*** Official GRAN TORINO Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[BrettB]

What's with the spoiler tags? Did I miss the memo?

In the meantime... I have a hard time believing the thugs would see the inside of a prison also. They would get lawyered up with ACLU types, half of Hollywood would be championing their cause and there would be all sorts of witness testimony re: Walt's half a century of racist behavior and most importantly his actions in the final hours before the shooting.

 

[Holadem]

That's just a deeply asinine thing to say. I hope you're happy with your political mudslinging.

--
H

 

[Edwin-S]

At trial, what would his history as a racist have to do with him being gunned downed in the street while unarmed? A defense lawyer who tried to use Walt's past racist behaviour as a defense for shooting him would be a laughingstock. In fact, the only real racist behaviour he showed was the use of racial epithets. You never ever see Walt perform any racist act beyond the use of a few nasty words. I could just picture a a defense lawyer trying to convince a judge and jury that his clients were justified in shooting Walt because he had a history of using bad words about other races.

Also, regarding his final actions. Who would come forward to testify, on behalf of a gang of murderous thugs, that Walt was planning anything in his last hours?

 

[Michael Elliott]

Us white people here might not have a problem with the racist Walt but if you visit other boards there are those who have an issue with it. Many people see the supporting characters as nothing more than stereotypes with the Asian characters needing to be rescued by the "strong white guy". Some have called it cliched or, as Spike Lee said about Eastwood, an old man with an old fashioned mind. The two black guys hanging out in their white beaters in front of the store drinking liquor is one suck scene that is being attacked. I still think the film being overlooked at the Oscar is due to the racist character.

The racial slurs might not hit home with some because a lot of them were done in a comical fashion.

 

[Jeff_Standley]

But Crash was filled with racist characters.


This is starting to go down an ugly path, here's something to get it back on track.

I may be dead wrong, but didn't the movie tell us that the Hmong keep to themselves and do not go to the police in any type of situation?
If this is the case how did Walt know that the people watching all around would actually go to the police this time and not keep to themselves out of fear of the gangs retaliation?

 

[Michael Elliott]

CRASH was also fake whereas this one isn't. The "hero" of CRASH wasn't someone like Walt throwing out racial slurs left and right. This film is so anti-Hollywood that (I believe) in this thread and others people knew it wasn't going to go anywhere Awards-wise.

I don't see this thread taking an ugly turn because it's the film dealing with these ugly terms. I think we have the right to praise this film to Heaven but others have the right to see things differently. A lot of people aren't happy with the racial slurs, stereotypes and other issues brought up in this film.

As for your question, Walt showing up and standing up to the gangs inspired those around him to do the same. By teaching them to stand up he knew they could help the police.

 

[Jeff_Standley]

?!?!?!?! What? Are you kidding me, how was crash fake? You do realize there are racist people in the world don't you?
I think it's amazing how many people think that crash doesn't represent a real group of individuals, not just you, but a friend of mine said the same thing to me, "Crash isn't real, there aren't really people like that".
And I told him the same thing that I'm going to tell you, I have met every single one of those people in my lifetime, that is absolutely real.
Of course all their lives intersecting may not be real but that's what makes the story interesting.

Also can you link me to an "real" article that talks about an old racist white man who sacrificed his own life in s storm of gun fire so that his new Hmong friend could live his life in peace?

If you meant something different by "Crash was fake, GT was real" I apologize.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I don't want to turn this into a CRASH thread so you can find my full comments and review in its official thread or the Oscar thread from that year. But in short term, I found the film to be so fake that Pamela Anderson would have been embarrassed by it.

That part of the discussion could go back to the silent era or especially the Kramer era of the late 50's and 60's when these issues were a lot stronger. You had "fake" message movies just wanting to preach and then you had "real" message movies wanting to have a real message on something real and not just a made up piece of junk to tide over Hollywood folks. Opinions are going to vary on which films are which but to me GT hit a damn fine nerve with people.

