
I’m “biast” (con): no fan of director or star Clint Eastwood of late
I have read the source material (and I am indifferent about it)
(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)
Welcome to Peak Apologetics for the Bullshit of White Men. Clint Eastwood has perhaps outdone himself with The Mule, which expects us to be charmed by a miserable old coot (Eastwood, as director: The 15:17 to Paris, Sully) who falls into a life of crime under the spell of an utter naïveté that is impossible to accept. It is also presumed that we will be sympathetic to his redemption in the eyes of the ex-wife and adult daughter to whom he has been an absolute asshole his entire life. “I think you’re just a late bloomer,” his daughter (Alison Eastwood [Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, Absolute Power], the star and director’s actual daughter) says reassuringly, when she finally relents and forgives him for being a horrible person. This man is 90 fucking years old. Do men ever have to grow up? The Mule would like you to consider that no, a man does not ever have to grow up, and will still get everything he wants out of life. Including, eventually, the affection of the women he has treated like shit. His ex (poor, poor Dianne Wiest: Sisters, The Odd Life of Timothy Green) never really stopped loving him, doncha know. Aww. *puke*

Clint Eastwood is Earl Stone, who ran a successful day-lily — that’s right, I said “day lily” — business until the Internet ruined it. Did Earl Stone even attempt to adapt his flower business to the Internet? Signs point to no. So he has NO CHOICE but to go blind and foolish into an offer to drive — just drive — some stuff — who could possibly know what sort of stuff — from down near the Mexican border back up to Chicago. (Earl lives in Peoria, Illinois. In a little white house with an American flag waving in slo-mo from the porch. Which has been foreclosed on. The bastards. But just you try being a black man running drugs. Will you be permitted to plead economic hardship for your felonies? Will anyone feel sorry for you if you do? Of course not.)
The damn machine guns wielded by the guys Earl collects The Stuff from apparently do not faze him. It’s only after his first few trips — for which he has been paid with fat wads of cash in manila envelopes — that he thinks to look in the bags the guys-with-machine-guns have put in his truck… and he’s gobsmacked to discover bricks of, I dunno? Cocaine? Heroin? Clearly, Earl recognizes, as anyone who isn’t Forrest Gump would, these white bricks as some sort of illegal drug. If he’s savvy enough for that, he’s savvy enough to have known what he has gotten himself into from the beginning. Fuck The Mule for thinking we will be onboard with the mule not realizing that he is a mule, or have any pity whatsoever for Earl.

Nick Schenk’s script for The Mule is a lot more generous than the real-life tale this is based on, Sam Dolnick’s New York Times Magazine article “The Sinaloa Cartel’s 90-Year Old Drug Mule.” (Schenck also wrote Eastwood’s Gran Torino, or as I like to call it, Hey You Kids Get Off My Lawn: The Motion Picture.) Beyond the awful optics of Earl’s absolution, this movie appears to offer the appalling message that if the ruthless drug cartels of Central America were just more laid back, like Earl is, they’d never get caught. Cuz, you see, it’s Earl’s old-fogey refusal to follow cartel rules about routes and schedules on his drug-transporting road trips that make him unpredictable, and hence unsurveillable by the DEA. (I think The Mule intends for us to be amused by how Earl accidentally confounds law enforcement. Blech.) Bonus negative points for the scene in which Earl encounters unwitting DEA agent Colin Bates (poor, poor Bradley Cooper: A Star Is Born, Avengers: Infinity War) in a roadside diner — Bates unaware that he is speaking to the unseen trafficker whom he has been chasing — and Earl offers sad, sage advice to the younger man about how he should take it easy and spend more time with his family and not miss wedding anniversaries and kiddie birthdays merely because of his job. Sure, the DE-fucking-A should be less on-call, right?
I mean, of course, there are ENTIRE OTHER ISSUES about the legalization of currently outlawed drugs that we could be talking about. (Someday the absurdity of the prohibition of mind-altering powders will be seen with the same disdain as the Prohibition the US once had for alcohol. Then maybe those overworked DEA agents can take must-needed vacations.) But The Mule doesn’t broach such matters; it doesn’t seem to recognize that any debate even exists. It just wants us to feel bad, for some inscrutable reason, for Earl and how he was, I dunno, taken advantage of by a cartel or something. C’mon, the movie seems to say, Earl is just this sweet old dude, if a little out-of-date; yes, he calls black people “negroes” to their faces, but he does it in a nice way. He’s simply doing what anyone would do — or at least what any entitled white man who moves through the world like he owns it, and fuck everyone else. Like when he accepts two scantily clad women as party favors at a cartel schmoozer and has a threesome with them, because they’re honestly SO into him.

