For some reason I didn't get around to seeing the Clint Eastwood movie Hereafter until just today. Though the subject matter would seem to be right up my alley, I was a little turned off by negative reviews and an assumption that I'd seen it all before.

When I finally did watch the movie, though, I liked it better than I'd expected. It has weaknesses, and is certainly not a masterwork on the level of Eastwood's Unforgiven or Gran Torino, but overall it's an intelligent, low-key, serious movie about life and death.

For me, the first hour was a bit problematic. After a powerful opening that showcases a blockbuster action sequence, the film settled into a rather slow-paced exploration of the three major characters in three different locales. Eastwood's films typically incline toward a fairly sluggish pace, which can be effective, but in this case, the slam-bang beginning made it tough for me to adjust to the much different tone and pace that followed.

Things picked up markedly in the second hour, as the characters' stories gradually converged to produce a satisfying, albeit not especially dramatic, resolution.

The film's insistence on avoiding sensationalism is praiseworthy -- this is probably the most level-headed movie about the afterlife ever made. If anything, Hereafter is a little too quiet and sensible for its own good. More high drama might have made for a more compelling story.

The brief flashes of contact with the afterlife are not especially memorable, but work well enough in context. The movie's best feature is Matt Damon's outstanding performance as a reluctant medium who delivers his readings in a no-nonsense, matter-of-fact style. It's probably the least off-putting depiction of a medium I've seen in a movie.

The film also has some fun with fake or deluded mediums, showing us an obvious cold reader, a hammy channeler, and a credulous mirror-gazer in quick succession. The point is briskly made that organized religions demand obedience to a particular dogma rather than open-minded investigation. The idea that convincing evidence for an afterlife has been suppressed by "a conspiracy of silence" is advanced, though not fleshed out. Considering its subject matter, the film is not preachy or self-important, and it doesn't strain too hard to be uplifting.

While Hereafter isn't Eastwood's best movie, it is surely one of the better movies about life after death, and its sober, reflective tone is rather refreshing. I think readers of this blog would like it. I also imagine that most of you have already seen it!

Comments

[Bryan.A]

"The brief flashes of contact with the afterlife are not especially memorable, but work well enough in context."

I guess they do,but still I prefered the vision of the afterlife in the pretty old Movie "Ghost" way more then the one in the hereafter.

I love the initiative filmmakers put into such risky movies but still I'd rather they focus on the elements and knowledge from a consensus of NDE's than the general untrustworthy mental mediums who are not in an unconsious trance (physical mediumship) or in cardiac arrest.

I guess that's the downside when you're obsessed with every detail and the research that's relevant to the afterlife, you might ironically feel some things are not realistic.

Take for instance the flashes of the afterlife in the HereAfter.You can see clear shadows of kids and parents together in the exact same sphere.Then a blinding light in the back.

The sphere of the light doesn't have a huge backlight lighting it up.Instead I'd wish at least the flashes to contain nature and beauty of the spheres of light,non of that in the movie.Not even a connection with any afterlife entity making the part almost pointless to the story that follows as it doesn't show it as impactful as it could on the french woman experiencing it.

I did however like the realism of the drama involved,specifically how some people react to the loss of a loved one.Maybe i'm too used to sensationalism,maybe not but the pace of the story went way too slow for me making it quite boring when compared for instance with the movie "Ghost".

[Michael Prescott]

I think they wanted to avoid an overly literal depiction of an afterlife. It was more symbolic. They may have been afraid that any literal depiction would come across as prosaic or even laughable.

My favorite cinematic representation of the hereafter is found, strangely enough, in the movie Contact, based on Carl Sagan's novel. At the climax Jodie Foster finds herself in an unknown realm where she is reunited with her dead father. The film doesn't claim that this is the afterlife, but the depiction is fairly consistent with afterlife reports.

I don't know how the material was handled in the book. Sagan himself did not believe in life after death and famously proposed the "birth memory" explanation for NDEs.

[abcdefg]

I saw Hereafter when it was released and have forgotten quite a bit, but what stays with me is that it emphasizes how meaningful after-death communication is for the living. I liked that about it.

(I previously posted as Susan but am giving myself a new name as there are other Susans posting here.)

[Art]

I wonder what Clint Eastwood believes? He's a pretty old guy and probably not all that far away from finding out what comes afterwards.

[abcdefg]

Not too revealing but:

http://www.filmcritic.com/features/2010/10/interview-hereafter-matt-damon-clint-eastwood/

I thought Matt Damon's character was probably based on George Anderson though he claims he didn't have role model for the part.

[Michael Prescott]

Like you, I also thought the character was based on George Anderson. (Maybe because the character's first name is George.)

[Robert Perry]

Thanks for this, Michael. As a result of your post, my wife is in town renting it as we speak. I'm looking forward to it.

[Art]

I've seen George Anderson the Medium "work" on that show "Unsolved Mysteries". He is really good. I've also read a few books about him that I think were written by Paul Perry. He's a strange guy but I think he really does have a gift. Pretty amazing.

George Andwerson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DdaESTy7xc

[Art]

LOL! Whoopsie! I accidentally added a "w" in George Anderson's name and didn't check before hitting post. Oh well....

