Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Plaid Adder

(5,518 posts)
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 12:10 AM Sep 2012

Make My Day

I didn't watch the Republican National Convention. But after all the hoo-ha about it, I did go and see Clint Eastwood's 11-minute theater game. The memes based on it are so funny...and after all, I enjoy the absurd, especially in theatrical form.

The memes are funny. The speech itself is not funny. For a few reasons.

One: Clint Eastwood is not well.

In some of the post-mortem articles on this it is averred that the chair shtick was a surprise. Eastwood asked for one at the last minute, and someone gave him one, thinking that either he wanted to sit in it, or that he would use it as a prop. And then this happened.

He absolutely was using it as a prop, and in a very specific and consistent way. If you watch the video and keep track of when invisible Obama 'talks' to Eastwood, it pretty much always happens at a point where Eastwood has wandered to the end of whatever tangent he's on and has run out of thought. The chair is there so that when these moments happen, Eastwood can engage in hilarious byplay with invisible Obama, using one of the cheap jokes he's prepared (there's really only two: pretending that invisible Obama has told him to shut up, and pretending that invisible Obama has told him or Romney to go fuck himself). Said cheap jokes can be relied on to generate a cheap laugh which then gives Eastwood time to start over with a new topic.

This tells you two things. One: like many 83-year-olds, Eastwood is losing some of his mental agility. In fact, this performance reminded me a lot of Ronald Reagan's later debate performances. He can still perform; he can still charm; but he's in trouble when he has to think on his feet. Two: Eastwood is aware of this. Because that's why he wanted the chair. And that is not funny, it is sad.

Each time Eastwood does this invisible-Obama-enabled reboot, the new thread he starts has less intelligible content than the one before. He seems, in fact, to be really struggling for things to say, perhaps because he's not actually very enthusiastic about Romney himself. The only thing nice that he says about Romney is that he's a "stellar" businessman and he for some reason repeats this to make sure everyone heard the scare quotes. He obviously didn't have a clear idea of how he was going to end the speech; he eventually found refuge in telling the crowd how wonderful they were, but it wasn't until someone yelled something at him during one of the pauses that he was able to formulate an exit strategy.

What she yelled at him, apparently, was one of his famous taglines from his days as Dirty Harry: "Go ahead. Make my day." Everyone in that hall was thinking of it; in fact, they started chanting it when he first showed up, stopping only when he admonished them to "save some for Mitt." I couldn't hear her well on the tape; but everyone in the hall heard her, and so did Clint. He said, "I don't say that word any more." And then he said, "Well, maybe one more time." And sure enough, that's how he ends the speech: by turning to the invisible Obama in the chair, and saying, "OK. You wanna make my day, huh?"

Huge applause and cheering; and then Eastwood says, "All right, I'll start it, you finish it. Go ahead," and the whole audience chants gleefully, "MAKE MY DAY!"

And this is the second reason why that performance is not funny.

I've spent some time in the past few years trying to understand exactly when it was that it became OK, and in fact laudable, for the 'good guys' of American mass entertainment to kill people indiscriminately. I think the fact that our action heroes so often behave like mass murderers is a symptom and perhaps a contributing factor to some major cultural problems. When I try to remember when this changed, one landmark that always sticks out is Dirty Harry. Dirty Harry was a cop, and he was 'dirty' primarily because he routinely used excessive and deadly force on the job in situations that did not call for it. It's the nickname that marks him as a transitional figure. In the early 1980s, the fact that Harry liked killing people even when it wasn't necessary was something that made him an antihero, something that made him seem 'dirty' to his superiors and even to the superegos of the moveigoers watching him. His extralegal killing was enjoyable, but controversial; we were supposed to feel bad about being satisfied by it. Now, guys who do what Dirty Harry did are just straight-up action heroes, and it doesn't bother anyone.

OK. So, "Go ahead. Make my day" comes from a 1983 Dirty Harry movie called Sudden Impact. Go and take a look at the original context in which Eastwood's tagline occurred.



So, after shooting about five people--all of them dark-skinned--Eastwood delivers this line to a Black man (in this universe, there are no African-Americans) who is holding a white woman hostage. The police have already pulled up outside the diner, and since they are not as endearingly 'dirty' as he is, one assumes that once they take over Harry will lose the opportunity to execute the last remaining Black man on the scene. When he says "Go ahead," he's telling the unnamed assailant to shoot, move his gun, reach for something, do anything that will give Harry a good enough excuse to fire the gun he's pointing and blow this Black man's head off. That will "make" Harry's "day," because there's nothing Harry likes more than blasting people's brains out.