I've read arguments that GT is "fake" because Walt wouldn't have done what he did. I'm not totally convinced he wasn't racist at the end of the movie but I think the laying down of his life was given good reasons as to why he would do it.

 

[Jeff_Standley]

LOL.

I'll look for the thread and read your review.

 

[TravisR]

Yeah, right.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Just out of curiosity, where did you learn about the criminal justice system?

 

[schmidtt]

 

[Michael Reuben]

Admittedly, it's been some years since I worked on the defense of a criminal case. But when I did, we never subpoenaed witnesses to testify under oath unless we were sure they would testify favorably for us, in which case the subpoena was usually just a formality because the witness was cooperative. The people most likely to have witnessed the events you've listed -- particularly the act that might be interpreted as reaching for a gun -- are the least likely to be cooperative and the most likely to say, "I didn't see anything; it was too dark". They are also the most likely to blurt out something about the defendants that a defense attorney would not want the jury to hear.

So while your analysis may be sound in theory (the issue of deadly force and the duty to retreat vary state by state), my point is a practical one.

 

[TravisR]

I'm certainly not a lawyer but I can't see how any attempt to say that a lone, unarmed man in his 70's that was shot probably 30 times by half a dozen (or however many there were) thugs (who probably have previous violent crimes on their rap sheets and may have unregistered guns) was percieved as a threat to them would work as a defense.

I'm not doubting that it's true but no lawyer could get those guys off on that defense.

 

[Mark Hawley]

I'm pretty sure Uzis are illegal anyways so the rap would be more than just unregistered firearms. They'd also mostly be convicted of assault and rape since I'm sure Thao's sister would testify against them and not be afraid of repurcussions since they're already in prison.

So even if you take Clint's fate out of it, they're still going to prison for a long time.

And would there be reliable witnesses who would testify to Clint's previous behavior - beating one of them up, pointing his finger a certain people and pretending to fire, pulling his gun on the street thugs? The defense would have their work cut out for them presenting reliable testimony from reliable witnesses.

 

[Jeff_Standley]

I'm no lawyer, but even I know that is bullsh*t and wouldn't hold up at all.
-Walt pointing his hand was seen by the gang members once, and no one else that would make any difference to a case. You really think the two black youths would be found and questioned?
-The gang members thought Walt was reaching for a gun, that would be an assumption at best and wouldn't be accepted.
-Walt did go to their house and beat up someone, but they had no reason to suspect he would of had a gun with him.
And let's not forget most people do not protect themselves with illegal automatic weapons.
Also The residents watching the situation saw him reach for a lighter, then reach back into his pocket, they would not have guessed it was a gun. You can't guess in court?

 

[Michael Reuben]

So gang members' use of illegal firearms would not be just a side issue.

As I mentioned before, this varies from state to state. The Model Penal Code, which was supposed to help bring uniformity to state law (and was only partially successful), would limit this sort of "no duty to retreat" to an attack inside the dwelling. Many states don't accept that limitation, and Michigan appears to be one of them.

 

[Holadem]

Hey! That's what *I* said but no one cared! WTF?

--
H

 

[Michael Reuben]

My apologies. I forgot that you'd mentioned it earlier, before someone raised the "duty to retreat" issue.

We always end up in these hypertechnical discussions, but the fact is that you can't know for sure everything that happens after "The End". To me, the true conclusion of Gran Torino happens at the funeral, and for that I don't need a law book.

 

[Mark Hawley]

Sorry about hijacking your point Holadem.

Good point about linking their earlier attack on the house. I'm sure they'd be able to match one of the about a thousand bullets found on the scene with the uzis they used on Clint.

I'm pretty sure showering a person's house, especially knowing there's people in there, constitutes attempted murder. It would also be property damage.

So rape, assault and battery, property damage, possession of illegal firearms, attempted murder - even if the defense could convince the jury they acted in self-defense, they'd still go to prison for a long, long time.