[Sandy]

I just watched this today. I liked it quite a lot. Far more than I expected to, in fact.

[Art]

Those books about George Anderson were co-written by Joel Martin, not Paul Perry I think? Truth is I can't remember. All I remember is I enjoyed them and found them to be uplifting.

[web design Landon]

I guess that's the downside when you're obsessed with every detail and the research that's relevant to the afterlife, you might ironically feel some things are not realistic.

[Leo]

Its a good movie not surprise that skeptics like Shermer don't like it. This evening James Randi was on Ctv news at 6pm in Canada. Talking his challenge. He sure gets a lot of publicity for his bogus challenge.

[Leslie]

I had a personal session with George Anderson in 2007; he is way more than good!

[Robert Perry]

I really liked the movie. I thought the ending was quite touching. I also really appreciated the link to the George Anderson video (which ended up being one in a series of five), which was amazing. Anderson seemed as good as Matt Damon's character in the movie, and when a real-life person can measure up to a movie character, that's saying something.

[Leo]

The problem with mediums through just personal experiences is that mediums could be just reading something off your clothing, leading questions in (Cold reading). So for me experiments are the best way to control for things like this. Such as the cross correspondences did and experiments down by Dr. Julie Beischel.

[Dave]

Longtime reader of your blog.

My wife and I were both widowed at a fairly young age (early to mid-forties), we are now about seven years out each. We met online (not a dating site, but a widow support site), and we spend a lot of time speculating on matters relating to death and afterlife. In fact, our first exchanges to each other were in the Afterlife forum. Both of us have sat for mediums - she had one or two readings of somewhat startling revelation. Mine were more or less rubbish. Emphasis on the 'more'.

We discussed this movie at great length after seeing it in the theater. I think our greatest appreciation of the film is its depiction of the generally desperate nature of those touched closely by death for some reassurance that their loved ones are okay, and that their connection to them remains unbroken. And, in that vein, the eagerness of clever mediums (sorry..."mediums") to provide that consolation. The film treats the subject, I think, with rare insight and appropriate delicacy, without being condescending or agenda driven. The hurt that people endure - the surviving spouse, the close sibling, etc - is brutal, unrelenting, suffocating. It drives people to great extremes in terms of challenging their own values, their perception of life and their relationship with their own mortality. I think the film tried to tag those bases admirably - I think for dramatic purposes, it could only go so far. It had a story to tell.

I rather liked the idea that the Matt Damon character was "the real deal", caught up in the atmospherics (or trying to escape them) of the mediumship racket. I certainly do not know if there is such a thing as "the real deal", but my personal view remains unchanged: Mediumship is performance art for the grieving...this belief, unfortunately, has been tested under actual driving conditions.

This view is held not because I believe it is impossible that the dead survive, or can communicate, or that gifted people may be able to channel them. But merely that those who claim to be so gifted, are in fact, gifted at something else altogether.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment here.

[Emiliano]

My girlfriend passed away yesterday due to complications caused by leukemia. She was 20 years old - would've been 21 in two months. A true angel, both inside and out.

Bereavement might just be the most merciless state I know. The loss of a loved one to such a horrible disease and at such a young age feels like a a knife wound that will always grow larger, and applying yourself to the task of not letting it infect your hope and the very core of your being is not always easy.

I share this not because I expect to generate some sort of pathos with my story - everybody suffers; I share this because I have become gradually convinced of the reality of life after death. I have a strong feeling that she lives on, and that she would want me to see beyond my tears and my self-centered pain and look at the future with hopeful eyes.

In the last year I've had modest success inducing OBEs, and also a couple of lucid dreams, nothing ground-breaking, though I don't seem to be able to now. It is no exaggeration to say that I would give all that I have to get one chance for meaningful contact with her, even if it is just to tell her I love her, and to know she is well. In doing so, I might expose myself to all kinds of scam artists and cons, and it's painfully clear to me that almost all of humanity has to take their pain and grief in the face of the nagging doubt that their loved ones have been irrevocably lost, dissolved like ice in the sea.

I think, though, that a shot in the dark might still hit something, and that it is still better than sitting here with... nothing much at all, except memories and tears.

Thanks, too, for the opportunity to comment here, I have been following your blog for some time, and we are friends on Facebook, though I don't comment much. Keep doing what you're doing. It helps.

[Michael Prescott]

Emiliano, I'm sorry to hear about your very painful loss.

I think all reputable mediums agree that it's a bad idea to seek out their services when you're still in the early stages of grief. Much better to wait and let time heal, at least a little.

[Bruce Siegel]

On your recommendation, Michael, I just watched Hereafter. What a fine movie.

I agree that the first half, after the opening scenes, was slow going. As you said, the beginning was stunning. I actually had to stop the movie and do some online research to see how it was filmed before I felt ready to go on. (I hesitate to say more for fear of ruining the experience for those haven't yet seen the film.)

I think the letdown immediately following had less to do with the contrast to the exciting opening, than with the fact that we were rapidly introduced to a number of unrelated characters and locations, without having a chance to get comfortable with any of them.

