Blood Work (2002)

What follows is the first in a series of occasional in-depth essays-

"An accident is fate. Murder is evil."

While it is universally accepted that Clint Eastwood dismantled the Western genre with 1992's Unforgiven, the way in we he has gradually deconstructed his other trademark genre, the Cop/Detective crime-drama has largely gone unnoticed. In a way it is this slow burning and complex method examination that is the far more interesting of the two practices, with the sheer scale of this subtle approach, that one could claim began in 1977 with The Gauntlet, being nothing short of a spectacular artistic achievement.

Gran Torino (2008) provided what should be seen as the immediate and appropriate conclusion to the deconstruction of the post-Dirty Harry detective drama within the context of Clint Eastwood's career. Based upon the fact that Unforgiven marked the final time (thus far) that Eastwood would step into the saddle I think its safe to assume that Gran Torino will provide a similar "full stop" to his use of the Detective vehicle. Although the recent renouncement of claims towards his retirement from acting have been proven false might suggest that Eastwood isn't ready to give up the mantle just yet. And while Gran Torino isn't technically a Detective film it does explore the notion of justice in a post-modern fashion when placed next to the right wing poster boy that is Harry Callahan.

So, between "The Gauntlet" and "Gran Torino" how exactly did Eastwood explore the genre and shape it into what it eventually became? The premise for the overall shift looks fairly simple in retrospect, be it in the simple addition of an untold element towards a familiar genre (the cartoony, borderline slapstick over-the-top nature of The Gauntlet) or the opening of new avenues with regards to telling the story (the "other side of the story" angle of Mystic River(2003); telling the story from the point of view of the victims community as opposed to that of a criminal investigation), but its the combination of these elements that gradually adds up to create a very successful character arc, with the arc label being attached to the genre as opposed to a single character. It's incredibly post-modern and very unique for a body of work created over a 40 year period in commercial American cinema. This attitude towards genre and the notion of working within genre is further displayed within the non-Western and non-crime work with Eastwood's oeuvre. Generally speaking Eastwood usually takes a genre and turns it on its head when working within it, take for example Million Dollar Baby and its take on the sports dram, the way in which he tells a love story in Breezy, or the fashion in which the intricacies and importance of exploring both sides of conflict are examined within the Iwo Jima films. He very rarely takes the easiest route, and contrary to popular belief strong women are rife within his work (see Million Dollar Baby, Unforgiven, Changeling).

Blood Work, Eastwood's first Post-9/11 effort marks his return to the crime genre with yet another spin on the conventions of the genre; his character Terry McCaleb is cursed with a bad heart, yet the drive in him dictates that he cannot give up on a case. Its very much a comment on the theoretical latter years of the Dirty Harry-archetype, and on paper sounds conceptually fascinating. While Blood Work doesn't necessarily suffer from any unforgivably (pun intended) poor elements, there are a few that let it down, predominantly in some of the performances, of which I shall get to later.

From the outside (be it promotional material or the like) Blood Work appears to be a fairly generic piece of work, but the opening sequence, which comes across as the bastard lovechild of Se7en (1994) and Narc (2002), by way of Eastwood's trademark style, dispels any notions of mediocrity. It wouldnt be an overestimation to say that the opening sequence to Blood Work is amongst the finest stand alone scenes that Eastwood has created. The introduction to not only our protagonist, but his professional ability, his professional reputation and his personal health issues are all forborne in this brief five minute scene, without ever feeling overtly patronising or pandering. Technically the scene is rather magnificent too, with a series of tracking shots interlocking to display to the audience the scale of the crime scene. At one point a neon-light-Latin-cross is seen way in the distance, and is the only means of diagetic lighting in the shot, foreboding the rather surprisingly downplayed issue of Resurrection in what is theoretically a biblical tale (a theme addressed across much of Eastwood's work, be it the notion of sacrifice in Gran Torino or mortality in Million Dollar Baby). The use of blood as both a narrative tool and a visual aid harks back to this religious thesis, although the overall effect of such metaphorical ideas are largely ignored. The tracking shot is notable for its use of lens flare, an effect that usually jars with this viewer, but for once worked incredibly successfully. As McCaleb is a celebrity of sorts, and therefore the subject of the media's attention, the light from the flashes of the paparazzi cameras is used to light the scene, creating an ensemble of lens flare that serves to accompany the scene and move it forward, rather than simply being aesthetically pleasing. It's a refreshingly mature use of lens flare, the likes of which a filmmaker like Michael Bay could only dream of.

Alas, whilst the opening scene is stunning in its execution I couldnt help but feel it set a bit of an unwelcome precedent for the remainder of the picture, in that the implausability of that particular situation opened the floodgates with regards to what followed. Call me a pedant, but i fail to understand why, or indeed how the initial chase could or would have come to being in any reasonably realistic situation. Eastwood's McCaleb is a man of a considerable age, surrounded by many a police officer (the majority younger and presumably fitter) at a major crimescene. When he gave chase why did the others not follow suit? The obvious answer would be that Eastwood wanted to display a particular trait within McCaleb's personality, he wanted to show his determination; the very same determination that would come to push him further and further into the case of Gloria Torres, but for me that just didnt fit into the quasi-realistic world that Eastwood grounds Blood Work in. Upon further examination I think that there is actually a reasonable and clever explanation for this situation, with it building upon the post-modern ideology; When taken into account alongside the scene that follows, the chase scene seems perfectly appropriate, if one takes the stance that the real, post-modern examination begins at the moment "2 years later" pops up on the screen. Eastwood deliberately sets the scene at the start of the film to feel like one of the stereotypical detective flicks of old, before bringing the audience crashing back to reality with the effects of the previous scenario; the heart transplant.