And Eastwood is doing what any white-male Hollywood-power-player film director would do when he gets the camera in the asses of those women, over and over and over again. I actually moaned “Gross” out loud right there in the screening room: this may be the worst example of this stomach-turning cliché ever, partly for how drawn out it is. But Eastwood finds a repulsive new low in the scene in which Cooper’s Bates and his DEA partner (Michael Peña [12 Strong, CHiPs], wasted here but charming, if briefly so, as ever), in the search for the mule, do a traffic stop of a thoroughly terrified (and, of course, completely innocent) Hispanic man. As this temporary “suspect” practically pees himself in genuine and justifiable fear, he delivers an infodump monologue to the agents — and to the audience — about how “these are the most dangerous five minutes of my life” because the odds of him, as a nonwhite man, being shot and killed by cops in this situation are obscenely high. It appears to be an attempt by the film to show that it is woke about its entire conceit, that it recognizes our culture’s hypocrisy in our preconceptions about who might be a criminal and who gets unwarranted presumptions of innocence. But not only is the entire scene so stilted and implausible that it’s cringe-inducing, the whole thing seems to be played for laughs, from the bemusement of the DEA agents — as if they couldn’t possibly have any idea what their detainee is talking about — to the “suspect”’s overplayed supplication, as if he is being unreasonable and maybe even unnecessarily defensive.
Anyway, whatever wokeness The Mule might think it’s offering is endlessly being undercut by its portrait of Earl as a gentle curmudgeon, a regretful “late bloomer,” and a man who just wants to get back to his flowers. Did you know that inmates in federal prison get to do gardening? Who knew life in the slammer was so pleasant? Only for old white men, I’m guessing.


















Could have been designer jeans. Or maybe Canadian Goose jackets. :D
Sadly, the sort of film one might have expected of Eastwood at this stage in his life: gee, everybody hates me for some reason that I don’t really understand, why can’t we all just get along?
You mean you didn’t like The Clint Eastwood Vanity Project, MaryAnn? I’m shocked, just shocked…
But, seriously, folks.
At Eastwood’s age, this may well be the last movie he ever stars in. And he chose this type of movie to end his career with?
* Sigh! *
On the plus side, I can’t help finding something funny about a movie that gets called racist for having a certain character argue that certain Mexicans work too hard, follow too many rules and don’t relax enough. After all, that’s not the usual type of thing we hear from anti-Mexican racists.
I will admit that there are many scenes about Mexicans in this movie that I found at best to be offensively patronizing.
Who’s doing that?
Okay, you obviously had different reasons for calling it racist. I just thought it was an odd — and funny, in the sense that if I did not laugh, I would probably cry — coincidence that one of the few movies that accused Mexican characters of working too hard was singled out by you and other film critics as being racist.
Though while we’re at it…
I could swear that “Hispanic” guy that the DEA agents were harrassing claimed to be Filipino. But I hated this movie so I’ll wait till it hits cable before I verify that.
Okay, but AGAIN: Who is saying that THIS is why we consider the film racist? It’s not (at least for me). Isn’t my description of the traffic stop enough to conclude that that is why I found the film racist?
I’m not sure the guy said anything about his heritage/ethnicity/background, but I could be wrong. Also, apparently, “Hispanic” and “Filipino” are not mutually exclusive, depending on who you ask and how people feel about their ethnicity.
Hmm. I’d say despite some significant cultural overlap (thanks, Spain, for your shitty 300-year colonial rule) most Filipinos consider themselves Southeast Asian. And most Filipino Americans identify as Asian American rather than as Latinx (at least among activists and other public figures who talk about identity). Have you heard differently?
Heck, I’m half-Mexican and even I don’t identify with Latinx, though I don’t hate it the way I hate the many genuinely derogatory synonyms people have used to describe Spanish-surnamed individuals in the USA.
Then again I’m still getting used to the word “Chicano” — though I love the way the late Michele Serros once defined the term to mean “pissed-off Mexican.”
