the Union Army’s “total war” strategy. This presents the plight of Farnsworth in a much more sympathetic light, and it also gives more justification for both Amy’s (Oona Laurence) and Edwinas’ (Kirsten Dunst) motivations.
Amy is left without many other girls to interact with, and thus has become more naive about the kindness of strangers; Edwina is left feeling purposeless with fewer students to watch over and seeks the fulfillment of having another adult around. If the arrival of Eastwood’s McBurney was met with nothing but contempt by the school’s residents, the emergence of Farrell’s McBurney at least presents an open debate among the girls. Coppola doesn’t paint them all in the same light, as she’s known for the complexity that she can bring to her female characters. Miss Farnsworth, Edwina, Amy, and the other students Alicia (Elle Fanning) and Jane (Angourie Rice) have different expectations of McBurney’s motivations based on their own (in some cases limited) interaction with men. It’s not just a timely update; seeing the conflicts and discussions between five generations of women is far more interesting than watching a grizzled Eastwood get spooked out every few moments by a creepy woman.
What Does Sofia Coppola’s ‘The Beguiled’ Change Compared to the Clint Eastwood Original?
While Sofia Coppola’s The Beguiled is decidedly told from the female perspective, it doesn’t mean that McBurney is depicted as a mustache-twirling villain. One of the original film’s flaws is that, despite being wounded and seemingly defenseless, Clint Eastwood looked cooler than ever. Comparatively, Farrell actually showed that this is a grizzled soldier who has been dealing with the perils of combat and is in need of rest. Even some of his objectionable behavior has some motivation behind it; he’s been fighting for his country for months without proper shelter or nutrients, and he’s prone to making rash decisions out of desperation. In fact, the kindness he shows Amy at the beginning when he encounters her on the edge of the schoolyard is completely genuine.
The complexity with which McBurney is depicted makes the central inciting incident more interesting. In the original film, McBurney learns of the women’s intention to harm him after he resists the sexual impulses of Miss Farnsworth herself. It’s an inherently sexist notion; Farnsworth only proclaims that separation is needed because of some buried sexual desire. In Coppola’s version, it’s a combination of McBurney’s affair with Abigail and how he takes advantage of Amy that drives the women to collectively agree that he no longer has a place in their community.
Coppola also understands that at the end of the day, The Beguiled is a melodrama. After realizing they cannot physically overpower McBurney, the women decide to poison him with mushrooms that they serve during an elegant dinner. This is a jump scare in Siegel’s version, but Coppola understands how silly it really is. There is a sickly tension that comes from the pivotal final meal in the film, and it’s almost comical to watch a rugged Farrell thank his hosts for a meal that he doesn’t realize will be his last.
As with any Sofia Coppola movie, The Beguiled is decked out with gorgeous production design, picturesque framing, and elegant costumes. It’s not necessarily a perfect adaptation; neither film truly reckons with the reality that as Southerners during the Civil War, Farnsworth and her companions would have been slave owners. Perhaps an even better remake will emerge at some point that balances the point of view, but as it stands, Coppola’s version represents a step in the right direction.
Sofia Coppola’s The Beguiled is available to stream on Netflix in the U.S.
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
Warner Bros.
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’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.
The story of how Clint Eastwood prevented Ron Howard from embarrassment
A star of American cinema both in front of and behind the camera, Ron Howard is often forgotten when recalling the greatest directors of modern cinema, yet his contributions to the art form remain unmatched. Working with the likes of Tom Hanks, Chris Hemsworth, Russell Crowe and John Wayne, Howard has brought such classics as Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind and Rush to the big screen.
Entering the industry in the late 1950s and 1960s, Howard started his career as an actor, making a name for himself in shows like Just Dennis and The Andy Griffith Show before his role in 1970s Happy Days would catapult him to national acclaim. His directorial debut would come at a similar time, helming 1977’s Grand Theft Auto, the ropey first movie in a filmography that would later become known for its abundance of quality.
Known for his acting talents, Howard wouldn’t become a fully-fledged director in the eyes of the general public until the 1980s, when he worked with Tom Hanks on 1984’s Splash and George Lucas for the 1988 cult favourite Willow.
With hopes of becoming the new Star Wars, Willow was instead a peculiar fantasy tale that told the story of a young farmer who is chosen to undertake the challenge to protect a magical baby from an evil queen. Starring the likes of Warwick Davis, Val Kilmer and Joanne Whalley, the film failed to make a considerable dent in pop culture at the time, largely being ridiculed by critics and audiences alike.
Screened at the Cannes Film Festival, the movie was spared humiliation by none other than Clint Eastwood, who saw the craftsmanship behind the picture, as described by Ron’s daughter, Bryce Dallas Howard.
Speaking to Daily Mail, the actor recalled: “My dad made a film called Willow when he was a young filmmaker, which screened at the Cannes Film Festival and people were booing afterwards. It was obviously so painful for him, and Clint, who he didn’t know at that time, stood up and gave him a standing ovation and then everyone else stood up because Clint did”.
Dallas Howard, who worked with Eastwood on the 2010 movie Hereafter, became very fond of Eastwood as a result, looking up to him as an exemplary Hollywood talent. “Clint puts himself out there for people,” she added, “As a director he is very cool, very relaxed, there’s no yelling ‘action’ or ‘cut’. He just says: ‘You know when you’re ready.’ I told my dad he should do that!”.
Take a look at the trailer for Howard’s 1988 fantasy flick below.