So let's review those last couple minutes of Eastwood's speech.

The anonymous enthusiast yells out the tagline. Eastwood says "I don't say that word any more." Presumably he means "that phrase." Presumably there's a reason he doesn't say it any more. Maybe he's tired of it. Maybe he has some regrets about the Dirty Harry character. Maybe he, since he was after all in the damn movie, remembers the original context, and is thinking that the Republican National Convention might be an inappropriate place to threaten our nation's first African-American president with the same words he used to threaten the scared Black thug whose head Harry wanted so badly to spatter all over that diner.

But then, giving into the mood of the room, he says, "Maybe one more time."

And they are all so delighted when he turns to the chair--in which, remember, Obama is supposed to be sitting--and says, "You want to make my day, huh?"

I mean am I the only person seeing this?

And then he gets the entire room to help him threaten to blow Obama's head off.

I'm sorry, but as a moment of creepiness this beats even Eastwood calling out, "We own this country!" to his put-near-all-white audience. All right, I know he was off-message and off-script and over time. But he was only doing what actors learn to do, which is give the audience what they want...and this is what they wanted.

Gonna be a while before I get to sleep tonight.

80 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Make My Day (Original Post) Plaid Adder Sep 2012 OP
Kick. Hong Kong Cavalier Sep 2012 #1
Plaid Adder! hunter Sep 2012 #2
Plaid Adder! Hissyspit Sep 2012 #11
Plaid Adder - you've just made my day in a wholly good and wonderful way! scarletwoman Sep 2012 #3
Dear Plaid Adder Bohunk68 Sep 2012 #24
They were certainly howling for Obama's figurative blood. I don't know if he led or followed. nolabear Sep 2012 #4
Interesting analysis. sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #5
k and r, and spot on, as always niyad Sep 2012 #6
Exactly. lonestarnot Sep 2012 #7
Damn I've missed you. I think you're synopsis is dead-on. Please come around more often. Booster Sep 2012 #8
Spot on. CaliforniaPeggy Sep 2012 #9
The Dirty Harry movies were Clint Eastwood's reaction to lunatica Sep 2012 #10
There were cops and a police commissioner as vigilante bad guys in Magnum Force. Fumesucker Sep 2012 #25
That's very interesting. Plaid Adder Sep 2012 #30
I'm not really sure how much you can glean of an artist's personal politics from their work. Fumesucker Sep 2012 #34
Your quote is misapplied. swimboy Sep 2012 #35
I'm not sure what Plaidadder is trying to do.. Fumesucker Sep 2012 #38
The shift really took place in '71, with "Feel Lucky" as the catch phrase... reACTIONary Sep 2012 #50
Rethugs do seem to enjoy killing young black men. Hugabear Sep 2012 #12
You are sorely MISSED rocktivity Sep 2012 #13
indeed! ibegurpard Sep 2012 #33
k&r Electric Monk Sep 2012 #14
I couldn't stomach watching all of it, but I did notice from what I saw kas125 Sep 2012 #15
My father had dementia and he often had that very same confused look. nt Raine Sep 2012 #16
Wow! Thanks for this, Cha Sep 2012 #17
I am changing my mind on that Whisp Sep 2012 #19
k and R .....did not see goclark Sep 2012 #20
Watch Jon Stewert Aug. 31 Show burrowowl Sep 2012 #72
That was so GoOD! Thanks burrowowl! Cha Sep 2012 #75
Excellent post malaise Sep 2012 #18
excellent analysis marions ghost Sep 2012 #21
I'm seriously concerned what one of these nut cases will do if Obama wins. CrispyQ Sep 2012 #31
In their opinion, the second Civil War has already been set in motion. They call it CWII. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2012 #36
We were talking about that last night abelenkpe Sep 2012 #55
WOW! Carolina Sep 2012 #22
Good one. cachukis Sep 2012 #23
Great analysis. 99Forever Sep 2012 #26
Hey Plaiddy! Cleita Sep 2012 #27
You're Overthinking It. Look At The Good Side. Paladin Sep 2012 #28
Did Rmoney make a speech at the RNC convention? Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2012 #37
Great analysis - love your writing as always...one point to add alcibiades_mystery Sep 2012 #29
I was flabbergasted to hear they added Clint Eastwood to the lineup Celebration Sep 2012 #32
I think they admire it Kali Sep 2012 #39
You're right. nt Chorophyll Sep 2012 #60
republicans are deficient in their powers of observation... ms liberty Sep 2012 #62
Yours is the first post that has really resonated with me. ocd liberal Sep 2012 #40
I agree with what you said that Clint is in trouble and you can see the signs of dementia TNLib Sep 2012 #41
Well, the way this embarrassed Mitt Romney's campain is funny. Plaid Adder Sep 2012 #43
gee... no wonder i miss your writing madrchsod Sep 2012 #42
me too.. Bluerthanblue Sep 2012 #66
Important to remember that someone else "staged" this moment, not Eastwood. Coyotl Sep 2012 #44
So good to see you posting here again livetohike Sep 2012 #45
"Clint Eastwood is not well." Who says? Not his younger wife or his offspring or his colleagues. As WinkyDink Sep 2012 #46
Agree with all the positive comments about your post, and glad to see your insight once again classof56 Sep 2012 #47
K&R, Right ON Analysis.... But it didn't start in the '80's.... reACTIONary Sep 2012 #48
Jesus H. Christ on a trailer hitch! cognoscere Sep 2012 #49
Why would Eastwood be referring to any of that except as a comparison to the Obama administration? patrice Sep 2012 #73
I have missed you, PA... awoke_in_2003 Sep 2012 #51
He didn't "make my day" as a female 40 years ago HockeyMom Sep 2012 #52
K&R Nt abelenkpe Sep 2012 #53
k & r n/t ejbr Sep 2012 #54
Plaid Adder! k+r TeeYiYi Sep 2012 #56
Thanks Clint... Clear Blue Sky Sep 2012 #57
Excellent analysis Veracious Sep 2012 #58
I can't tell you how much I appreciate your take on this. Chorophyll Sep 2012 #59
seems to me you read an awful lot into it hfojvt Sep 2012 #61
Wow. I had no idea. roody Sep 2012 #63
Good grief, I didn't remember the context of that phrase. The one I remember was, freshwest Sep 2012 #64
Agree...the chair was more of a crutch than a prop... cynatnite Sep 2012 #65
Reagan loved quoting those Dirty Harry lines. SunSeeker Sep 2012 #67
Adder! Generic Other Sep 2012 #68
makes it sound like Obama is crude going around saying Fu and F this lunasun Sep 2012 #69
The old swashbuckler The Wizard Sep 2012 #70
interesting, but Jon Stewart had a different take on the act: AnotherDreamWeaver Sep 2012 #71
I like them both. Cha Sep 2012 #76
LOL! TY. I missed that show. nt Incitatus Sep 2012 #78
Plaid! calimary Sep 2012 #74
You're back! Welcome. And thank you for the post. Good analysis. roguevalley Sep 2012 #77
I agree with item #1 krispos42 Sep 2012 #79
Wow. I didn't even know the full context ecstatic Sep 2012 #80