As for Filipinos, I suspect you’re right. I once learned one of my favorite Spanish phrases from a Filipino co-worker but that doesn’t prove anything. After all, one of my full-blooded Mexican uncles used to speak more words of Polish to me than my Polish-American mother. But he certainly did not identify as Polish.
But regardless of terminology the question was whether Filipinos identified as culturally “Hispanic,” or whatever term you prefer. Googling around, I see that some Filipinos do seem to consider themselves Hispanic, though I disagree for my part.
Here’s a rather strong opinion.
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/dear-filipinos-hispanic-latino-southeast-asian
I Googled around and found multiple discussions about the issue. I cannot say how authoritative any of the individuals having the discussions were, but they were on reputable sites.
I’m gonna go with what Manny Jacinto says. If he’s Asian, then I’m Asian. Case closed. :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig6wDN9kBXA&t=121s
But seriously: I’ll admit that “Filipino-ness” (like many/most other identities) has aspects and nuances that can’t be summed up and stored away in neat little boxes. CLEARLY we’re Asians, and just as clearly, our history has given us a lot in common with Spain and Latin America. I’m not comfortable claiming to be “Hispanic” on that basis, and I think it’s more appropriate for me to support Latinx people as an ally rather than claim membership myself.
However the guy in that scene in the film I discussed identifies, he’s still treated like shit by the movie.
Yes. Sorry for the tangent. :-/
Yes, I got that. I did not mean to imply otherwise. (And yes, I know you directed this reply to Bluejay but since it was one of my posts that inspired his tangent, I felt the need to say something.)
Fair enough.
I’m obviously used to the assumption that any complaint about racism in which a great many of the characters are Mexican will inevitably be based on the way the Mexican characters are depicted. Granted, I highly doubt that this movie is in any danger of earning a LULAC Film of the Year Award but I was wrong about my assumptions for your reasons. I’m sorry.
Ironically, I prefer the way the whole minority traffic stop issue was handled in the Veronica Mars movie in which the victim was depicted in a more sympathetic manner. Apparently Hollywood has moved backward since then.
that first picture of eastwood, i swear looks like something from a zombie film… or where someone gets bitten by an alien bug and is starting to turn into either food or the alien. might have been a more interesting movie.
Hah! If I still look that good at 88 then… well, I don’t know if anyone can honestly say they’d be happy to look like that, but I’d be alive and 88, so I’d have that going for me I guess. I wish he would have had the threesome with Betty White and Angela Lansbury and woke up to discover that they had stolen his package of drugs. Then, the cat and mouse game would be on, like A Fish Called Wanda in super slow motion.
Would watch the hell outta that movie.
he may look good for 88, but even if he were 48, he would look lousy in that photo!
It’s not a flattering photo, and yet it’s an official still from the film. So I went with it. :-)
Completely agree, you only miss the parts where we are meant to think he is a good man because he now leads the drug cartel to his estranged family’s doors to put them in maximum danger; the bit where he is being redeemed and forgiven by his daughter and he literally walks away as she’s speaking; the granddaughter who always recognised him as a good man though she’s seen him be a complete shit to everyone; the bit where we see he was misjudged because he came to the graduation albeit only to upset family members and late because he is so important and the centre of the world; the fact that it’s not just his wife who still thinks he’s a god every woman in the film wants to dance and be close to him, cutting in on each other’s dances; the way everyone has to laugh because he’s so witty being a judgemental boring prick and how Clint Eastwood is so scared of not being on screen in one single scene that they can’t even give space to set up the backstories necessary so that he can, smart man that he is, provide life changing advice to his handler and the DEA agent.
Oh yeah, that definitely occurred to me! He is fucking selfish to the very end. His redemption is more important than his family’s safety.
And also everything else you said.
I have not seen the movie, but I’ve read this review. As a retired mili-f***ing-tary officer, I would say that the advice given by Eastwood to poor, poor Bradley Cooper is good and sound and, in my experience, not atypical from older to younger people who were/are highly invested in their jobs to the detriment of their family life. “Taking it easy,” “not missing children’s birthday parties” (or other, even minor, events) or “wedding anniversaries” is sound advice and benefits both the worker and family, even if it’s a goal that we unavoidably fall short of due to the job (on-call 24/7 or deployed; been there, done that). But the point must be made because it often becomes too easy or comfortable to always be working (I’m essential!) and trying to make it up to them (which you mostly can’t and often don’t) instead of prioritizing the people we love to the maximum extent possible. You _should_ be sad if you miss those things, and better to realize that when you’re young than when you’re nearly dead and alone.
