•
Rating:
I continue to insist with Eastwood. After "Bird", et voilà, "A Perfect World" (1993). Ironic title, yeah, because: a) the world isn't perfect, b) this film tells a chilling world, far from perfect. And it starts with Halloween, the night of witches, trick or treat, empty pumpkins, and black witches. Then there's an escape, followed by a kidnapping. Well, if this is the start..., so much for the perfect world.
Clint Eastwood is of a certain age (he was born in 1930), born in San Francisco, he has a few decades on his shoulders, and he knows a bit about American history, knowing that the USA is not exactly squeaky clean. Skeletons in the closet? No, I'd say, better, visible errors (and horrors), a bit like the whole world, but Eastwood is American, and he knows his country well. When J.F. Kennedy was assassinated, he was 30 years old with 11 films under his belt, but he wasn't famous yet. He experienced the USA of the early Sixties, divided between the cold war and the war against blacks, and over time, he assimilated them. After a few years, after some westerns and violent inspectors, he decided to make a film about those years. His years.
What came out of it is "A Perfect World." Yes, ok, alright, it's not the masterpiece of a lifetime, but it's still a great film. Yes, yes, I've understood, it won't go down in history. But it is still a great film. Why? Because within "A Perfect World" there's all the Eastwood style and the Eastwood mindset. There's a story, tragic, ruthless ("Unforgiven"?). Of a man on the run who takes a child with him, treats him well, then dies, and the child is left with a void. Yes, it's true, it's not a completely original idea, but here it's more effective than elsewhere. Because the criminal/hostage relationship isn't what you see in prison films; it's the relationship between an adult and a child, hence even murkier and more complex. And because, above all, Eastwood wants to fly high, dissecting other themes: the destroyed and insecure America, with no longer any homeland or ideals, no families, and no fathers, capable of killing presidents and small-time criminals as if they were the same thing. Overbearing in declaring hostility to Russia, yet incapable of taking care of its own children. The contradictions of a country, the contradictions of all time.
Exemplary Eastwood, who stages the story with a stylistic rigor that is difficult to match, perhaps cold and detached, but also precise, punctual, without unnecessary artistic frills, always aiming for the essential, even at the cost of seeming snobbish and out of time. Then well, you understand from the start how it will end (the bad guy dies and goodnight everyone), but what does it matter? That's not the essential part. The essential is understanding what's underneath: an unusual road movie on the side of losers, those who, by their nature, are destined to fail. All the USA-made metaphors are carefully intended. It's a film set in the Sixties, but composed and structured like a film from the Fifties.
Extraordinary performance by the cast. Number one Clint Eastwood, dry, rough, never a grimace out of place or a smile given by mistake. Exceptional. Demonstrates the fact that often in cinema, understated performances are worth more than hyperactive and over-the-top performances (the latest De Niro is a sorry confirmation). Then there's Laura Dern, the triceratops-exploring heroine of "Jurassic Park," as well as the muse for many of David Lynch's works. Finally, there's Kevin Costner, far from wolves and not yet drowned in "Waterworld." No longer as handsome and strong as in the late Eighties, but finally human and real, intense and brilliant. An anti-hero, a modern Gary Cooper, as someone described him. Surely, his most beautiful acting performance. Because tragically real.
"A Perfect World," more than a film, seems like a book. One of those books you browse from time to time to feel at peace with the world. Or just a bit more aware. "I don't know anything," says Eastwood. That's the key to the film.
Final accusation. From some, not all, to be clear. What accusation? The ending is sentimental. Yeah, because according to some, a character dying at the end of a film automatically makes the film itself sentimental. But come on, sentimentality is something entirely different. Here, at most, we can talk about emotion, about moving. Perhaps, if you're a bit romantic, it might make you shed a tear. But after all (a question to ask the tough and pure, as vulnerable as anyone else): what's wrong with being moved during a film? Nothing. So let's be moved, come on, cinema (once in a while) should also make us feel emotions.
Loading comments slowly
