Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts

December 7, 2010

Taking It Home: Inside Job

Finally, it all makes sense. Mostly.

Listening to the media echo chamber discuss President Obama's tax deal this week, I realized that it's been more than two months since I saw Charles Ferguson's illuminating Inside Job, and, shockingly, I think I still understand his deft explanation of the reasons behind the financial meltdown and, consequently, our current panic about tax rates and unemployment benefits. After numerous films - including but not limited to Capitalism: A Love Story (0/2 for Michael Moore after he dropped the health care ball with the forgettable Sicko), American Casino, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, and even The Other Guys - tried and failed to explain what led to The Great Recession, Ferguson's film was like a breath of fresh air, illustrating the financial foolishness in terms that anyone can understand. Good thing, too, because as I said in my pan of the meaningless Wall Street, this was probably the last chance The Recession Movie had to establish itself as a viable genre.

Why was it so hard to present this financial information in a clear way prior to this film? To be fair it does require a lot of detailed explanation, and when filmmakers have other things on their minds (melodrama and an Oscar in the case of Stone's Wall Street; comedy and I-don't-know-what in the case of Moore's Capitalism), the meat of the subject at hand is guaranteed to be lost. Inside Job, in contrast, has little else on it's mind other than telling us what happened and, not accidentally, making us feel really angry about it. This isn't necessarily a fair and balanced documentary (and maybe not a documentary at all?), but it nonetheless presents the facts and allows educated people to talk about them, even though in this case the facts really speak for themselves.

September 28, 2010

Wall Street: People Never Change

Hair color may change, but an obsession with a certain shade of green never does...

If Oliver Stone is disappointed that his inconsequential Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps isn't nudging its way into the Best Picture race, he might consider sneaking it into the Oscars in the Best Foreign Language Film category. Fact is, for American viewers the characters may as well be speaking a rural Turkish dialect as they argue and fret about the recent financial crisis. It's yet another aimless Recession Movie that ultimately serves no purpose other than to remind us that we still have no idea what a credit default swap is. We don't understand Wall Street, and thus we can't understand Wall Street.

But then, that's assuming Stone set out to explain this disaster in the first place, which we can rule out based simply on the fact that he doesn't actually portray even one financial shenanigan (leaving Charles Ferguson's upcoming Inside Job as the all-important final chance to explain the recession in Main Street terms). Instead, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is a timeless examination of greed, similar to its prequel in an attempt to personify evil as a white guy in a dark suit.

To the extent that Stone successfully portrays bankers and brokers as scheming swindlers, we should be thankful. It puts us at much greater ease when we can pin the blame on them, the lenders, and not us, the borrowers, and Stone's stylish flair throughout the film, as unnecessary as it is to the story, still achieves an essential purpose in distracting us from the film's bleak central theme: people never change.

Although advertising firms and media headlines and magazine columnists naïvely and hopelessly attempt to convince us that we've entered a "new normal" in which people will spend sparingly and save wisely, the inconvenient truth is that 90% of Americans are earning and spending as much as they ever have (and in the case of the top earners, earning more than they ever have). Interest rates remain at historic lows and credit is still freely available to nearly anyone who desires it. As the recession begins to fade on a wider scale and the opportunities for easy money begin to emerge, we will be resurrected like millions of Gordon Gekkos, anxious to reclaim our financial kingdoms, no matter the literal or figurative cost. Isn't that human nature, or, at the very least, the American way?

August 26, 2010

300 Words About: The Other Guys


The Other Guys is: 1) an unoriginal slapstick laugher in the same vein as most B-grade buddy cop movies from the last decade; 2) a nonetheless distinctively styled film, punctuated by awkward pauses, timely pop culture references, and outrageous yet sacredly delivered dialogue that bears all the hallmarks of an Adam McKay/Will Ferrell production (the best being Anchorman, the worst being Step Brothers); and 3) a comedy with a conscience, complete with a closing credit sequence delivering devastating facts about the financial collapse and the evils of corporate greed. You know, because the bad guy in this movie is a financial swindler of some sort.

August 10, 2010

Sugar and Spies

If you've checked out my Reel Life series you know I have a deep interest in relating real-world happenings with on-screen possibilities. As much as I enjoy considering which underreported news stories could blossom into captivating films, though, I also love hearing new updates on particular issues after movies have covered them. Recently I read two articles that related to films from 2009, and what I learned in both instances was surprising and disappointing. 

Last spring, Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden's little-seen baseball drama, Sugar, had what anyone would consider a rather poor public reception. The film received a healthy dose of buzz when it played Sundance back in January 2008, but by the time it landed in theaters last spring (advantageously right at the beginning of baseball season), some kind of moviegoing malaise had descended on American audiences. Oh, wait, nevermind - turns out people were just flocking in record numbers to Fast & Furious, because, you know, you can never see Vin Diesel smirk from behind the wheel of a sports car enough times. And so, while Sugar earned a superb 93% RT/82 Metacritic rating it only grossed a paltry $1.1 million at the worldwide box office. 

It was this disappointing show of interest from Americans (wasn't baseball once the national pastime?) that made a recent article I read in TIME all the more frustrating. Sean Gregory wrote a well-balanced piece about the professional baseball industry farmed out of the Dominican Republic ("Baseball Dreams: Striking Out in the Dominican Republic", 7/26/10), but not once did he mention Sugar, which, if you don't know, examines the professional baseball industry farmed out of the Dominican Republic. How is that possible? How do you write an article on this subject for a mass audience without discussing a recently acclaimed film that was shot on location in the very place you're researching your story?

July 8, 2010

Getafilm Gallimaufry: Robin Hood, L'Enfant, Cruise's Curse, Toy Story 3, and The Two Escobars

Robin Hood (B+)

After too many months away from the movies I jumped in with both feet last week, starting with a big spring blockbuster that I didn't want to let get away from me on the big screen. In the last installment of Gallimaufry I declared my love for Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, as well as the Robin Hood brand as a whole. Out of the loop as I've been from the movies scene in 2010, I completely forgot that Ridley Scott's version was meant to be an introduction to the title character.

You could understand, then, why I was growing restless as the movie went on and on with only minor teases of the charm, wit, humor, and romance that I associated with Robin and his merry men. Ridley's crew was comprised of weathered patriots fighting a ruthless (and inexplicably baldheaded?) villain for the honor of King Richard's crown. Embarrassingly, I was left scratching my head all the way until the finale, after which a title card reminded us that "now the legend begins". Ahhh, that's right! I'm thickheaded like that sometimes.

May 9, 2010

MSPIFF 2010: Week 2 Roundup


The final week of MSPIFF 2010 (yes, the one that ended ten days ago...) proved alternately frustrating and fulfilling. I only made it to an additional four films, easily amassing my lowest total since I moved back to Minnesota four years ago. There was a long list of films that I missed, but I prefer to reflect on the fact that nothing I saw was outright terrible.
 