Maybe one has to see the scene to understand your criticism, but as written it seems wrong or misplaced.
OF COURSE taking it easy and spending meaningful time with your family is good advice. But in the context of this film, it’s bizarre. I mean, come on, the DEA should take it easy so that Clint Eastwood can continue to haul millions of dollars of illegal drugs into Chicago?
It’s a little dumb for me to discuss the scene without being familiar with it, so I just listened to it. Maybe Eastwood and Cooper had more interaction in other scenes which you’re remembering (in which case, please ignore the following), but in the diner scene there is no reference to the DEA as an organization or to Cooper as a DEA agent “taking it (or anything) easy.” Eastwood makes one statement to Cooper admiring the way Cooper “took someone down.” The rest pretty much follows what I gleaned from your review: Cooper missed his anniversary and Eastwood recommends he re-prioritize his family over work. Eastwood notes that he was a lousy husband and father and mentions some of the (horrible, to me) consequences. Cooper thanks him. Nothing more, nothing less. Outside the context of the rest of the movie and not having seen why Eastwood is a POS, nothing seemed strange about the scene. Good advice and better to be learning it from someone else than to be the one giving it.
Eastwood knows Cooper is after him at this point . So within the context of the story, it’s problematic. But even if the encounter was between two characters who didn’t know anything about each other, *we* know who they are and what the story is about. This exchange does not occur in a vacuum. It has a context. We absolutely CANNOT look at this — or at any scene in any movie, really — “outside the context of the rest of the movie.”
I watched the John Mulaney / Pete Davidson SNL review last week and thought, Oh man, MaryAnn’s going to have so much fun ripping this to shreds.
For anyone who hasn’t seen this already:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5TEsdb918c&t=8s
“Do you remember when Clint Eastwood berated an empty chair at the Republican National Convention?”
“It’s like if THAT was a movie.”
They’re doing film reviews on SNL now? Wow.
It’s not a regular thing, as far as I know. Just a one-time comedy routine around a particular movie that inspired them to pile on.
But if somebody gave John Mulaney and Pete Davidson a Siskel-and-Ebert-type review show, I would so watch that.
This was a very racist review. Color had nothing to do with this movie. Earl could have been black and I would have felt the same way. It’s a story of Redemption. And yes men for in love with jerk women as well. You seem just as as sexists as well. Very close minded. This story is universal and genders and race can be interchangable. I feel sorry for people who go through life with such a rigid outlook.
If Earl was black this would be a VERY DIFFERENT movie.
I bet you don’t see color at all, eh?
It really isn’t. But sure, I’m the one with a “rigid outlook.”
Mike Tyson has had multiple opportunities to gain back fame, money and family… He’s black.
You make it seem as if being “white” is a negative thing which is why you mentioned it. That’s racist. And like I said before men fall for jerk cheating women all the time and they as well forgive and love them. Being white was just Earl’s skin color. People give people Redemption all through out time in all cultures. Not just White Old Men lol… Very narrow way to look at film.
I am not here to educate you on the things my review is about. Level up.
It’s cool. Didn’t mean to confuse your racist sexists views. Take care
Ps you left out 90 percent of the other elements of the story and focused on his sex and color… Judging both… What does that say about you?
Lord, grant me the confidence of a mediocre white man
eres igual de incompetente que la academia. ya no valoras buenas películas, solo buscas hacer daño y velas por tus propios intereses. perdona que te diga pero no deberías ser una critica de cine y televisión, si te pasan a llevar películas que muestran muchas veces la cruda realidad. saludos desde Chile.
Ibang wika ang ginagamit mo, akala mo ba’y walang makakaunawa sa iyo? Dakdak ka ng dakdak, hindi mo naman ipinaliliwanag kung saan siya nagkamali sa palagay mo. Puro insulto lang na walang katuturan. Bakit hindi mo linawin ang mga bagay na nagustuhan mo sa pinanood mo? Kung wala kang maibigay na mga detalya, tumahimik ka na lang.
You seem great. Please, where can I subscribe to your podcast?