Hereafter

HEREAFTER

Directed by Clint Eastwood, U.S., (2010), 129 minutes

“It's a pity we don't know what the little flowers know” – Gordon Bok

Octogenarian Clint Eastwood’s Hereafter is an understated but deeply moving meditation on death and how it affects those left behind. Congratulations must go to Eastwood for going above and beyond the conventional to provide a film that is empowering and unforgettable, one of the finest of his career and one of the best of 2010. It is not a documentary, nor a European art film. It is a Hollywood product through and through but one with a difference. Refusing to cater to an audience that thrives on chaos and gore, Hereafter is a quiet and slow-paced film that treats every character, even the most flawed, with respect as a three-dimensional human being, not as an object used to bring in box office receipts.

Based on a screenplay by Peter Morgan (Frost/Nixon, The Queen), the subject matter deals with death but it is not maudlin in the slightest. Unlike films such as What Dreams May Come and The Lovely Bones, it is a reality-based film without colorful special effects mirroring popular conceptions of what heaven is all about. While some may not agree with its focus on spiritual mediums, Eastwood still allows us to share the pain of those who have lost a loved one and their experience that there is another dimension that transcends our five senses.

Hereafter tells three stories. In the opening sequence, French journalist and TV personality Marie Lelay played by the outstanding French actress Cecile de France, is vacationing in a beach resort in Indonesia with her producer and boyfriend Didier (Thierry Neuvic) when she is caught in a raging tsunami that uproots buildings and trees and sweeps hundreds to their death. She suffers a concussion and has a near-death experience that transports her to a world of light, one that exists outside of space and time where she feels weightless and has visions of others crossing over after the storm.

As a result of her experience, however, she is unable to focus when she returns to work and is compelled to take time off from broadcasting to write a biography of French politician Francois Mitterrand. What she really wants do, however, is to write a book about her near-death visions. She journeys to Europe to meet with the director of a hospice (Marthe Keller) who has documented many cases in which her patients have seen the other side. Her voyage is a lonely one, however, as her boyfriend rejects her experience as fantasy and publishers look askance at a draft of her book about life after death.

In the second story, George Lonegan, played by Matt Damon in one of his best performances, is a blue-collar worker living in San Francisco who has an unusual gift. Like spiritual mediums John Edward and James Van Praagh, he has the ability to make connections with and communicate messages from the dead. George has not done any readings for three years because he says that "a life that's all about death is no life at all," and considers his talent to be a curse rather than a gift. Though his brother Billy (Jay Mohr) keeps pressing him to return to doing readings, George refuses, but finally agrees to do one last reading for a client of his brother. When he is laid off from his job, however, he takes an Italian cooking class and meets Melanie (Bryce Dallas Howard), who hides her pain beneath a bubbly exterior. When she presses him to do a reading, he agrees but it brings back unpleasant memories for both participants and seems to validate all of his fears.

In the third sequence, in one of the most affecting child performances that I can remember, twin brothers Jason (George McLaren) and Marcus (Frankie McLaren) live with their mother, Jackie (Lyndsey Marshal) in a London apartment. Though she loves the boys, she is addicted to drugs and is being monitored by child welfare. Jason is older by twelve minutes and is the most talkative while Marcus is quiet and withdrawn. When a sudden tragedy takes place, Marcus is sent to a foster home to try and provide a normal upbringing. The boy is obsessed with one thing, however, and that is making contact with the spirit world. In the film’s only misstep, he goes to a variety of psychics who are shown as laughable charlatans instead of serious but perhaps flawed practitioners. Undaunted, he keeps up his quest, refusing to give up until he can achieve his goal of communicating with the hereafter.

While we sense that the threads will come together, to say as some critics have done that the stories are pulled together in “a silly set of contrived coincidences” overlooks one of the key messages of the film, that synchronicity does exist, that we are all connected, and that things happen for a reason. Backed by a serenely beautiful score composed by Eastwood, the film is emotional and had me in tears, yet it is honest emotion that carefully avoids melodrama and sentimentality. Hereafter is not a perfect film and there are enough critics around to remind us of that. Yet the fact that this film was even made gives me hope that amidst the lunacy of today’s world, the sense is growing slowly, in the song of Gordon Bok, that while “it's so easy in the cold to feel the darkness of the year, the world indeed may be “turning towards the morning”.