My Only Sunshine - Plans to see the sold-out Today's Special were foiled on a packed-to-the-gills Friday night, so we opted for a Turkish film, My Only Sunshine (an appropriate choice as we'll be on our honeymoon in Turkey in just a few weeks). As breathtaking and vivid as the cinematography was, My Only Sunshine does not make Istanbul a particularly appealing place; maybe compare it to New York City as seen in Chop Shop. On the other hand, it was fascinating to observe the environment and cultural quirks of Istanbul that I'm sure we won't see on our brief and touristy stop to the teeming seaside city of 12 million people. My Only Sunshine is a slice-of-life story as experienced by Hayat (Elit Iscan), an adolescent girl living with her troubled father and dying grandfather (the effects of emphysema caused by smoking have truly never been captured on film as they are captured here). You expect it to develop into a warm coming-of-age tale, but despite a few laughs and a completely tacked-on happy ending, it's an altogether bleak depiction of a lost childhood in Istanbul. Nonetheless, I remained engaged throughout and the production had the decidedly "foreign film" feel that I specifically seek at these festivals.

April 23, 2010

MSPIFF 2010: Week 1 Roundup


I made it to only three films during the first week of MSPIFF 2010 - significantly fewer than any other year in recent memory, but a major feat nonetheless considering all things (moving, working, wedding planning, etc.). I still have ambitious plans to make it to ten total films before the festival wraps up next Friday, though it may require booting up my time machine or employing the Zack Morris Time-Out.

Thoughts on the first three, in order of viewing:

Bananas!* - That both the exclamation point and asterisk in the title go entirely unexplained during this documentary is a curiosity, as is the fact that it's really not about fruit at all. While Swedish filmmaker (emphasis on Swedish, because this film is produced and titled in a decidedly non-American way) Fredrik Gertten presents an admittedly interesting legal drama about the Dole corporation's use of a controversial pesticide that rendered sterile a significant number of the company's banana farmers in rural Nicaragua, the film is the victim of unfortunate timing as it exists as simply a lesser version of last year's Crude, which had an almost identical story to tell about ExxonMobil and a community in Ecuador (including a championing American lawyer using the "David vs. Goliath" analogy). 

I'm glad I saw Bananas!* because the courtroom scenes are engrossing and issues like this deserve to be shared with the world, but at the same time I don't feel I received a complete picture of the banana industry.The film boasts the already tired claim that we'll "never look at ______ (insert bananas) the same way again", which is partly true. I'll never look at them the same way again without wondering, "why didn't I learn more about bananas from Bananas!*?"

The Oath - Leave an Oscar nomination slot open on your ballot next year for Laura Poitras' riveting documentary about Osama bin Laden's former bodyguard, Abu Jindal, and his ideological struggle to remain loyal to the al-Qaeda oath without advocating terrorism. As I've already mentioned, Poitras was previously nominated for My Country, My Country, an underrated film about an Iraqi doctor in the months following the U.S. invasion in 2003 (Poitras, an American, was reportedly placed on a no-fly list because of the film's critical stance). This is the second film in her planned "trilogy" about Iraq, and I'm here to tell you that the positive buzz out of Sundance in January was warranted. Summarizing the storyline is not really helpful, but suffice to say it is extremely rare that you will see a documentary cover this much material and still remain grounded in its primary subjects.

If you have any interest in international relations, history, war, terrorism, Guantanamo Bay, the Supreme Court, Islam, or the Middle East, The Oath may be considered required viewing. Not surprisingly, it will be broadcast as part of the upcoming P.O.V. season on PBS (My Country, My Country was a selection during the 2006 season). If you miss it theatrically don't miss the chance to see it for free at home. 

Night Catches Us -  I noted in my festival preview that Night Catches Us is an example of a film rarely screened as part of MSPIFF (no doubt the influence of guest programmer Linda Blackaby), and sure enough there were only a couple dozen people at the Wednesday night screening. Oh well, those who missed it missed out. On the surface, Tanya Hamilton's directing debut doesn't necessarily transcend the familiar trappings of other racial-historical dramas, but there's no denying this really is an unique story that lingers in the mind for further reflection. The Hurt Locker standout Anthony Mackie shows impressive leading man potential as a former Black Panther re-acclimating to life in 1976 Philadelphia. Kerry Washington holds her own as his moral compass and love interest, but the film belongs to Mackie whenever he is on screen, almost to a distracting degree. To boot, the cinematography is beautifully absorbing and the original music by Philadelphia natives The Roots adds immediacy and authenticity.

The film does not dive headlong into the history of the Black Panthers, but then this is a film about relationships, not politics. Nonetheless, it's easy to view the Panthers' militant spirit in the context of the brewing social unrest in America in 2010 (earlier in the day I'd listened to a local right-wing conservative radio host justify violence on behalf of the Tea Party by quoting JFK: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.") . In any case, whatever Tanya Hamilton's motive was in telling this story I hope she receives a deserved amount of attention for it.

March 26, 2010

Getafilm Gallimaufry: A Prophet, Fish Tank, Robin Hood and More

[Note: This series includes scattered thoughts on various movie-related topics. I was looking for a word that started with the letter "g" that means collection or assortment, but lest you think I'm some elitist wordsmith, know that I'd never heard of "gallimaufry" and I don't even know how to say it, but it was the only other option the thesaurus provided aside from "goulash" (too foody) and "garbage" (no).]
_______________________________________________________________

A Prophet (A) 

A Prophet is the first must-see film of 2010. Maybe that's not saying much considering the caliber of movies that have been released in this first quarter. How about this instead: A Prophet is one of the best crime sagas in recent memory, and, along with last year's Lion's Den and Hunger, it has helped usher in a new era of harrowing prison dramas (the last truly memorable one being what, The Shawshank Redemption?).

Written and directed by Jacques Audiard, whose last film (The Beat My Heart Skipped) was highly acclaimed but unseen by me, A Prophet boasts impressive verisimilitude for a completely fictional story. Maybe it's not surprising considering former convicts were hired as extras and advisers, but Audiard himself has admitted that prison life is rarely depicted in French film and television. French citizens are apparently clueless about what goes on behind prison walls in their country, so it doesn't take much convincing to accept this story as reality.

Indeed, life on the inside is reflective of life on the outside: the old French/European power structure is fading as new immigrant groups - particularly Arab Muslims (that term should not sound nearly as redundant as it does) - are arriving and establishing their identities as the "new French". Symbolically speaking, this film is urgently relevant (it won nine of the record 13 César Awards for which it was nominated); cinematically speaking it is a masterful showcase of acting, cinematography, pacing (even at 150 minutes), suspense, music, action and, most importantly, global insight.
_______________________________________________________________

January 7, 2010

300 Words About: American Casino


I don't know about you, but I find it such a relief when I learn I'm not the only one who doesn't understand what appears to be a simple issue, in this case the mortgage crisis. When a financial analyst in American Casino compared the financial calculations behind this entire mess as operating in the 4th dimension, I thought, Yep, that sounds about right.

