Hereafter is a Clint Eastwood movie that involves three characters: a successful French journalist who survives completely changed by a harrowing event, an American man trying to live a modest life and rejects the burden of a strange gift and a British little boy who spends every moment trying to reunite with the person that he loves the most. She tries to reconcile her traumatic experience with her inability to reclaim her old life and forge a new path forward. The American man tries to find the road to happiness and reconcile with himself after several missteps. The little boy rejects opportunities to move forward while being saved from embracing oblivion or giving in to cynicism.
The reasons that I should hate Hereafter are the same reasons that I liked it: exploits real life events by placing fictional characters in those tragic contexts to create a supernaturally tinged elaborate meet cute between random, hot French woman and Matt Damon. Hyperlink cinema such as Babel, Traffik and Syriana while impressive in their international scope consistently felt oppressive and depressing, Earth after the fall, whereas the Rube Goldbergian romance took the opposite approach by starting with melancholy that gradually leads to an optimistic outcome without being saccharine in a John Irving’s A Prayer for Owen Meany way. The movie is a well-earned, well-paced narrative with three dimensional characters that go on individual emotional journeys that culminate in a satisfying, unifying denouement that reflect inner and outer changes which add up to more than romance for the characters, but comes with the bonus of happiness and communion as a reward for individual growth.
While Hereafter is no M. Night Shyamalan’s The Sixth Sense because the supernatural aspects of the story is not the point, Clint Eastwood’s film has the same emotional resonance as that iconic scene with Toni Collette and Haley Joel Osment in the car when the son reveals his power to his mother. This film feels like the mirror image of that film in many ways, especially since the generation roles are reversed regarding who has the answers and who needs them. The story works because when it incorporates the real world into the fictional, it was not obvious which real-life event was coming. I have no idea if the film promoted recreating those real life tragedies, but because I watched it at home, I did not see it coming and only recognized the events as it happened. Eastwood is a lifelong entertainer who regularly figures out ways to leverage reality into fiction without feeling exploitive even though it is. It feels as if the character, not the recreation, is taking center stage though Eastwood works hard to make the event recognizable and believable. Eastwood’s talent is to make seamless, realistic, fictional dramatic imagery that we take for granted without being gynecological or pornographic in having us witness disaster. He manages to skirt the tastelessness of disaster prurience that we all share. It is a difficult balance to strike-to experience something vicariously without cheapening it or reducing the actual moment.
Hereafter’s take on the supernatural felt realistic, organic and universal without falling into the Lost Unitarian Jihadist religion trap that dilutes earnest beliefs into meaningless pablum. Damon’s regular guy, not really acting schtick served him well in this role. I wanted the movie to explicitly make the connection between how he got his powers and show that another character may be going through the same transformation, but because it is happening later in life, it is harder to adjust or hone the gift, but the movie wisely resists the siren song of supernatural exposition that I favor and privileges character and narrative development, which makes it work.
Hereafter’s characters make flawed decisions, but are not irrevocably categorized by their poor choices. The French woman’s life before her epiphany was a trainwreck mix of success and personal disaster waiting to explode in her face. I almost side-eyed the film for immediately providing her with a white savior moment infused with trite woman tropey moment of saving a random child more than the actual mother, but because she never had another irresistibly drawn to children moment, I let my militancy go. I was actually protective of Damon’s character because initially his family life seemed positive, but then I saw the red flags and started screaming run. In spot the black person moment, of course Damon’s character did not help Jenifer Lewis’ character so there was some consistency. In a huge personal plot twist, I was most invested in the child’s storyline, and normally I hate watching children act, but the McLaren brothers did a superb job. I did not understand why the priest only ushered him out of the service.
Here are some fun facts that I did not know before watching Hereafter. Many Eastwood films have to have a scene with horrible teenagers, usually black teens, doing horrible things, and I recognized Franz Drameh, who plays Jefferson in the CW’s Arrowverse, whom I did not know is British! When did the universe decide that Bryce Dallas Howard should always play the anti-love interest that you do not want the guy to get? OK, it is only two movies: this one and 50/50, but I see a pattern developing. I would love someone who is more of an avid Charles Dickens reader to explain if the choice of Little Dorrit is significant in this film. Was there any greater significance to the choice of locations? I just loved the plausible idea that a character could get so taken with an author that he would just geek out over it. I totally approve this message, loved the cameo and was thoroughly pleased about the location where all the characters converged. It brought me joy. Treat yourself!
Eastwood’s films usually have a political agenda that I can discern, but Hereafter is either subtler than his later movies or blessedly free of any. It seems to be primarily a love story and not just a romantic one. It is about learning to love yourself, life and others in a way that is less self-interested than movies depict. The reason that I bought the elaborate meet cute was that the characters shared a common ground that was rooted in their lived experiences on all planes of existence, not purely shallow based on attraction, looks or common interest. It was about validation and being seen without being belittled or changed. All the characters are trying to accept themselves. In order to do so, they have to be willing to shed a lot of people, expectations and aspects of their lives. There is an important time in the silent wilderness that demands that they face themselves and really ask if they are crazy, less than or strange. Once they do, they are open to accepting someone else regardless of how unusual or unbelievable their experience is and are capable of creating community. Even if it is just another fictional romance drama, it is the kind that appeals to me.
While I would not go so far as to call Hereafter a masterpiece since it is transparent in its emotional manipulation and fundamentally rooted in inaccessible fantasy, I was still able to escape into the story, relate to the characters and find something deeper, honest and encouraging in the themes. I highly recommend this cinematic departure from Eastwood’s usual work.