scarletwoman

(31,893 posts)
3. Plaid Adder - you've just made my day in a wholly good and wonderful way!
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 12:27 AM
Sep 2012

Wonderful to see you, and righteous post!

I don't have TV, and my internet connection is dial-up (forget video) - so I've not actually seen the Eastwood bit from the RNC, only read about it.

...he was only doing what actors learn to do, which is give the audience what they want...and this is what they wanted.


Wow! Your ability to cut through to the core of things is as stunningly adept as always!

Bohunk68

(1,364 posts)
24. Dear Plaid Adder
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:13 AM
Sep 2012

Everything that has been said. I miss you and it is good to read you once again. I had lurked for many years and yours was always one of the OPs that I would read along with your other comments. I agree with your analysis.

nolabear

(41,963 posts)
4. They were certainly howling for Obama's figurative blood. I don't know if he led or followed.
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 12:29 AM
Sep 2012

But it was a mob; you're right.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
5. Interesting analysis.
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 12:31 AM
Sep 2012

Portraying an abusive cop as a hero and those who tried to stop him as the anti-heroes. I had not thought of it that way before.

Your OPs are always provide food for thought, Plaid Adder.

CaliforniaPeggy

(149,621 posts)
9. Spot on.
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 12:42 AM
Sep 2012

I have not read any analysis that was as penetrating and incisive as yours.

Your logic is impeccable and the conclusions you've drawn are so inevitable. Truly scary too.

These people were howling for our President's blood.

Good. God.

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
10. The Dirty Harry movies were Clint Eastwood's reaction to
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 01:03 AM
Sep 2012

the progressive laws of the time that actually gave criminals some rights. For example the Miranda Right to be informed that they can keep silent until they get a lawyer and that they can incriminate themselves. The Right hated that. So his movies always had the bad guys, who were portrayed as irredeemable, vicious sadists getting off on technicalities and going on to terrorize more victims. His character became the true justice that the Right loves so much. The hard nosed righteous 'good guy' who could blow them away in cold blood to protect society. The type like Governor Perry who is proud of Texas being the state that puts more people to death for crimes. George Bush liked that about Texas too.