We had a minority of bankers and brokers who developed an esoteric financial language that no one else could understand, and a majority of Americans who regularly buy fast food with credit cards and throw away unopened bank and credit card statements informing them of interest rate hikes. The eventual result, of course, is this mortgage-backed recession we've found ourselves in over the past two years. American Casino, which began filming in early 2008, illustrates what went wrong and who was affected. As you can imagine, it's not a pretty picture.

October 1, 2009

Taking It Home: Capitalism: A Love Story

("Taking It Home" is an alternative review style in which I share my thoughts on a movie's themes and how they may relate to my life, while focusing less on the acting, writing, technical aspects, or even plot of the film. It's a collection of the ideas I took home, "because the movie experience shouldn't end in the theater".)

 
 A method even less effective at inspiring change than Michael Moore's films...

Next time I get the opportunity to ask Michael Moore a question, I hope it will be part of an actual conversation instead of a Q & A where he has the microphone and I'm buried in the audience. That way he won't be able to sneak out of answering my challenge so easily. Yes, in a fit of frustration following a recent screening of Capitalism: A Love Story, I worked up the nerve to ask American's most notorious documentarian how he made a 126-minute film about money and capitalism without so much as mentioning personal financial responsibility. More on that later - including a video of Moore "answering" my question.

I have a tortured history with Moore, alternately considering him a genius, even a role model, before inevitably changing my mind and viewing his work as purely propagandic, sensational, and even counterproductive. Incidentally, I'm surprised that I have yet to discuss his films in any detail on Getafilm, I suppose a result of Sicko arriving a month or so before I started writing here (though you can see I came down pretty hard on it come Oscar time anyway). 

In any event, somewhere between Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 I realized Moore was  abandoning true documentary filmmaking - what I conservatively prefer to view as non-fiction storytelling - for something resembling schizophrenic scrapbooking. His arguments (never mind that documentarians shouldn't really make any) are an amalgamation of liberal talking points and moral sermonizing, but the resulting films are so disjointed they inhibit any in-depth thought or discussion about the issues at hand. He doesn't quite dilute the messages in his films so much as he drowns them out with his own voice, sometimes figuratively but always literally. Thanks to Michael Moore, a Michael Moore film is never allowed to speak for itself.

So what to think of Capitalism: A Love Story, which Moore claims is a culmination of all of his films since Roger & Me? Three things: 1.) this is not only one of Moore's longest films, but also his most deliberately emotional one; 2.) possibly by design but probably by accident, Capitalism: A Love Story ends up making a much stronger case for universal health care than Sicko did; and 3.) Moore is ultimately still more interested in inciting audiences than inspiring them, which is a tragedy considering the global reach and box-office success of his films.

September 26, 2009

A Conversation with the Coens & a Look at Their First Decade (1984-1994)

Last night I had the once-in-a-lifetime luck to score a ticket to the 50th Regis Dialogue at the Walker Art Center, a 2 and 1/2 hour discussion between Elvis Mitchell and Joel and Ethan Coen. The conversation kicked off the second week of the Walker's current Coen Brothers retrospective, Joel & Ethan Coen: Raising Cain, and the the good news for those who couldn't get in last night is that the films of the Coens will still be shown in 35mm in the comfy Walker Cinema through October 17th. Click here for the remaining schedule, and note that the Burn After Reading screening is free. 

The brothers also attended the reception following the dialogue, but even as I was literally brushing shoulders with them I couldn't work up the nerve to ask them: in No Country for Old Men, where is Anton Chigurh at the Desert Sands? I did ask Elvis Mitchell but I think we were talking past each other. My question was about the night scene at the hotel where Chigurh is looking through the keyhole, not the day scene when Tommy Lee Jones first arrives and finds Josh Brolin. Elvis was convinced that Chigurh wasn't there, that it was an out of sequence scene. Well obviously, but that's not the scene I'm talking about. By the time I realized the misunderstanding, both Joel and Ethan had wandered away from us left the reception, leaving it a mystery forevermore. Wasting an easy 10 minutes standing right next to the Coens and not asking them a question, let alone that question, is something I'm going to be regretting for a long time. 

What would you have asked the Coens, given the opportunity? Everybody knows that they are among the most private personalities in Hollywood, and Elvis Mitchell deserves props for his attempt at getting them to open up about their childhood and influences. But the Coens are the Coens, and their inherent reluctance to talk makes interviewing them akin to pulling teeth; indeed, it looked like they'd rather have been at the dentist than on the stage. Pregnant pauses were filled by countless "yeah"s and "uh-huh"s, to the point that I was waiting for Mitchell to throw up his hands in defeat (he almost appeared ready to a couple times).

Despite all of this he was still able to squeeze out some interesting insights about their influences and childhood. Although it would have been nice to have a Minnesotan ask them about Minnesota, the truth is that a.) by now the Coens have been New Yorkers longer than they've been Minnesotans, so despite A Serious Man they're probably not as nostalgic for this place as most people think, and b.) Mitchell proved to be a brilliant analyst of their films, surprising even Joel and Ethan with his insights into their literary style and story patterns. Overall I still think it was a really interesting discussion, and I'd be lying if I said it wasn't one of my most memorable film experiences. (Here's a longer recap by Tad Simons.)

Now while I still can't claim to be anything close to an expert on their films (I still need to see Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers, and several others I've only seen once or twice), I'd like to remain true to my goal of writing something on each of their films before this retrospective ends. So here I'm offering some thoughts on the five films the brothers made in the first decade of their career. I hope to follow this with a second decade (1995-2005) and present day overview as well. Obviously I owe some thoughts to A Serious Man once I see that next weekend, since I've been howling about how good it will be for so long.


(Title screens via the Walker blog.)

Blood Simple (1984) 

As I mentioned last week, I saw Blood Simple for the first time only recently, but it made an immediate impression on my understanding of the rest of the Coen films, particularly No Country for Old Men. The desperate characters, the mind games, the desolate Texas landscape - in just one film they had already established a wholly unique style of storytelling (Ethan claimed the story was inspired by crimes of passion that were prevalent in Texas in the mid-80's). Everything is weaved together so seamlessly that you can't believe they were only in that this was their first feature (interesting trivia: Blood Simple premiered before its theatrical release at the Walker in 1984).