But as you said, the second half kept getting better and better.

For me, the biggest surprise has to do with the fact that the reviews I've read led me to believe that Eastwood was reluctant to take a stand in the movie as to the reality of the afterlife. I think that's absurd.

Seems to me Eastwood simply states the facts exactly as I--and I believe, most of us who visit this blog--see them. The afterlife is real. Mediumship is real.

And also real, are phoniness and manipulation. But in this movie the negative is clearly separated from the positive, and paid much less attention than I expected. There are no gray areas that I can recall, and only a tiny percentage of the onscreen happenings have anything at all to offer diehard Skeptics.

A key theme of the film is that adopting a genuinely spiritual perspective can be hazardous to one's career, and one's standing in society.

Mat Damon is superb, as is the female lead--Cecile de France.

Overall, I found Hereafter to be moving and even inspirational. It supports us in taking seriously what our hearts would most wish to be true.

Thanks for reviewing it, Michael.

[Kris]

Could you name some mediums you would support Michael

[Bruce Siegel]

Kris, I'm not Michael, but the most credible living medium I'm aware of is George Anderson, well-known through his books and TV appearances.

He speaks with impressive confidence on his site, where he gives advice to those who will have a reading with him:

"The less you say, the more you will understand that your loved one did in fact communicate to you during the session."

What cold reader would ever encourage you to say as little as possible?

His site also says:

"We encourage people who are concerned about giving any information to have all their correspondence  addressed to a friend, or to a post office box.  We also encourage people to use a false name if it makes them feel better.  It is not important to us--when it is time to attends your appointment or group, you need only answer to the name you gave yourself at the time of the enrollment."

Unfortunately, he also charges $1200 per hour, which he explains this way:

"In order to answer nearly 800 phone calls, 1200 emails and 200 letters each week that we receive from all over the world  requires a staff that works very hard, not only to do the administrative work, but also to be a sympathetic ear when someone in grief just wants to talk." 

[Michael Prescott]

Thanks for both comments, Bruce. Yes, I agree that it's absurd to say Eastwood is straddling the fence, especially considering the reading that Matt Damon gives to the boy at the end of the film.

The screenwriter, however, is on rerecord as saying that he doesn't believe in life after death.

George Anderson, by all accounts, is a very good medium. I was impressed that in his books, he gives verbatim transcripts and leaves in the parts where he is groping for a name, often in a way that looks like "fishing." I would think that a fake would edit those parts out.

John Edward strikes me as genuine, also. OTOH, Sylvia Browne strikes me as a complete fraud.

I had what I regarded as a very good reading (by phone) with Georgia O'Connor. I can't say what sort of results you or others might get.

http://www.thespiritmessengeronline.com/

I also had a fairly good reading with Laurie Campbell, though Georgia's was better.

http://lauriecampbell.net/

[W Vogt]

Emiliano,

I would like to offer my condolences for you loss. Four and a half years ago I lost my beloved wife who was my life companion of 48 years. One month after her death I had a sitting, accompanied by my daughter, in person with Joanne Gerber. It was quite amazing. She came up with many details that she had no normal way of knowing. I have an audio recording of the sitting that I have listened to many times. There was no fishing or other attempts at cold reading, nor could the information have been researched in any way. This sitting has been one of the very few things that has alleviated the pain of grief. I am fortunate in that I am an old man. I have had to give no thought to building a new life. I am simply marking time, waiting, hopefully, to be reunited with the most wonderful person I have ever known.
I hope that time will heal your wounds. Sincerely, W. Vogt (If you would like any further information about this remarkable medium, I can be contacted at wvogt@mfire.com).

[Bruce Siegel]

Michael said:

"Yes, I agree that it's absurd to say Eastwood is straddling the fence, especially considering the reading that Matt Damon gives to the boy at the end of the film."

Glad to hear I'm not the only one who sees it that way. There's a parallel here with the book Ghost Hunters. Seems to me most reviewers have said that (like Eastwood) she never makes clear whether or not she believes mediumship and the afterlife are real.

But I've read that book twice now, and I can't come close to seeing it that way. True--she recounts many, many instances of fraud.

And she never says, in so many words, "I believe."

But she also pays such lavish attention to so many inexplicable events, and is so forthright about her admiration for William James and his associates, that I find the book to be one of the strongest pro-psi works I know.

And that's partly because she DOES devote so much of the book to phony mediumship. For me, that eliminates the suspicion that she's simply credulous.

Frankly, I was expecting a lot more of that type of expose in Hereafter, though I can't say I was disappointed not to see it.

[Bruce Siegel]

W Vogt said:

"I had a sitting, accompanied by my daughter, in person with Joanne Gerber."

I just visited Joanne's site. She sounds interesting. Was yours a telephone sitting? George Anderson's site says that he gets the same excellent results over the phone as in person.

And since he asks for only "yes or no" responses, as does Joanne--is that right?--that would seem to make cold reading even harder to pull off.

[W Vogt]

The sitting was face to face. She didn't wait for us to say anything. Cold reading in my judgment was out of the question.

[supra vaider]

So fun article is! I know more from it.