It helps to know what the genesis of the Dirty Harry movies is. It puts things in perspective. Everyone who liked his movies felt something satisfying about the lone antihero doling out some harsh justice to the worst of the criminals so the rest of us can sleep. We still see it today. Eastwood just put it in movies. The so-called 'action heroes' since the Dirty Harry movies are sad imitations and they devolved from political and societal statements of substance into more and more impossible chase scenes with plenty of bodies to count along the way. Clint Eastwood's movies were a real statement and perfect for the times as a genuine reaction to liberalism. It's not something I agree with, but I appreciated the movies because there was more than just mindless violence in them. There was a message.

Plaid Adder

(5,518 posts)
30. That's very interesting.
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:55 AM
Sep 2012

According to the Wikipedia entry this film is from 1973. Again according to their summary, what makes Harry the hero instead of the "antagonist" is the fact that he is less willing to kill criminals in cold blood than they are. They quote an exchange between the two cops in which the villain taunts Harry for sticking with the system, and Harry saying he hates the system but will stick with it until there is a better alternative.

_Sudden Impact_ is from 1983, and in light of recent Republican events it is perhaps worth noting that the plot revolves around a woman who was gang-raped years ago and is hunting down her rapists (who of course escaped justice because of the System is weak on criminals) and killing them. Harry is assigned to the case, but does not conclude it until he has killed the three last surviving rapists. He resolves the case itself by framing one of the dead rapists for the deaths of the others, and he and Jennifer walk off together.

That's a very interesting transition, because Harry has now gone from exposing the vigilantes to protecting them. The use of a rape victim to manage this transition is also very interesting. But my point is: somewhere between 1973 and 1983, the relationships between the hero, the rule of law, and violence shift. This is what I've been trying to pin down.

The Plaid Adder

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
34. I'm not really sure how much you can glean of an artist's personal politics from their work.
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:16 AM
Sep 2012

I'm reminded of SM Stirling's quote.. "There is a technical term for someone who confuses the opinions of a character in a book with those of the author. That term is idiot.”

Stirling writes some extremely violent and disturbing stuff and has a real flair for making even horrendous villains seem human and even admirable in their own perspective rather than just caricatures..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._M._Stirling

Of course I can give you examples of authors who do put their politics into their work but it's not something that's universal among artists to do so.

swimboy

(7,284 posts)
35. Your quote is misapplied.
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:56 AM
Sep 2012

Isn't Plaidadder trying to pinpoint a cultural shift that occurred sometime between 1973 and 1983 rather than Eastwood's personal shift? The idiots in the GOP might be forgiven for confusing Eastwood's roles with Eastwood's politics as he has provided sufficientinsight into his politics.

But a person who thinks Plaidadder is an idiot? I have a word for that.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
38. I'm not sure what Plaidadder is trying to do..
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:19 PM
Sep 2012

All I'm saying is not to confuse the character with the writer, actor or director of any given piece of work and giving a quote from a fairly prolific and popular genre author who happens to write some quite violent fiction with some extremely villainous characters to support my point.

Edited for meaning..

reACTIONary

(5,770 posts)
50. The shift really took place in '71, with "Feel Lucky" as the catch phrase...
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 06:25 PM
Sep 2012

... I was in high school and remember being shocked at the movies premise and catch phrase. Now, it isn't easy to shock a smart ass high school kid, but it distinctly left a negative impression and represented a noticeable change for me. I still remember it.

That was also the year that Clockwork Orange was released (X Rated, couldn't see it even with my mom) but that did not seem the same because it was a SciFi warning, like 1984, not reality we were supposed to applaud.

Hugabear

(10,340 posts)
12. Rethugs do seem to enjoy killing young black men.
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 01:46 AM
Sep 2012

There's a popular right-wing talk show host who routinely revels in stories regarding "dead thugs", and has advocated vigilante justice to murder young black men who look dangerous.

Or how about Rick Perry bragging about how many people he has executed - a disproportionate number of whom were young black men?

And let's not forget Eastwoods' own motion of sliding his finger across his throat, in a not-so-thinly veiled threat to Obama.

kas125

(2,472 posts)
15. I couldn't stomach watching all of it, but I did notice from what I saw
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:22 AM
Sep 2012

that he did talk to the chair when he was confused and couldn't remember what he was going to say. I am my 83 year old dad's care giver, so I see that look in an old man's eyes fifty times a day.