It's not nearly as polished as their other films, but of course they were working with a tiny budget and mostly amateur cast. It actually took me a while to recognize Frances McDormand as Frances McDormand, and I thought Dan Hedaya was enjoyably smug as well. All in all Blood Simple is just a flat-out solid debut, and the stylish scene transitions (the finger pointing, the bed falling) are worth rewinding and rewatching a few times.

January 31, 2009

Underrated MOTM: Boiler Room (2000)

January's Underrated Movie of the Month harkens back to a time when the markets were strong and the crooks were, well, nobody really cared about the crooks because the markets were strong. Remember, 10 years ago, when the Dow was peaking at all-time highs and the internet bubble hadn't yet popped?

Near the end of this fattened-calf period came Boiler Room, Ben Younger's surprisingly still relevant drama that both glamorized and criminalized the free-wheeling lifestyle of a group of sneaky New Jersey stock brokers at the fictional investment firm JT Marlin. Younger (who has unfortunately done little of significance since Boiler Room) was planning a career in politics until he accompanied a friend to a recruiting session (similar to the one lorded over by Ben Affleck in the film) and came up with an idea for his first screenplay.

In an interview for New York Magazine, Younger, then 27, explained: "I walked in and immediately realized, this is my movie. I mean, you see these kids and you know something is going on. I was expecting guys who went to Dartmouth, but they were all barely out of high school, sitting in a room playing Game Boys. I had already run a campaign at this point, but most of these kids were still working at the gas station," says Younger. "Now it's all over the news, but going back five years ago, day trading, the Internet, none of that existed."

Of course today, almost a decade after the film was released, day traders aren't the newsmakers - despite the astonishing rise of "Playing the Stock Market for Dummies"-type manuals. Indeed we've come full circle, and investment firms and executives are once again the big bad bullies of Wall Street, ironic considering that at least in the public eye, Boiler Room seemed to mark the end of greedy stock brokers as we knew them from the Gordon Gekko-in-Wall Street days. Turns out these wannabe Scrooge McDucks lived the extravagant life right up until credit and credibility ran dry over the last 18 months.

And we were all on our way to early retirement with them, borrowing what we couldn't pay back and making risky investments in search of the highest short-term return we could possibly find. Unfortunately for us (and I loosely use the term; I've never had spare change to play around with), Boiler Room primed a generation of hungry brokers just waiting to hook us up with the "easy money". The dialogue from the movie appears to be ingrained in many of the people on the other end of our phone line, or so it would appear based on memorable quotes popping up in a mortgage broker forum I just happened across (from April of 2008, eerily titled "Lehman Brothers going down soon?").

But does a prescient movie make an underrated one? Not necessarily, but for also featuring a tense and believable screenplay and a remarkably talented young cast, Boiler Room rarely gets the respect it deserves. One of the cool things to do, for example, is criticize it as a rip-off of Wall Street or Glengarry Glen Ross. But on closer examination, with dialogue from those two classics deliberately used and obviously referenced (and in the case of Wall Street, actual clips of the movie shown), it would seem to me that Younger clearly knew his audience and acknowledged their influences. And based on the aforementioned fact that his dialogue is now being used by young brokers, I would argue that his material was plenty original.

One of the best scenes comes about halfway through Boiler Room, when Seth (Giovanni Ribisi) has finally gained enough confidence to shrewdly push a sale on a reluctant buyer (Taylor Nichols). It's uncomfortable and nauseating, mostly because we know how easily and often it happens every day. Observe:



Naturalistic conversations like this permeate the movie and are surprisingly well acted by an eclectic cast that includes Vin Diesel, Ben Affleck, Nicky Katt, Scott Caan, Nia Long, Jamie Kennedy, Ron Rifkin, Tom Everett Scott, and of course Ribisi. How his career has tanked so much in the last five years is a complete mystery to me - can you name his last movie? After a decent 2003 (Cold Mountain, Lost in Translation), he had a bizarre 2004 (Flight of the Phoenix, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow) and then...nothing - at least nothing worth mentioning. Hopefully, 2009 will mark a major return for this talented actor. He's currently attached to six projects on IMDb, two of which are among the most anticipated movies of this entire year: Michael Mann's Public Enemies and James Cameron's Avatar.

Ribisi never really blows you away with his acting, but the more you see his work the more you start to appreciate the small things, as is the case with this movie (i.e., the soundtrack). Of course there are missteps here and there, with a meandering father/son storyline and an unnecessarily heroic ending, but on balance Boiler Room is a taut and engaging film that deserves to be appreciated more in the context of our current economic climate.

December 30, 2008

Taking It Home: Doubt

Streep and Hoffman compare notes from the drafts of their Oscar acceptance speeches...

If John Patrick Shanley considered several one-word titles for his play before eventually settling on Doubt, chances are one of the possibilities was "Candor"; almost never in my life have I heard people talk so openly to each other about such sensitive issues. The discussions between the characters in Doubt are so brutally honest, in fact, that I found myself scoffing at the screen in my head, thinking "Come on, people don't have conversations like this."

But to get caught up in questions about the reality of the language used is to miss the point of the story. Whether spoken with these words or not, the arguments between Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep) and Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) certainly happen in real life. They might communicate non-verbally or through third parties, but judging by the number of shameful accusations made against Catholic priests in the last two generations, there is no "doubt" that men of the cloth have found themselves under obvious suspicion from those in their innermost circles.

Shanley's play, which was adapted by him for the film directed by him, is a rich study of the pain and suffering that comes not from knowing that a crime has been committed, but from not knowing for certain that a crime has been committed. The doubt itself is in some ways worse than the actual sin - not necessarily in God's eyes, but in the experience of the individual.

Take the wife of a cheating husband, for example, never sure how to interpret his sneaky behavior. Or the teacher of a dishonest student who turns in a plagiarized assignment. Or, more significantly, the
police officer who draws his weapon on a shadowy figure or the president who sends his country to a war based on questionable intelligence.

For each person, the gnawing uncertainty about their gut feelings is torturous. Actually confirming that the husband is unfaithful, or that the student has lifted from a classmate, or that the risk of danger was unfounded, doesn't make the problem go away. But it does make coping easier, if only because the individual can acknowledge the truth and move on, for better or worse. Until this truth is known, however, the person will endlessly suffer through cycles of certainty and skepticism. I would even argue that regret, in one of its many forms, is simply doubt by another name. When I think back on my life, half of the decisions that haunt me are the ones for which I'll never truly know the "other" outcome.

I haven't experienced the horrors of sexual abuse, but I can only imagine that those who have, especially by a trusted individual like a priest or teacher or relative, may be forever filled with doubt and suspicion and distrust of people in such positions. It must be extremely difficult to regain faith in former beliefs, evidenced by Sister Aloysius in Doubt or, as another recent example, Juliette Fontaine's brother-in-law in I've Loved You So Long.