GRADE: A

Here is Chris Knipp's review, one of his best.

Thanks for the compliment. I don't know that it's one of my best reviews, but appreciate kind words whenever they come my way. I would give more credit to Peter Morgan, just as those who detest this film fault him equally. If the film works as I think it mostly does, it's because it's a collaboration that works out well between Morgan and Eastwood, because both approach the world of the beyond with the same reserve and skepticism. That is surely why the other mediums Marcus visits are shown to be inept or frauds. Surely you can't think all such people must be "serious but perhaps flawed practitioners" but must acknowledge this is an area where people can be easily exploited and are. Damon's character is strengthened by the contrast with the practitioners who are "flawed," or worse. So I don't see this as a weak passage of the movie. Otherwise we're pretty much in agreement. I kept an open mind on this theme, though I too am a skeptic. It works for me because of its reserve. The numerous critics who are brutal I think are partially blinded by their immediate rejection of the subject matter. Hoberman was extreme. The opening short paragraph was so mean that it seems to have been expunged from the Village Voice website in favor of the second paragraph accusing Eastwood of Oscar-baiting, in a later version c of his review called "Saint Clint's Hereafter Meets Timothy Carey's Greatest Sinner." You can find Hoberman's original opening paragraph here: that original version of the review was entitled more brutally, "Death by Eastwood." It reads:

Quote:

---

Life is wonderful, death is wow, chance is weird, and Clint Eastwood's Hereafter is a puddle of tepid ick.

---

. It's interesting, don't you think, that this was cut out of the version on the Voice's website? Because it's schoolboy name-calling, and a giveaway that he had lost his cool and his objectivity. (We all do sometimes, don't we?) I side with those who avoid the conventional criticism that the movie is too slow or bland and acknowledge that this is fine traditional filmmaking. As I've mentioned, people seem to have passed over Polanski's THE GHOST WRITER for the same reason. They're so used to ADD-paced explosion-stuffed movies that a film moving at a human pace is branded as torpid or dull. That claim is subjective enough. I'd be more interested in the speculation of the Film Freak Central reviewer (not unfortunately their main critic Walter Chaw) as to what Bresson would have done with this theme -- and in comparisons with Woody Allen's YOU WILL MEET A TALL, DARK STRANGER, which presents only one spirit guide, who's repeatedly called a charlatan but acknowledged to be very helpful. "A puddle of tepid ick" is really not film criticism, and Hoberman was wise to take it out.

Frankly. I have little interest in what the other critics may say. I always go with my experience. I think it's a beautiful film, very moving. I thought your review was excellent. I must admit I approached it with a little trepidation because of past experience but found it thoughtful and full of insights without a touch of snark.

As far as psychics are concerned, you can think whatever want about their validity. I just thought it rather incongruous that a spiritual medium such as Matt Damon was shown to be gifted and always spot on, but the others were ridiculed and dismissed out of hand. We learn nothing about their successes or failures in the past, nor anything about the validity of their technique. I think that is a false note in an otherwise emotionally honest film. Psychics and spiritual mediums are not always right. Sometimes they are off but I have never come across any, outside of popular misconceptions, that were less than devoted to their profession. Perhaps you have more experience in the area than I do..

Quote:

---

As far as psychics are concerned, you can think whatever want about their validity. I just thought it rather incongruous that a spiritual medium such as Matt Damon was shown to be gifted and always spot on, but the others were ridiculed and dismissed out of hand.

---

Yes, I see. That's a perfectly valid point.

Quote:

---

Frankly. I have little interest in what the other critics may say. I always go with my experience. I think it's a beautiful film, very moving. I thought your review was excellent. I must admit I approached it with a little trepidation because of past experience but found it thoughtful and full of insights without a touch of snark.