Cha

(297,240 posts)
17. Wow! Thanks for this,
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 06:41 AM
Sep 2012

Plaid Adder. I haven't been able to bring myself to watch it yet but have read everything I can on it. It doesn't sound like Clint is doing it to sabotage Romney as some have suggested. It sounds vicious, mean spirited, and full of lies.



Just like the gops.

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
19. I am changing my mind on that
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 06:57 AM
Sep 2012

and now agree with you.

It wasn't about fucking up Romney or showing his middle finger because Ron Paul got shafted - it was to be nasty and hateful towards Obama.

His eyes are in the Dead Zone in that clip you post.

goclark

(30,404 posts)
20. k and R .....did not see
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 06:57 AM
Sep 2012

the neck signal to the base!!!!

HE SHOULD BE ARRESTED!
If a democrat did that he would be arrested for threatening the life of the president!

Did I really see that.....

Cha

(297,240 posts)
75. That was so GoOD! Thanks burrowowl!
Sun Sep 2, 2012, 12:47 AM
Sep 2012

I finally watched..and just muted romney..only heard Jon's analysis!

It was PRICELESS!

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
21. excellent analysis
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 06:58 AM
Sep 2012
"he gets the entire room to help him threaten to blow Obama's head off.
"

The bottom line & it makes me

CrispyQ

(36,464 posts)
31. I'm seriously concerned what one of these nut cases will do if Obama wins.
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:59 AM
Sep 2012

They started packing heat to events right after he was elected. If he wins again, they will be seriously pissed off - even more so than last time since they've had four years to wallow in their hate.

Shame on Eastwood for lowering himself to Palin standards.

Bernardo de La Paz

(49,002 posts)
36. In their opinion, the second Civil War has already been set in motion. They call it CWII.
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 01:23 PM
Sep 2012

They are expecting some shooting event to start after the election, like the attack on Fort Sumter in 1861.

abelenkpe

(9,933 posts)
55. We were talking about that last night
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:02 PM
Sep 2012

I'm very concerned.

This thread only makes it worse. Must do something else more cheerful now....

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
26. Great analysis.
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:27 AM
Sep 2012

I lost what little respect I ever had for that angry old coot. That the Rapepublicans cheered it on, in no way surprises me. It's national political party filled with, and controlled by sociopaths.

Paladin

(28,261 posts)
28. You're Overthinking It. Look At The Good Side.
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:34 AM
Sep 2012

Eastwood's bizarre speech represents a political media fumble of historic proportions, something that analysts will be talking about 50 years from now. The repub's had an hour of prime time that night, and instead of seeing Mitt's warm and fuzzy biographical film, we were treated to the spectacle of Clint Eastwood mumbling at a chair. If you don't believe how big a mistake it all was, you didn't see the morning-after interviews with Ann Romney---she was furious about it, despite a few dismissive comments. Perk up, this is a win for us.
 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
29. Great analysis - love your writing as always...one point to add
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:54 AM
Sep 2012

I also like your insight that action heroes at some point became mass murderers - that "Dirty" Harry was considered dirty for a reason. I'd also add that this shift was a reaction to the actual clean-up of such behavior in law enforcement. Before the real people's push against police brutality in the 1960's and 1970's, much of this behavior was tolerated and accepted, as was much of the "little off the top" taken by police officers through graft and protection and outright robbery of drug dealers and pimps and the like. My great uncle was a New York City cop in the 1940's and 1950's, and he was dirty as the day is long - but everybody was. It's why Serpico was a big deal. So, in real life, police departments were being forced by public pressure to clean up their acts, so we saw the symbolic displacement of the (desired) abusive authority figure on to the screen, in reel life, as it were.

The shift toward the killer cop like Dirty Harry was part and parcel of the symbolic reaction against 60's activism that forced society to address real police "dirtiness," especially where it had a racial component, and it almost always did. Enter the vigilante taking out the black criminals where the regular police had their 'hands tied behind their backs" by regulation and hippie activists.

What's odd, though, is that we've seen precisely the reverse movement in society over the last twenty or so years. Part of the right wing reaction since the 80's has been the deeply successful war against rehabilitation in the prison system (mammoth, multi-decade sentencing for even property crimes; the entire invented pseudoscience of "sociopathology"; life without parole sentencing for even juvenile offenders; trying children as young as 11 as adults, etc.) and the absolute militarization of the police, along with a corresponding authorization of nearly any level of police violence for any activity whatsoever. Where the police forces of the 1950's would simply tune up the "criminal class" from time to time as a matter of implicit policy, the police forces of today "take down" anyone "perceived as a threat."