How do you quiet the questions in your head and heart? I don't know, and I also don't know if you should attempt to relieve yourself of all uncertainties - after all, you can't have faith without also having doubt. But somewhere you have to draw the line and make a decision, and I've found it's nearly impossible to do that with any level of comfort.

What did you take home?

August 15, 2008

REVIEW: The Asphalt Jungle

*Major plot points are discussed, including several deaths.

"People are being cheated, robbed, murdered, raped. And that goes on 24 hours a day, every day in the year. And that's not exceptional, that's usual. It's the same in every city in the modern world. But suppose we had no police force, good or bad. Suppose we had... just silence. Nobody to listen, nobody to answer. The battle's finished. The jungle wins. The predatory beasts take over."

So says Police Commissioner Hardy (John McIntire) in an impassioned speech at the conclusion of The Asphalt Jungle, an overlooked noir classic that's also considered to be one of the earliest and most stylistically influential heist films. Based on the novel of the same name by W.J. Burnett, The Asphalt Jungle was brilliantly adapted by Ben Maddow and John Huston, whose masterful direction of the film is often overshadowed by his projects that came directly before and after it: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) and The African Queen (1951), respectively. Of course, Huston's contribution to the noir canon is also most often attributed not to The Asphalt Jungle, but to The Maltese Falcon, his seminal masterpiece that set the tone for the classic noir era that would span nearly two decades.

Out of context, Hardy's statement is an anachronistic cliché, a statement made by weary police commissioners in any city and any era. In the context of The Asphalt Jungle, however, it's the crowning achievement of the screenplay and the final knot in the carefully crafted tapestry that precedes it. While it might have worked anywhere within the film, it's a statement that can only be fully absorbed at the near end, after we've been through the jungle ourselves and seen the “predatory beasts” in their natural habitat.

Huston wastes no time establishing mood in The Asphalt Jungle. The earliest audio is the crackle of a police radio as a patrol car cruises through the morning gloom of an otherwise deserted urban landscape (filmed partly in Cincinnati, the exact setting of the film is revealed only to be within reasonable driving distance of Cleveland). The cops are the law in this jungle, but they aren't necessarily the predators. That label would be left to the underground hooligans such as the one they are on the lookout for, a brooding bear with a permanent scowl and the build of a linebacker. We'll later come to learn that the brute, Dix Handley (Sterling Hayden in one of his first starring roles), is a Kentucky transplant with a gambling problem, spending only enough time hustling in the city to make money for the purchase of his family farm, which was lost, along with his treasured horses, when his family suffered financial ruin years earlier. Although we don't yet know these details about Dix, we're immediately drawn to his handsome looks and enigmatic expressions. What is he hiding?

Dodging the police on foot, Dix seeks the refuge of his friend, Gus Minissi (James Whitmore, later loved as Brooks Hadley in The Shawshank Redemption), a diner proprietor with a short fuse whose loyalty will extend beyond the law if necessary. Perhaps the faithful monkey in this jungle, Gus hides Dix's gun in the cash register right before the cops stroll in. Dix is hauled off under suspicion anyway, but in less than 15 minutes, Huston has already hooked us with two fascinating characters operating in an underworld that we recognize only from the realm of film noir. In a break from the norm, Huston also gives us a female character who does not play the typical femme fatale: Doll Conovan (Jean Hagen) is a seemingly lost young woman who will do anything for Dix, her near obsession. Their back-and-forth throughout the movie is a sight to see: the gushing Doll brightly fawning over Dix, who tries his best to hide any heart behind his puffed up demeanor.

The next creatures to make their appearances are true predators, albeit from different species: Lt. Ditrich (Barry Kelley) is a crooked cop under increasing pressure from the straight-laced Police Commissioner Hardy to rein in the city's animals (“You don't close 'em hard enough. Rip out the phones, smash up the furniture.”). A real hyena, Ditrich is a bully who makes a lot of noise and can't be trusted. As Hardy scolds him, Ditrich nods obediently like a kid in the principal's office, fingers presumably crossed behind his back. His private partner in crime is Cobby (Marc Lawrence), a popular bookie with plenty of connections but no friends. Cobby is a whining weasel, a slickster who cowers under pressure due to his weak will.

Neither of these two compare to the beast that arrives next: “Doc” Erwin Riedenschneider (Sam Jaffe in an Oscar-nominated performance), an ex-con of German descent who heads to Cobby's backroom parlor less than 24 hours after his prison release. A conniving, smooth-talking lizard with a penchant for young girls, Doc has a massive jewel heist planned, one that he estimates could rake in half a million dollars. Ever the orchestrator, however, he convinces Cobby to help him find both operating costs and personnel: “A box man, a driver, and a hooligan.”

As it happens Dix has just intimidated his way out of a police line-up, and his brusque sudden appearance at Cobby's makes quite an impression on Doc ("Don't bone me!," Dix barks at Cobby. "Did I ever welsh? You just boned me!"). Dix is soon chosen as the hooligan, and his pal Gus as the driver. The missing piece – the box man - is the most important one, but Gus happens to know a professional safecracker, Louis Ciavelli (Anthony Caruso), and the gang is set.

All that's needed is $50,000 to pay them. Doc persuades Cobby to reach out to his deep-pocketed contacts for financing, and this - this is where we meet the most disgusting beast in the jungle: the lawyer Alonzo Emmerich (Louis Calhern). A cold-blooded, contemptible snake, Emmerich has a reputation for an extravagant lifestyle and questionable morals. We soon find out, however, that they're not really questionable, they're simply absent: the self-pitying Emmerich has nearly bankrupted himself by spoiling his naïve mistress Angela Phinlay (Marilyn Monroe). His invalid wife, May, meanwhile, sits lonely in her bed, desperately begging Emmerich to play a simple card game with her during his cold and infrequent visits.

Emmerich agrees to “fence” the jewels after they're acquired for a share of the money. Unable to front the cash needed for Doc's gang, however (and unable to admit it), Emmerich convinces Cobby to front the $50,000 in exchange for a cut of his own. Cobby complies, and Emmerich's double-cross is in place. He'll pay no money, and he'll receive the jewels. Par for the course for him:

May: "Oh Lon, when I think of all those awful people you come in contact with - downright criminals - I get scared."

Emmerich: "Oh, there's nothing so different about them. After all, crime is only a left-handed form of human endeavor."

In Emmerich, Huston has given us the lowest of life forms in this jungle. He's a man without honor, without principle, without a soul. As the deal goes down later, Huston lets Dix make this case: “Are you a man, or what? Trying to gyp and double-cross with no guts for it? What's inside of you?! What's keeping you alive?!”