---

Isn't there some (understandable, I guess) ambivalence here? If I am a critic, and you have little interest in what critics say, why take any interest in my reviews? Personally I see us however remotely in a universe of discourse and debate; and to be a part of it, I like to know what others are saying, even when it's unpleasant. In fact the harshest and most contrarioan critics are the ones who can be the most stimulating sometimes.

Let’s put it this way. Of course I try to read as many reviews as I can on both sides; however, if I am clear about my experience, then I have little interest in dwelling on negative reviews. There are so many shallow, negative, and cynical critics out there that it is hardly worth my time. They are usually at their worst when it comes to any movie with a spiritual theme. They are quick to ridicule any subject that challenges the scientific/materialist paradigm.

Of course, they never mention the failure rate of psychiatrists and the huge sums of money they make. How many medical doctors and psychiatrists have been sued for malpractice? We never hear about that but if one in a thousand participants sues The Landmark Forum - that will be all over the papers. It’s all about fear of change, being comfortable with something that has the “scientific” aura around it whether it works or not and cow towing to a readership locked into the status quo.

I mostly read those critics I can count on to show intelligence and sensitivity. I always read your reviews with interest, even when I know there will be a disagreement, because your reviews often point me to look at aspects of film that I might have overlooked.

Sorry to interject. Good thread here!
My comments aren't on Eastwood's latest, but that never stopped me before...

I just wanted to say that with regards to film critics, it's damn hard to find someone who isn't shallow, negative or cynical.
And the ones who aren't that way usually have insufferable writing, the kind with bubbly optimism and little insight into the films at hand.
I think we all want some insight from film critics, at base. Insight that illuminates something we misssed or something that has meaning.

That's why I started commenting on movies back in 2002 on the imdb- to give back in some way to those who helped me.
I know I'm cynical, but my cynicism is well-founded. Anybody without any degree of cynicism is a fool. You need the cynical yardstick.

I'm not saying you should go into a movie theatre with a sneer on your face and your arms folded across your chest and grunt and groan at everything on screen that rankles you. Far from it. Just go in knowing that cinema is powerful, and that you do not know everything.
You don't know everything about the director's intent, everything about the story, everything about the social or political implications, and on and on.

Howard's right that "your own experience" ultimately determines your dismissal or acceptance of what was on screen.
It all comes down to that. And we all have vastly different experiences in this life, which is why seeking out other opinions (critics) can lead you to something you didn't even consider. (and you might get it from a critic you hate....YIKES!!!) ha ha

Thanks Johann. I always go in to the theater with an open mind but I have no use for cynicism. I also see films with an open heart and try to experience what the characters are experiencing without judgment or evaluation, make it my own and see it from their point of view. Once I have absorbed the experience can I look back and see what worked for me and what didn't work.

There are some excellent critics out there, including yourself and Chris Knipp. Others I read often are:

Spirituality and Practice
Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times
Ed Gonzales, Slant Magazine (can be cynical)
The House Next Door
Claudia Puig - USA Today
Andrea Chase - Killer Movie Reviews
Mick La Salle - San Francisco Chronicle
Jeffrey M. Anderson - Combustible Celluloid
Roger Ebert

and others

Quote:

---

Howard's right that "your own experience" ultimately determines your dismissal or acceptance of what was on screen.
It all comes down to that. And we all have vastly different experiences in this life, which is why seeking out other opinions (critics) can lead you to something you didn't even consider. (and you might get it from a critic you hate....YIKES!!!) ha ha

---

Here is something I wrote a while ago that fits in with our discussion:

OUR "EXPERIENCE" OF FILMS

In talking about films, we often discuss the form (style, craft, genre) and the content (story, characters, ideas) Each of these is a valid and important way of looking at a film. By placing a film in a historical context and social context, we are able to relate it to films of a similar style, genre, or historical period. What's missing for me is that few critics talk about a film in terms of their own experience.

We have thoughts about a film and we have feelings about a film, but what is meant by our "experience" of a film? One dictionary definition will work here. It is "the act or process of directly perceiving reality". One example might be if you had an argument with your spouse, lover or friend. You may have a feeling of being angry. Then you may have the thought -- I don't want to be here, or I can't take any more of this. I'm going to leave. When you start to pack your things, however, you may get in touch with something else, your "experience" of the relationship, your direct perception of the underlying reality. You remember what it felt like to meet and be together, how nurturing and satisfying the relationship was and you start to unpack your things. Your experience of love touched some inner core and allowed you to see beyond your momentary anger.