Gender is something that is almost always attached with Clint Eastwood. He is considered to be a figure of macho cinema, an icon of action movies and all round tough guy, so the way in which the portrayal of the role of women has evolved throughout work is a genuine revelation. If you look back to the likes of Bronco Billy (1980), and the way in which Sandra Locke's Antoinette Lily was physically manhandled, or to The Gauntlet where Sandra Locke's Gus Mally was physically manhandled and compare it to the way in which Anjelica Huston's Bonnie Fox speaks to Eastwood's McCaleb, you will see that the difference is incredibly drastic, and a sign of the way in which his filmmaking and even attitude has matured. This line has developed further, with incredibly strong female characters within two of Eastwood's most recent film's Changeling and Million Dollar Baby, a film which, incidently, dealt with the concept of the role of women head on. Blood Work contains several strong female characters, in the shape of Tina Lifford's Detective Jaye Winston and Wanda De Jesus as Graciella Rivers, the woman who employs McCaleb to investigate the death of her sister (and subsequently his doner). The interplay between McCaleb and Detective Winston is especially interesting, especially when the events of the third Dirty Harry film The Enforcer are taken into account, which sees a disgruntled Callahan teamed up with a female officer, much to his objection. The tackling of such subjects backs up the notion that Eastwood is a filmmaker that has maintained an ability to develop overtime, and call me sentimental, but a part of me would like to believe that Eastwood is actually answering for the mistakes of his past by approaching them within his work.

Perhaps its ironic then, that for a film so concerned with character and issues of personality, be it through the approach to gender that was outlined above, or in the traditional manner which many will associate with the work of Clint Eastwood, that the films biggest failings lie with several of the performances. Both Paul Rodriguez and Wanda De Jesus turn in embaressingly poor performances, that falter on more than one level. Not only are they both incredibly one dimensional, but theyre cliche ridden accents are borderline offensive. Rodriguez especially hams up the role, which would have worked much better if played subtler. De Jesus's soap-opera level of performance is uninspiring and bland by its very nature, made all the more confusing by a performance that doesnt seem to match that of the way the character was written. Jeff Daniels, an actor best known for his comedy work, shows up as the 'villain of the week' with all the subtlety of a Columbo-reveal, that pales in comparrison to some of the more memorable villains seen in Eastwood pictures (Little Bill Daggett being the obvious benchmark). Its a shame really, considering that the film holds up rather well at being everything it isn't supposed to be when you ignore these aspects, alas such ignorance is hardly likely considering the prominent position at least two of those three characters take within the picture.

All is not lost when it comes to the performances; Eastwood turns in a strong showing, in a muted take on the Dirty Harry persona, with Anjelica Huston projecting everything that the more negative support perfomers lack, in her brief but memorable role. Tina Lifford is great as the female character spoken of above. As the picture is very much "A Clint Eastwood Film", the reliance on supporting performances isn't as pivotal as a more ensemble-based feature such as Letters from Iwo Jima or Changeling (a film which, for my money at least, the strongest ensemble cast of this decade), so the film can afford to forgive a few of the lesser acts.

In terms of visuals Clint Eastwood has always been tagged with the "workmanlike-nature" label, and while im hardly going to argue that he isn't, its worth pointing out that Blood Work contains one of the most experimental pieces of visual cinema that Eastwood has ever commited to celluloid. The sequence occurs in the shape of a nightmare being experience by Eastwood's Terry McCaleb, and is shot in the style of a heat seeking camera. While the scene may not strike as being especially experimental when compared to the like of Godard or Makavejev, contextually and within the hollywood thriller genre it is quite the revelation, and totally unexpected. Eastwood has attempted to experiment on occasion in the past, with the overtly dark hues of Bird and the supernatural elements of High Plains Drifter provoking a more daring editing sensibility than the type usually associated with his work.

Politically Eastwood and I are at complete odds, and its with the politics of Blood Work that I jar the most. The offending incident is only a brief scene but it involves Eastwood teaching a small boy about how to respect a firearm. Not only do i disagree with the scene on a personal level, but i find its inclusion unnecessary and tacked. It doesn't drive the plot forward, it doesn't serve to back up a later revelation, its just there, seemingly in an attempt to promote the jutification of gun ownership. Saying that, with Eastwood a staunch republican i would have expected my own morals to have effected my own enjoyment of his work much more than it actually has, but this one scene was just far too explicit to ignore. As I mentioned before Blood Work was Eastwood's first post-9/11 production, but where it differed from the majority of Hollywood's immediate post-9/11 output was in that its antagonist was a person who was very close to home, in the shape of Eastwood's next door neighbour. Now I'm sure this was purely coincidental, and a reaction to the fact that the film was based upon a source novel that would appear to confirm this, but I find it a striking happenstance that this is the case.

Conceptually Blood Work is a great presumption, but some absolutely dreadful supporting performances let down the actual execution. I actually found the whole experience to be rather frustrating actually, as there isn't anything particularly wrong with the film but it feels as though its lacking in something, something which I can't quite put my finger on. The script is fine, as is the direction, and while there may be pacing issues I have actually found it difficult to single out any completely meandering moments (with the sole exception of the gun control advertisement), and while the actual investigation that makes up the backbone of the story is largely predictable I wouldnt say that the film is any less the successful because of it. I guess at the end of the day Blood Work is just an incredibly average film that happens to effectively display a number of the key elements which make Clint Eastwood films an appealing experience.