Perhaps because we know what she's dealing with, we find it easy to empathize with Angela Phinlay. Or maybe it's just because it's Marilyn Monroe, and she wholly commands our attention from her first brief appearance. It was a star-making turn for Monroe, and one that would lead to her being cast in All About Eve later that year, a movie which, incidentally, provides the only reasonable explanation for why The Asphalt Jungle didn't take home an Oscar in the any of the four categories for which it was nominated.

The characters established and the story carefully set-up, Huston takes The Asphalt Jungle to its second act, perhaps the one most familiar to fans of classic heist and caper films. The 11-minute operation at the jewelry store is executed as well by Huston as it is by the on-screen gang of Dix, Doc, and Ciavelli. The lack of a musical score and the limited dialogue make for a naturalistic and tense atmosphere. The only relief from the stressful scene is the amusing tactic taken to avoid the “electric eye” alarm sensor. Seeing robbers inchworm their way under an invisible line just looks silly in 2008. At the time, however, I'm sure it evoked the same anxiety in viewers as Tom Cruise's acrobatic disk grab in 1996's Mission Impossible. It may not be a coincidence, of course, since The Asphalt Jungle is thought to have influenced nearly all of the heist films that followed it, from Rififi just a few years later to Dog Day Afternoon a generation later to The Bank Job a near lifetime later (it's also not lost on the viewer that Doc's gang is a sharply dressed bunch, much like the crews in Reservoir Dogs, Heat, and Ocean's Eleven).

Ciavilli cracks the safe with no problem, but the charge sets off the alarms in neighboring buildings. As the gang makes haste for the exit, a run in with a security guard leads to the accidental shooting of Ciavilli, and the film moves into its third act: the beasts of the jungle begin feeding on each other.

When Doc and Dix show up at Emmerich's expecting the payout, their suspicions that the lawyer is broke are confirmed. In another well staged scene, Dix kills Emmerich's personal advisor in a shootout as the planned double-cross goes awry. Suffering from gunshot wound to the stomach, and knowing that their jewels are now worthless, Dix turns his gun on a sobbing Emmerich. Doc, in a moment of surprising sensitivity, tells Dix to hold off until they're certain Emmerich can't arrange for an insurance payout, however small it might be.

In the meantime, Ciavilli has died from his wound and the police are hot on the trail of the gang. Upset that he wasn't included on the take, Lt. Ditrich slaps Cobby around until he sings and exposes all the players. When Gus is picked up and booked in the same cell block as Cobby, it takes two police to restrain him from choking Cobby through the iron bars. On the other side of town, Doc and the seriously wounded Dix have a run-in with an observant policeman at a train depot, leaving the cop incapacitated and Doc suffering from a bloody head wound. Over at Emmerich's, the police have arrived and are breaking down his alibi that he was with Angela on the night of the heist. When his lies are exposed, the lawyer retreats to his office and takes his own life.

As The Asphalt Jungle begins winding down, Huston has wickedly turned the tables on his characters. As in The Maltese Falcon, the treasure that drove the agenda has become almost obsolete, and what began as a simple heist job has spiraled into a life-and-death scenario for this gang. Ciavilli and Emmerich are dead, Cobby and Gus are locked up, and Doc and Dix are on the run with some cash and some stolen jewels that they can't resell.

The capture of Doc is one of the great scenes in the film, and it perfectly illustrates the consequences of greed that Huston has spent the whole time underlining. Otherwise in the clear, it's Doc's decision to ogle a young girl at a local diner for a few minutes too long that does him in. As Police Commissioner Hardy gives his memorable speech, Dix fights for his life, driving out to his Kentucky farm with Doll blubbering next to him.

Dix's tragic death is almost beautiful to watch. His wound getting the best of him over the course of almost an hour of the film, it's not until he reaches his dear Kentucky home that he finally succumbs. It's a tremendous shot by Huston, and the brightness of the rural daylight juxtaposed with the dark of the urban night is truly breathtaking.

Discussing so much of the plot here may have seemed unnecessary, but the arc of the characters is the beating heart of The Asphalt Jungle, and each of them faces different consequences as a result of their respective vices. As Huston himself notes in an introduction of the film: "It's chiefly concerned with human relationships; that is to say the story is told from inside out. Although it's melodramatic in form, it is not melodramatic in content...You may not admire these people, but I think they'll fascinate you." He clearly identifies the vices of several of the characters: Doc and his girls, Emmerich and his extravagance, Dix and his horses. Huston knew what he was working with; The Asphalt Jungle is a multi-faceted character study of the highest order, and his hard-boiled direction is absolutely outstanding. It would be well worth additional viewings, and its timeless story - and Hardy's speech from above - is as relevant in 2008 as it was in 1950.

[This review was written as part of Film Noir Month at MovieZeal. Be sure to check out the excellent daily reviews and commentaries by numerous bloggers and readers who are extremely well-versed in noir.]

May 18, 2008

300 Words About: Redbelt

On paper, Redbelt looks like a mad lib: "Chiwetel Ejiofor (American Gangster) stars with Tim Allen (Wild Hogs) and Emily Mortimer (Lars and the Real Girl) in a movie about martial arts, written and directed by David Mamet (Glengarry Glen Ross)."

What?

My curiosity got the best of me (as it usually does when Mamet is involved with something), but in this case, curiosity unfortunately almost killed the moviegoer. Redbelt is a dull, tedious, inane film, saved from the lowest depths of mediocrity by one Chiwetel Ejiofor, who we'll assume took this particular role simply to diversify his credits and/or add Mamet to his Rolodex. Had Ejiofor been given the chance to do more within his role, Redbelt just might have achieved Mamet's vision of a story of a man in the midst of a moral storm, forced to choose between money, honor, love and life.

This particular man is Mike Terry (Ejiofor), a Jiu-Jitsu instructor in L.A. who's apparently the only pure master left in the sport, his peers having sold out to the showy (and profitable) mixed martial arts pay-per-view culture. Mike refuses to compete despite the financial troubles that are straining his marriage to an aspiring fashion designer, Sondra (Alice Braga, I Am Legend; City of God). An accident at Mike's training academy between a traumatized lawyer (Mortimer) and a troubled cop is the first in a series of unfortunate incidents for Mike, tangling him up with loan sharks, fight promoters, the cop's wife, and Chet Frank (Allen), a washed up, worn down actor who wants to use Mike's secret training techniques in his next film. As you would guess, all of this eventually leads to an alternate ending from The Karate Kid.

Mamet's inclusion of unnecessary characters and silly plot contrivances dilutes a potentially great character study. His distinctive writing is on full display here, but it's nothing to appreciate in a dead-end story. I think most people have already given up on Mamet (I was the only person in theater), and at this point it will probably take more than curiosity for me to pay for his next film.