Similarly, thoughts come up while watching a film, for example -- this is too dragged out. This is too speeded up. This is too that and that is too this. Then you may have feelings about the film: irritation, boredom, anger, sadness, and so forth. Suddenly, however, you may become aware of something else - something on a deeply personal level, a scene, a fleeting moment, perhaps that puts you in touch with an association or event from your own life. You start to feel an emotional connection, a beauty that is not present if you only watch the events unfold in the ordinary way. You may say afterwards that you found the film to be a beautiful experience. You have engaged your spirit in the process of viewing.

This way of looking at films allows us to bridge the gap between what's "out there" and what's "in here". We (I include myself in this) have no trouble identifying with a character that is strong, or noble, or just likeable. We see ourselves in the character (or our fantasy of ourselves). Where many run into trouble, however, is when a character is flawed. The character may be unethical, disturbed, depressed, or just not likeable. Then we feel distanced from what is taking place and say we didn't care about the character. Many times, we do not feel the connection because we do not allow ourselves to be vulnerable or to think that could possibly be me. Of course, we are not all murderers, gamblers, rapists, drug addicts, etc. but we all could be. All of us, for example, have had murderous thoughts at one time or another, I know I have when certain posts appear on the boards. There is often a thin line dividing the righteous from the outcast and we never know what circumstance might push us over the edge. So if we can get beyond our revulsion towards the character's personality or actions, we may be able to empathize, to show compassion for the person or situation, for the human condition of which we are all a part.

In watching any film, our experience can become universal if we allow ourselves to transcend the limitations imposed by the plot or the direction. Like a film, our lives have a story. We think that all we are is an identity, a collection of characteristics, attributes, and experiences from the past and overlook the reality that lies beyond our story. If we cannot see this, we may miss the essence, not only of a particular film, but of who we really are, our profoundly human ability to create, and our abiding connection to the universe that gave us life and beckons us to return.

I don't regard the majority of critics as shallow or cynical, but I may just not read those. Some whom I read are negative, but they're passionate about it. Chief among those are Walter Chaw (just mentioned) and Armond White (often mentioned by me). The Voice critics are often negative and snarky, and maybe shallow, and I've given up on them lately, but J. Hoberman, though he can be negative, is hardly shallow, often informative, and sometimes brilliant (like Scott Foundas and Dennis Lim). There are plenty of good reviewers, though they produce more workmanlike than brilliant stuff. It can still be helpful at times. I like the Variety reviewers and other to-the-trade ones such as Screen Daily sometimes too, because they are well informed as to the details of the craft of the film, the crew, and rarely fail to mention editing, cinetography, music, and other aspects that some reviewers often ignore. I'm also interested to know the background information as much as possible. What other films relate to this one, or are direct influences? What previous films by the director relate to it? etc. A critic who's well informed I would not consider shallow. I also like critics who write good and entertaining prose. This is why I still read Rex Read, because his phrases are well turned and his pieces are often amusing, as are Anthony Lane's, though the insights both provide can be spotty. Rosenbaum is a better critic, at least than Reed, but if his writing is elegant and fun I have missed something. I've recently come to like Mike d'Angelo's bulletins from Cannes for AV Club. He is passionate and straightforward and he gives me a younger point of view but one I can relate to. I also like to read the British film reviwers, especially those on The Guardian; also some French ones when I find them, and occasionally Italian ones, because they can provide insights into French and Italian films that no merely Anglophone writer can.

In response to your essay, Howard, I can't imagine that any decent critic would fail to bring his or her own experience to bear in writing about movies. It just isn't possible. (I think of Pauline Kael in this context: of course her experience, like that of the Cahiers writers who went on to become directors, was very often primarily of other films.) But how much we wear our hearts on our sleeve varies from one person to another. It doesn't matter. That's just a matter of personal style. I do not have an axe to grind. I try to maintain an open mind, and can enjoy Antichrist, The White Ribbon, or Kick-Ass. When you can see my personal experience come into play it's when I think I may have something to offer or know something another American film reviewer might not, such as when I write about French or Italian films or when I write about Arabic or Middle Eastern ones or when some particular little thing I happen to know about comes into play in the film.