At the very least, the police of my great uncle's NYPD were more honest about their dirtiness. Now it is all wrapped up in a faux professionalism and "risk assessment" strategy that authorizes whatever violence the "well-trained" officers see fit to inflict. Make my day, indeed. We may be seeing the symbolic displacement in the other direction, as well, as our onscreen police now all seem uirky and decidedly non-violent and vulnerable, suffering from various maladies (like Monk's OCD), or working with the numerous genius professors who assist the police through mathematics or physics or biology or psychology (Numb3rs, all the CSI's, etc.). As the police themselves become ludicrously muscled and militarized, our onscreen police become cerebral and bookish and vulnerably professorial - the only way we can symbolically justify that snap-judgment risk assessments by 20 year-olds could see us shot dead on public streets with no consequences whatsoever for the shooters: dear God, let them all be vulnerable geniuses!

But the force of the right-wing reaction should indeed keep us up at night. The GOP wants Dirty Harry and the uber-violence of today's police, which is, in effect the worst of both worlds.

Celebration

(15,812 posts)
32. I was flabbergasted to hear they added Clint Eastwood to the lineup
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:11 AM
Sep 2012

I heard him interviewed about five years ago for about three minutes and could detect that he was heading for dementia. If I could tell in that one time, what does it say about the Republicans who scheduled him?

It's just WEIRD. Not sure why people don't get that. It is disturbing that they did not detect this about him, when I could in a short time on TV five years ago.

Kali

(55,008 posts)
39. I think they admire it
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:59 PM
Sep 2012

I mean, my god they worship Raygun and he was gone from the beginning of his term. I sure could see it.

ms liberty

(8,577 posts)
62. republicans are deficient in their powers of observation...
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:58 PM
Sep 2012

And I believe I remember reading that dementia worsens as the day progresses? If that is true, then they scheduled him to speak at the worst possible time of day, when his mental acuity was at its lowest point.

ocd liberal

(407 posts)
40. Yours is the first post that has really resonated with me.
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:04 PM
Sep 2012

I enjoyed making fun of Clint all day yesterday with the empty chair and all, but you have hit on the sinister nature of the GOP's central message and general vibe - and it is chilling.

Thanks for the goosebumps of truth!

TNLib

(1,819 posts)
41. I agree with what you said that Clint is in trouble and you can see the signs of dementia
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:27 PM
Sep 2012

But I do find it funny that all this mess totally back fired on the GOP.

They were so fired up to have Dirty Hairy endorse Mitt that they gave Clint the stage.

Plaid Adder

(5,518 posts)
43. Well, the way this embarrassed Mitt Romney's campain is funny.
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:38 PM
Sep 2012

I enjoy the schadenfreude like the next person. But that's what's going on _outside_ the hall. It's what was going on _inside_ the hall that I found creepy and sad.

Outside the hall, of course, the main reaction is, "WTF?" Which is legitimate. But that just shows you how big a gap there is between the people inside the hall and...like...everyone. Which is scary.

The Plaid Adder

 

Coyotl

(15,262 posts)
44. Important to remember that someone else "staged" this moment, not Eastwood.
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:41 PM
Sep 2012

Someone in the Republican Party controlling this convention (that's Romney, not Bush), decided to put the guy famous for summarily killing black men on stage with an invisible Obama in an empty chair, arguably as if the man was already no longer with us. You do not need to be a genius to get the subliminal message here. What may be escaping a lot of people is that this was a planned scenario, and one so sought after that they did not care if Eastwood was senile or would bungle the speech--creating the scene and the subliminal message was that important to them! Someone was drooling over this banality!

 

WinkyDink

(51,311 posts)
46. "Clint Eastwood is not well." Who says? Not his younger wife or his offspring or his colleagues. As
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:52 PM
Sep 2012

for violence, Republican thugs have been around for awhile.



classof56

(5,376 posts)
47. Agree with all the positive comments about your post, and glad to see your insight once again
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 04:21 PM
Sep 2012

Maybe I missed it in other responses, but during Clint's rambling (not sure how else to characterize it) when he reacted to the chair's instruction to tell Rmoney (that's how I saw it, not Eastwood) to go **** himself, Clint ended his reply to the chair with the words, "You're crazy." Right now, I'm thinkin', No, Clint, that would be you."