March 13, 2008

REVIEW: The Counterfeiters (A-)

Background: In a year of foreign films that included the universally lauded but all-unnominated 4 Months, 3 Weeks & 2 Days (Romania), Persepolis (France), The Diving Bell & The Butterfly (France), and El Orfanato (Spain), it was The Counterfeiters from Austria that rose to the top and captured the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. Directed by Stefan Ruzowitzky and starring Karl Markovics and August Diehl, the film is based on a memoir written by Adolf Burger, one of the central participants in "Operation Bernhard" - the greatest counterfeiting scheme in history. Burger's character, played by Diehl, is in fact the only authentic representation from the original story. The Counterfeiters was filmed in Austria, Germany, and Monte Carlo, and features a disturbingly effective score by my favorite and yours - Argentinean harmonica player Hugo Díaz.

Synopsis: In 1936 Berlin, Salomon Sorowitsch (Markovics) is a gambling playboy, a shady jerk, and one of the world's best counterfeiters of foreign currency and identification. When he is arrested by rising SS officer Friedrich Herzog, he is sent to a labor camp as a "habitual" criminal. By the time the war begins he has proven his artistic talent, and soon he is transferred to Sachsenhausen concentration camp (just outside of Berlin, and the first camp in Germany), now coincidentally under the direction of Herzog. The Nazis are a conniving group, and they select a number of skilled prisoners to carry out Operation Bernhard, a plot to bankrupt the Brits and Americans by flooding their economies with counterfeit pounds and dollars. In exchange for their expertise, the prisoners are separated from the rest of the camp and given some special privileges. Sorowitsch is unique among the group in that he is actually a criminal and not just a political prisoner, and partly because of that he is pegged as the chief supervisor of the operation. The work is set into motion and the batch of pounds is made so well that the Bank of England verifies their authenticity. The next challenge is the dollar, but it cannot be completed without the specialized gelatin-setting skill of August Burger (Diehl), a prisoner who was initially sent to Auschwitz with his wife for distributing anti-Nazi propaganda. Burger is a stubborn ideologue, and he refuses to finish the dollar, knowing that it will put all of their lives in danger - but that it will also ultimately bankrupt the Nazis. Tensions rise among the prisoners, nowhere more flammable than between Burger and Sorowitsch, who is convinced that their best hope to stay alive is to continue the work. There are a number of supporting characters that add life to the story, but the soul of the film is in this philosophical battle between Sorowitsch and Burger. We know that Sorowitsch makes it out because we've already seen a flashback of his post-war trip to Monte Carlo, but it's clear that ultimately, he did not learn how to survive so much as he learned how to live.

I Loved:
+ The hand-held camera that added a sense of grainy, chaotic realism to the scenes.
+ The performance of the square-jawed Karl Markovics, who looks like a cartoon or comic-strip character. Brilliant job of navigating the massive range his role required.
+
The supporting cast led by August Diehl, who looks annoyingly familiar. I just can't place him, and I haven't seen any of his other films.

I Liked:
+ The subdued musical score - not too distracting but present enough to haunt the scenes. Reminded me a little of Jonny Greenwood's score in There Will Be Blood.
+
The use of flashbacks to juxtapose the Salomon Sorowitsch of the past, the way past, and the present.

I Disliked:
- The somewhat thrown-together ending in the present. Of course there needed to be a wrap back to the beginning, but I felt rushed through it.

I Hated:
- The point blank gun shots to the head, as you guessed.
- The frequent realization in my mind of how "true" the story was portrayed, regardless of whether or not it was a fictionalized version of it. How could humanity have sunk to such depths? And it continues...

Grade:
Writing - 9
Acting - 10
Production - 8
Emotional Impact - 9
Music - 5
Significance - 5

Total: 46/50= 92% = A-

Last Word: While it will most certainly tell you a new story, The Counterfeiters won't really take you to a new place. By 2008 we're all hopefully aware of the horrors of the Holocaust, and it should have been no surprise to learn of even more insidious Nazi methods of exploitation and corruption. But the story isn't really about the Holocaust or the concentration camps, and it's certainly not about currency counterfeiting. Rather, the unique strength of the film is that it simply outlines the transformation of one man - and he's not the kind of angelic character we all expect. He has no family and no one he loves, not even any friends. Sorowitsch is a criminal who, incredibly, is "rehabilitated" by his experience in the concentration camps. That may sound odd, but I would argue that the man who left was a better person than the one who entered. Indeed, The Counterfeiters does better than most of its counterparts because it doesn't portray the characters as victims. We may not know their life story, but we know that they share many traits, strengths, and weaknesses with each other and with us. Certainly most of us have never dealt with such life-and-death decisions in our lives, but we can all relate to the literally insane choice that these characters face. Adapt and survive, or uncompromisingly fight? It's an aspect of the Holocaust that we haven't seen fully explored, and The Counterfeiters proves that there are certainly rich, relevant lessons yet to be learned from it.

March 8, 2008

REVIEW: The Bank Job (B-)

Background: It's not often that heist movies are based on true stories. They may be remakes (The Italian Job, The Thomas Crown Affair) or star-studded popcorn flicks (Ocean's 11-13, Inside Man), but they're usually clichéd, one-last-job-before-I-retire stories. The Bank Job is based on the infamous 1971 Lloyd's Bank robbery in London and is "intended to reveal the truth for the first time." Because the stolen loot involved devastating information on the British government, a "D-notice" (gag order) was put on the story immediately after the robbery, which is why few people have known about it for so long. Directed by Roger Donaldson (The World's Fastest Indian) and starring Jason Statham (Crank, The Italian Job) and Saffron Burrows (Reign Over Me, Troy), the film is a throwback to caper movies of the 1960's and 70's. Just a study of the poster here gives you an idea of the attention paid to the details in production design.

Synopsis: In 1971 London, Terry (Statham) and his mates are small-time crooks who are looking for the right job to allow them an early retirement. Martine Love (Burrows) is Terry's childhood friend/flame and a low-level drug dealer herself. Michael X is causing all sorts of problems for the British government (and their cloaked MI-5 agency) but is immune from prosecution because he possesses incriminating photos in a safety deposit box at Lloyd's Bank on Baker Street. When they catch Martine smuggling drugs into the country, the MI-5 unit offers her a free release - if she can secretly recruit Terry's gang to break into the bank and retrieve the photos. The police don't know, Michael X doesn't know, and whatever else they steal they can keep. So, quite suddenly, the heist is in motion as the crew tunnels into the bank's vault from underneath neighboring storefronts. Genuine suspense frames the scenes when they're making the score, but the momentum stops soon after it's over. Terry, who has been suspicious of Martine's motives the whole time, turns the tables on her and MI-5 - he not only wants to keep the loot, but wants permanent immunity from prosecution related to the robbery. What he doesn't count on is revenge from the people who had valuable goods in the those safety deposit boxes, including Michael X and a local porn king who had a record of police pay-offs stored in the bank. As the movie comes it its dragging end, we're witness to a disappointing showdown between Terry, MI-5, and the porn king's gang. Our hero is vindicated and in a very long pre-credits epilogue we learn what happened to all of the people involved.