I can't say I have murderous thoughts. I'm better with Jane Austen than with Dostoevsky. On the other hand I have always liked crime movies and noir, but I take them the way a kid takes giants and dragons in fairy tales or comic books, not with any identification. It's all a matter of keeping an open mind. After all, nearly all the world's literature contains heroes and villains, kings and clowns. Shakespeare's plays teach us to "identify" (whatever that means) with Prince Hal and Falstaff or the Fool in Lear and the tragic King himeslf, or the gravedigger in Hamlet and Hamlet himself. Modern movies and fiction have drawn us into the worlds of far more gruesome characters. We follow as far as we can. And I'm open to cynicism too. Why rule that out? I don't know how you can appreciate political satire like In the Loop without an appreciation of cynicism. And one can well understand how reviewers who write about mediocre movies week after week may become cynical, though people like Ebert or A.O. Scott of the NY Times only very rarely lose their cool, or their compassion. We have good models. No need to dwell on the bad examples.

Quote:

---

I don't regard the majority of critics as shallow or cynical, but I may just not read those.

---

I said nothing about the majority of critics. I said, “There are so many shallow, negative, and cynical critics out there that it is hardly worth my time.”

Quote:

---

Some whom I read are negative, but they're passionate about it.

---

Are you saying that’s supposed to be a good thing, that would make me want to read what they have to say. When I come home totally moved from a film, the last thing I want to do is read a thoughtless and insensitive review, no matter how passionate.

Quote:

---

There are plenty of good reviewers, though they produce more workmanlike than brilliant stuff.

---

There are also some brilliant reviewers (present company excluded)

Quote:

---

In response to your essay, Howard, I can't imagine that any decent critic would fail to bring his or her own experience to bear in writing about movies. It just isn't possible.

---

Quote:

---

When you can see my personal experience come into play it's when I think I may have something to offer or know something another American film reviewer might not, such as when I write about French or Italian films or when I write about Arabic or Middle Eastern ones or when some particular little thing I happen to know about comes into play in the film.

---

Experience, as I define it, does not refer to what has happened previously in your life. It is not the kind of experience one puts on a job resumé. It doesn’t even refer to thoughts and feelings but, as I explained in my essay, to something deeper. “something on a deeply personal level, a scene, a fleeting moment, perhaps that puts you in touch with an association or event from your own life. You start to feel an emotional connection, a gut feeling, a beauty that is not present if you only watch events unfold in the ordinary way.” Many critics are out of touch with this kind of experience and their reviews read like a science journal, full of analytical information but without getting to the heart of what the film is saying. That does not mean "wearing one's heart on one's sleeve", a term that I suppose means showing too much emotion. That is not what I'm talking about..

Quote:

---

And I'm open to cynicism too. Why rule that out? I don't know how you can appreciate political satire like In the Loop without an appreciation of cynicism.

---

As I wrote in my review, “In the Loop is a film that is so full of snark that one must constantly maintain a separation from its dark vision to retain one’s sanity. No cynicism is required.

Howard, your "OUR "EXPERIENCE" OF FILMS" post is just great. Thanks for that. Enjoyed reading that.
That's an erudite and clear piece of writing on what one may go through while at a movie- so true.

So many variables to consider. Indeed, ONE SCENE, or ONE LINE can be like an Atom Bomb to your personal experience, making ten thousand lightbulbs go off in your head at the same time.
One's personal experience or feelings cannot be switched off. You're going to respond to the film in the way that you do, for good or ill.
(Pauline Kael panned 2001: A Space Odyssey, remember?)

Whenever I post a "review"- if you can call them that- I try to keep in mind that my opinions may be wrong when I get older and that I should try to nail down exactly what it is that I like or don't like about the movie and why. These posts are archived and have been since this site's birth in 2002. I'm not looking to be a prophet or seer but I am looking to be as accurate as possible in my opinions about a movie.

