Okay, I wanted to try to avoid blogging about politics this weekend, but analysis of Clint Eastwood’s Absurdist one-man play is everywhere. I guess it’s not even that political except that it happened at the Republican convention. As eurobrat points out, the performance, unlike everything else at the convention, was not carefully stage and crafted. It was spontaneous.
That definitely was why it was more memorable than anything else at the convention, but I am not sure that “memorable” means “good”. “All publicity is good publicity”, they say, but they are wrong. Just ask Richard Nixon. Still, I like Eastwood, and I can sort of see what he was trying to so, but it just fell flat. That’s okay; plays often do need adjustments after opening night.
I think he should hire Roger Guenveur Smith to perform in the next version of it. Number one because he is very good at one-man performances, and number two because there would be something delightfully ironic about a man named Roger Smith interviewing an empty chair.
Talking of which, Michael Moore has his own take on it, in which he erroneously says “a crazy old man hijacked a national party’s most important gathering so he could literally tell the president to go do something to himself”. But Eastwood had the imaginary President–President Harvey, if you will–telling him, Eastwood, that. The implied swearing didn’t bother me that much, although I suppose it will horrify the religious wing of the Republican party.
But, in the end, it was my favorite part of the convention. I have to give Eastwood credit for that much.
It *was* better than anything else at the convention. Maybe that’s why I overrated it a bit 😉