I Loved:
+ Jason Statham, in a role that required more from him than just smirks, roundhouse kicks and head butts. Of course they still found a spot to squeeze those in (no way that happened in real life), but it's still one of his better characters.

I Liked:
+ The supporting performances - you'll recognize Stephen Campbell Moore (The History Boys, Amazing Grace) and Daniel Mays (Atonement) as Ken and Dave, respectively.
+ The techniques of the break in - the digging, thermal lancer, busting into the safety deposit boxes. Why do we think it's so cool to see bank robberies? I'd be livid if that was my stuff.

I Disliked:
- The distracting musical score - it's literally in the background of almost every scene, regardless of the place or mood of the moment.
- Peter De Jersey's terrible performance as Michael X.
- The poor pacing of the movie. It feels significantly longer than its run time.

I Hated:
- The going-nowhere kidney stone bit - how many times did we hear about it, and for what?
- That romance and marital strife played such a large role in a movie called The Bank Job. It added nothing but filler and killed the momentum of the movie. Who cares who liked whom when whomever was what age and who didn't know it and who's not over it and who slept with whom for what reason that no one can understand?

Grade:
Writing - 7
Acting - 9
Production - 8
Emotional Impact - 9
Music - 4
Significance - 3

Total: 40/50= 80% = B-

Last Word: I won't call it bad, but The Bank Job could have been a lot better. It kept my attention for the most part, and the actual break-in scene was solid from initial entry to exit, but I was otherwise restless. I knew it was a true story, but there was so much overdramatic Hollywoodization (the final train station scene, the cringe-worthy dialogue) that I couldn't fully grasp the genuine intrigue of the story. This is apparently one of the greatest (in terms of value) bank robberies ever, and no one was charged! The circumstances are incredible, but they're overshadowed here under the bungling direction of Roger Donaldson, who blows almost every chance to make this the dark and gripping film it should have been. I wonder if it would have even been better as a documentary, especially with so many complexities that can't be explained when action is the focus of the movie. Watching it you feel a sense of nostalgia for great robbery movies of yesteryear, but The Bank Job will probably make you wish you had just sat down and watched one of those instead.

November 3, 2007

REVIEW: American Gangster (B)

Background: Ridley Scott’s (Blade Runner, Gladiator) new film, American Gangster, is based on Mark Jacobson’s New York Magazine article “The Return of Superfly,” which is in turn based on the true story of Frank Lucas, notorious drug kingpin (and king) of 1970’s Harlem. Both Lucas (played by Denzel Washington - Deja Vu) and his former NJ police rival Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe - 3:10 to Yuma) were consultants during production, helping with accuracy and accents. The messy pre-production of the film took several years and scripts, and at different points involved director Antoine Fuqua (Training Day), screenwriter Terry George (Reservation Road), and actors Don Cheadle, Joaquin Phoenix, Ray Liotta, John C. Reilly, and Benicio Del Toro. Of course none of these people ended up working on American Gangster, but Del Toro actually collected a $5 million paycheck before production was shut down the first time. One other interesting piece of trivia - a number of the Thai extras were actually involved in Frank Lucas's real drug-running operation. Must be a statute of limitations for drug-related crimes in Thailand.

Synopsis: Harlem, late 60's. Frank Lucas (Washington) is the successor to local druglord/crimeboss Bumby Johnson. Richie Roberts (Crowe) is a divorced New Jersey cop who is too honest for his line of work. Lucas is committed to monopolizing the booming heroin market in Harlem, and he actually visits the source in Thailand before moving his entire family (including 5 brothers) to Harlem for assistance in the new venture. Before long, junkies all over New York are hooked on his "Blue Magic," and the corrupt NYPD, led by Detective Trupo (Brolin), look the other way while stuffing their pockets. After losing the trust of his fellow officers, Roberts is picked to head a federal taskforce whose only goal is to stop the drug trade at its source. By this time, Lucas has wealth, power, influence, and the reputation as the baddest dude in Harlem. Despite his low profile (quiet suits, simple routines, weekly church-going, etc.), Lucas (and Det. Trupo) eventually attract the attention of Robert and his team. Their surveillance pays off when they learn of one final, massive heroin shipment coming in from Thailand, and a major raid ensues. Lucas is dramatically arrested on his way out of church and forced to either take life in prison or rat out all of his NYPD bedfellows.
I Loved:
+ The production design - great sets, on-location filming, and a believable 70's look to it all.
I Liked:
+ Denzel Washington's ice-cold performance - better and more believable than his silly turn in Training Day.
+ T.I. - he was good in a limited role and shows as much potential as he did in ATL.
+ The RZA - outacting professionals and showing off a Wu-Tang tattoo.
I Disliked:
- Josh Brolin's exaggerated bullying, Russell Crowe's dull indifference, Cuba Gooding, Jr.'s typical spasticity, and Common's boring coolness.
- Chiwetel Ejiofor being miscast as an African-American again (as in Talk to Me and Inside Man) - he's British and excels in roles where he doesn't have to fake an accent or an attitude, like in Dirty Pretty Things and Children of Men.
- Not seeing images/interviews with the real Frank Lucas and Richie Roberts - I know, I know, wait for the DVD. Well I never see DVD's so I'll miss it.
I Hated:
- Nothing, really.
Grade:
Writing - 9
Acting - 7
Production - 8
Emotional Impact - 8
Music - 5
Significance - 4

Total: 42/50= 84% = B

Last Word: With all of the mess in getting this made, where was Spike Lee? I have to believe he would have made a better movie, though he may not have extracted better performances from the cast. American Gangster is not a bad movie, it's just not a very likable one. Basically, it's another shoulder-shrugger. Aside from showing that Denzel Washington can legitimately play a ruthless criminal, not much is accomplished. I didn't know anything about Frank Lucas, and still I have to read the original article and look for more information about him and Roberts. The corruption in the story, from the military to the police, is incredible and should have played a larger role. Although it kept my interest, some scenes could have been trimmed, mostly those involving Roberts' family matters. Speaking of Roberts, I have to stick up for Crowe here regarding his accent. I'm not from North Jersey, but I think Crowe probably got closer than the others (Del Toro, Phoenix) who would have played Roberts. He did fine with the accent, but just didn't seem very passionate about what he was doing. Maybe that's the real Roberts, though. American Gangster was the right idea for an old-school gangster movie, but the final product isn't as dark or as revealing as you'd hope for. Or am I just that desensitized by this point?
Related Posts with Thumbnails