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

reACTIONary

(5,770 posts)
48. K&R, Right ON Analysis.... But it didn't start in the '80's....
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 06:16 PM
Sep 2012

...the first Dirty Harry film was in 1971, and the catch phrase was, "Do you feel lucky, punk?" I was in high school, and I remember, at the time, being very disturbed by the premise of the movie and the "catch phrase". This was absolutely a cultural turning point.

cognoscere

(461 posts)
49. Jesus H. Christ on a trailer hitch!
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 06:24 PM
Sep 2012

Are you channeling Gene Siskel? I ask because the late film critic for the Chicago Tribune had the same ability to watch a film and grossly misunderstand what he had seen. (a classic Siskel gaffe was him jumping up and down about the Rambo character in First Blood "killing all those people" when, in fact, Rambo went out of his way to avoid killing people. As I recall, the only certain fatality was the sadistic cop who fell out of the helicopter while he was trying to shoot Rambo who was trapped on the side of a cliff.)
Getting back to your analysis, Harry shot four people, all of whom had guns and were shooting at him. Whether they were trying to kill him or merely wound him is irrelevant because even in bass ackward Illinois, it would be considered attempted murder. It would also be considered four situations where deadly force was not only justifiable, but necessary as well.
Then, the guy in the yellow shirt who was apparently only hit in his right arm, gets up and grabs a hostage. Harry is about three feet away and has his pistol aimed at the guy's head. The guy's gun is NOT pointed at the hostage. It is NOT pointed at Harry. It IS pointed upwards in the general direction of the ceiling.
Now, if Harry was as bloodthirsty and homicidal as you believe, and he truly wanted to blow the man's head off, HE WOULD HAVE! An armed robber who shot at Harry and has a hostage? There isn't a review board or jury in the country that would find him guilty of murder or misuse of deadly force (unless, of course, it was a jury composed of twelve people like you)
No, Harry gave the man a chance, just as he gave all four of them a chance when he ordered them to drop their guns at the beginning of the confrontation. He was telling him, "Right now you are alive. If you put the gun down, you will stay alive. If you point the gun at the woman or me, you will die."
Aside from that, kudos on shining the light on yet another example of why Republicons should not be allowed to run anything more important than the fry machine at McDonald's and even that might be too much responsiblilty.

patrice

(47,992 posts)
73. Why would Eastwood be referring to any of that except as a comparison to the Obama administration?
Sun Sep 2, 2012, 12:42 AM
Sep 2012

Do you really think he used the "Make my day" reference, because he was talking about his movie? What sense would that make at a political convention?

It was a comparison of the criminal to the president. The whole "Make my day" episode began with another imagined remark from "the president" empty chair.

Chorophyll

(5,179 posts)
59. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your take on this.
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:48 PM
Sep 2012

For me, the speech was just horribly uncomfortable. I thought Eastwood was floundering up there, and I felt bad for him.

Then I came to DU, of all places, and found quite a few people who thought Eastwood was doing a piece of transgressive performance art. Not sure what they were watching. I guess some people are sentimental about him.

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
61. seems to me you read an awful lot into it
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:57 PM
Sep 2012

the audience wanted his famous line in the same way they would want Gary Coleman to say "whatcoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?" or Arnold to say "I'll be back".

But, yes too, "make my day" is about destroying your enemies.

But I don't think Harry was Dirty because he used "excessive and deadly force on the job in situations that did not call for it". It was more like he was dirty because he was not afraid to fight when others would back down or run away. Look at the clip. How is the force there excessive? They shot back instead of dropping their guns. Even when the one was wounded and alone, he did not give up at first. Instead, he took a hostage.

What happens then? An ordinary wimpy cop might just say "oh please, Mr. Bad-guy. Please, don't shoot the hostage." and then they back off and negotiate. It's a big old mess, that Harry just cuts through by being ruthless. As such, he offers an easy answer. The violence of the bad guys is to be beaten by the superior violence of the good guys. In the eyes of many people, the bad guys don't really give us a choice.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
64. Good grief, I didn't remember the context of that phrase. The one I remember was,
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:06 PM
Sep 2012

Harry Callahan: I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

Bank Robber: I gots to know.

I just looked it up on Youtube, as I remembered him saying it to the Scorpio killer, who was white, and threatened to kill a priest and black person. But that line was first said to a black man.

He repeated the 'Do you feel lucky, punk?' line to the vicious Scorpio killer at the end of the movie. The main premise of the movie appeared to be that the cowardly, self-serving higher ups in SFPD were letting criminals run loose. Like Michael Savage says.

This does need to be discussed, and is part of the reason I have no love for Hollywood. They make it seem like this is what America is, but don't take into account what would be the effects on so many people from these actions. People learn these emotional triggers.