I think you also have to be willing to be wrong.
I'm willing to be totally wrong if someone's writing can set me straight on something.
I'm not setting out to be wrong, but if I AM....then I like it, if I was shown how and why I was wrong.
I respect anyone who can do that to me. I actually welcome that.
Very few critics do.
With regards to cyncism, I realise it's a negative. Cynicism is not something anyone should be seeking out.
But I find it helps me to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I rely on my cynicism to fire me up sometimes. It can be a good catalyst for expressing true feelings.
Especially as Chris pointed out when reviewers sit through one turkey movie after another.
You start to wonder whether anyone in Hollywood or elsewhere is capable of making a Great Film anymore.
You start to get bitchy and snarky. We have standards in our minds about what great cinema is.

We want those standards maintained, Dammit!
The legacies of all those Masters demand it! LOL

Thanks for your kind comments about my small essay.

With all due respect, I don't think having to sit through mediocre movies has anything to do with it. I'm not looking for critics to be enlightened (whatever that is) but I am looking for some thought and sensitivity about what the film is trying to say, not just give an easy dismissal.

Here are some examples of what I'm talking about in some reviews of Hereafter. Some of these are just plain stupid.

Quote:

---

“Strangely, no one on the other side has all that much to say so his conversations aren't all that interesting.” Rebecca Murray About.com

---

Absolutely false. What Jason said from the other side to his brother was heartfelt, moving and very powerful.

Quote:

---

“While I'm happily vulnerable to the sentimental prospect of a boy's reunion with his beloved brother, I had a hard time reconciling it with the preceding events - a terrorist bombing in a subway, the catastrophic tidal wave.” Philadelphia Daily News

---

One thing has nothing to do with the other and the disasters in no way dilute the message of how we need each other.

Quote:

---

“Whatever lies beyond this life, let us hope it is more thoughtful and interesting than "Hereafter," which is a lot of dull hooey about mankind's search for answers.” “On paper, the whole enterprise sounds like it can't miss. Yet in practice, "Hereafter" lies cool and flat, like a corpse, its spirit meandering somnolently between San Francisco, London, and Paris.” -Eric Snider

---

How anyone can sit there for two hours and think the film is cool and flat should really take a look at their own life and see why they are incapable of being moved by people's longing for connection and sense of loss.

Quote:

---

“The straight-shooting filmmaking style that Eastwood's always had remains his greatest asset, so reconciling that with the mumbo-jumbo in "Hereafter" is like discovering your no-BS uncle moonlights as a carnival barker.” – NY Daily News

---

The only mumbo-jumbo here comes from the reviewer.

Quote:

---

“Nothing, however, comes as close to being as powerful as the impressive computer-generated tsunami that hits a village in the film’s opening scene.” – CineSnob

---

This reviewer thinks the only thing that is of interest is chaos and disaster. He should stick to reviewing Dreck III.

Quote:

---

“Now the stories don't just go nowhere, but you really have no interest in listening to them in the first place. These people suck!” –
Things are actually okay after we die, and our loved ones want us to go on without them when they're gone. It's psychic hokum.”
DVDTalk

---

He should have said " I really have no interest in listening to them". These people suck, why? - because they are in pain and have lost their loved ones and are trying to communicate? What does he think the dead should be saying to those who remain? It almost feels like this critic does not know what it feels like to lose someone close or thinks that everyone else will die except him and he doesn't need to think about it.

Great point with these quotes.
I always say that you have to come to a film on it's own terms. Not yours.
People are really self-satisfied these days Howard.
These kinds of 'reviews" are rampant, an epidemic.
But at least you can spot the crap a mile away...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johann

Great point with these quotes.
I always say that you have to come to a film on it's own terms. Not yours.
People are really self-satisfied these days Howard.
These kinds of 'reviews" are rampant, an epidemic.
But at least you can spot the crap a mile away...

---

Thanks VERY much for your support. It means a lot to me.

Most welcome Howard.

Off topic: what do you think of Gordon Campbell resigning?
I hated that man in 2002 and I hate his guts now. He was a piece of WORK, was he not?