I can see why some posters saw an incitement to murder in this ugly, bizarre performance to the GOP. It was so crude, but not really any worse than what the so-called head of the GOP, that vicious wingbag Rush Limbaugh says regulary. I call it planting seeds in the mind, like the NRA spokesman Ted Nugent did.

There really is no opposing voice on mainstream media, as these same people run it, as those maniacs who claim they 'own' this country. None of the people at that convention appeared to be suffering in any way. Yet they act as if they have lost something. Their minds, maybe. But the entire fiasco was very troubling.

Thanks for explaining this.

cynatnite

(31,011 posts)
65. Agree...the chair was more of a crutch than a prop...
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:47 PM
Sep 2012

When it comes to our movie heroes, we have a tendency to fantasize about being able to kill the bad guys without any repercussions. Thing is, most people know what happens when you actually follow through with it in real life. That is except for the narrow-minded bigots and racists at the convention. They want it to be real so badly, that they will make themselves believe their hero has those characteristics in real life. It's not just sad...it's dangerous.

Good to see you, Plaid Adder.

SunSeeker

(51,557 posts)
67. Reagan loved quoting those Dirty Harry lines.
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:53 PM
Sep 2012

I guess since they gave up on that Reagan hologram, they thought having Clint on would kill two birds with one stone.

But having never been a fan of the Dirty Harry films, I had no idea about the context of that line. Now I'm even more creeped out by Clint's little performance piece.

lunasun

(21,646 posts)
69. makes it sound like Obama is crude going around saying Fu and F this
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 11:16 PM
Sep 2012

and shut up
all so they can revert to the thug Obama.....oh then they can make their day and get rid of that kind of trash and feel good about it
He is not a Harvard grad just like their Rmoney guy
no he is black so something just must be wrong
must be that is just the way it is
it was all so racist and sick
who sat at home or on youtube and yelled "that 's right" Clint???????

The Wizard

(12,545 posts)
70. The old swashbuckler
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 11:49 PM
Sep 2012

and war hero Ronald Reagan used that line in a speech. It went over well. Reagan, like most Republicans, was a big talker without substance.

Cha

(297,240 posts)
76. I like them both.
Sun Sep 2, 2012, 12:54 AM
Sep 2012

I just watched Jon's take and it was hilarious. There's a serious and funny side to Eastwood's 12 minute diatribe.

calimary

(81,267 posts)
74. Plaid!
Sun Sep 2, 2012, 12:44 AM
Sep 2012

I am SO happy to read you again! Thanks for this - and thanks for the point you're making. It's incredibly, and painfully valid, especially these days.

roguevalley

(40,656 posts)
77. You're back! Welcome. And thank you for the post. Good analysis.
Sun Sep 2, 2012, 12:58 AM
Sep 2012

I am beginning to wonder what the ____. They are almost goading someone to shoot the President. Disgraceful and unAmerican.

krispos42

(49,445 posts)
79. I agree with item #1
Sun Sep 2, 2012, 02:09 AM
Sep 2012

At this point, considering how far-right and disastrous the Republican Party has become, Clint might well have decided that the GOP needs another four years to gather itself together and make a passing attempt at sanity in a political platform. So he sinks his appearance at the convention by bringing his mental crutch front-and-center on a live, national stage.

I personally think the GOP is on the verge of dissolution as a political party, and maybe Clint is hoping to keep the implosion from taking place with the Republicans running things.

When it does, I believe the Democrats will move to become the RW party and a new party will become the left.

I hope Skinner owns "greenunderground.com", too.


Per item #2, well, as the man on the scene Dirty Harry chose to intervene rather than seek out a telephone and wait many minutes for a conventional police response, which would almost certainly have resulted in a standoff with hostages, or 5 armed and dangerous men escaping to roam free among the citizens of San Fransisco.

Intimidation works. By appearing eager to kill, the Dirty Harry character actually reduces the chances of violence occurring. The sole survivor of the armed robbery gang was in shock and in fear for his life, suddenly powerless and vulnerable where only seconds before he had been the Top Dog. By acting as if the killing would give him pleasure, but that he would not shoot unless given a reason, he virtually guaranteed the man's surrender.

ecstatic

(32,704 posts)
80. Wow. I didn't even know the full context
Sun Sep 2, 2012, 02:37 AM
Sep 2012

He's way before my time, but when he said "I don't say that word anymore..." I was thinking he meant a slur. It's almost as if he tried to cross the line a few times and then had sense enough to walk it back each time (the neck slit, "We own this country," etc.).

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Make My Day