Change Your Image
gareth_john_nolan
Reviews
The Departed (2006)
A Scorsese Return To Form?!
The praise this film has received is undeniable, but it is for quite obvious reasons. How hard is it to make a poorly received film with a pseudo Ocean's 11 style cast? A veritable who's who of Hollywood in future establishment star's like Mark Walhberg, Leonardo Di Caprio, Matt Damon with the establishment proper in Jack Nicholson and Martin Sheen as the Daddy's of good and evil. Throw in the excellent plot of somebody else's film (Internal Affairs), and a director who has an untouchable reputation. In Hollywood terms, its a no-brainer, a sure fire success story, unimpeachable in form and content. For a director of Scorsese's reputation though, this film is an indictment.
I have to hope there are others like myself who can see through this rouse. This film is vacuous, bloated and overblown. It's a rehash of somebody's else's film and even a rehash of Scorsese's own films. It's the best Internal Affairs since Internal Affairs, and his best Scorsese crime drama since every other Scorsese crime drama. This man has built a reputation on a handful of genuinely subversive, ground breaking, and thought provoking films - but when will it be recognised he has simply run out of ideas, as nothing could be more certain when looking at this film.
Scorsese has lost his way, and he knows it (as evidenced by his move to make his own indie flick). People are reluctant to knock him down and hold him to account because they are in love with the sensation that his reputation invokes. He is probably the last man who brings credibility to mainstream Hollywood but he is ultimately subverted by it. It would seem to me that a vote against him is a vote against a last strand of credibility in this type of feature making If Scorsese can't help us then who can? It has to be clear that the best work that he has done in the last 10 years have been his own documentary output. His history of the blues, cinema and his Bob Dylan work, are exemplary. But his feature fictions are bloated, messy affairs.
For The Departed, it's shown in a few clear ways, one being musical choice. How many times in one career can he use the iconic but ultimately invasive Gimme Shelter by the Rolling Stones? Moreover, how many times in one film? In one scene alone in The Departed, he plays the song twice, restarting it to use the intrigue of Keith Richards tone setting guitar play. It's as jarring as it is juvenile. The song itself features over three times in the film. Yet, this is only one example of his corrupted sense of film-making style. I can appreciate his attempt to incorporate new ideas into his films, but his attempt to use Wes Anderson's pace setting Spanish Guitar plucking falls on its face, setting a comedic tone in places where there shouldn't be one. Another reference to Anderson is used in his full screen photo flashback device, which is quickly followed in the same scene, by his own more traditional in-scene photo pick up. The result is messy. Scorsese's sense of style is subverted by his inability to go any one way. Sloppiness also features in that Scorsese staple of the continuity error. I can appreciate this lack of attention to detail were it some art house reflection on the nature of reality, but this is mainstream Hollywood and says more about his editorial and film-making laziness than any overarching thematic concern. See Leo without cigarette in hand in one instant, and blowing smoke circles the next. You need only go to the goof's pages on this site for more. For inability to follow his convictions, see a jarring POV shot of Matt Damon in a waiting room looking down at his shoes, held for 1 second. It is a brave attempt to capture a moment between moments in a character's life, but an idea that cannot be pursued in half measures. As for overblown performance and a suggestion of a director losing control, look only as far as Jack Nicholson's fly eating.
An integral part of a director's reputation must always be what he brings to the table as a filmmaker. The reason this film has succeeded has nothing to do with his ability in that regard, in so far as it carried by somebody else's plot and the Hollywood powerhouse casting and acting. When looking at this film it must be asked what did Scorsese actually bring to this project? Is this a man resting on his laurels or an active master of his craft pushing the boundaries of his expression and creativity? His use of violence at this stage of his career is merely exploitative, rather than questioning. His supposed exploration of modern masculinity has never been more stale. For a man of Scorsese's undeniable ability and vision, this is nothing short of a shameful piece of work. Clearly, he is as jaded as the mainstream American cinema which nurtures him. I look forward to his next project because at the very least that can be judged as a real Scorsese picture, a greater measure of the man; and those who praised him for this will hopefully realise their folly as I am quite sure that even he himself would balk at the suggestion that this film was exemplary of his ability.
Mystic River (2003)
Missed The Target
If a person ever has the misfortune to be stuck in a room with a script writing teacher who bangs on about Aristotle's Poetics and generally tows that line, Mystic River is a film that will be something not forgotten. A perfect Aristotelian tragedy is clearly the kind of film Eastwood wished to make but on a plot level, but nevertheless falls short.
The flaws begin with the case of the poorly written wives. The Celeste Boyle character (Marcia Gay Harden) is never properly explored. She all too quickly embodies the audience's suspicions to the point where it has to be asked whether she has only been married to him as long as we have known her. She has no motive to jump to that conclusion so quickly - other than her conscience - and since when is that good enough in a story like this? The audience jumps to that conclusion because we don't know him - she's his wife and the mother of his child. Annabeth Markum (Laura Linney) becomes Lady MacBeth hailing a king in the final act while remaining pretty much absent throughout much of the film including her daughter's wake. Cop Sean Devine's (Kevin Bacon) relationship to his prank caller wife is never explained to any purposeful degree but by the end of the film he's playing happy families with her and a new born baby.
Within the main trio of characters, Dave Boyle's reasons for not coming clean about his "mugging" are also pretty thin. Sean Devine's (Kevin Bacon) story is also never explored to the point where he serves as a device for tension but not someone whose fate we really care about. Not to mind the fact that at the end of the film he shows up with all the answers, but does nothing to apprehend a killer. Yet somehow is rewarded with domestic bliss. Obviously, moral questions abound about arresting a man and friend whose daughter has just been killed and who has falsely accused and killed one of his oldest friends. Nevertheless, it was Jimmy Markcum's (Sean Penn) character who was arguably the focus of this film. He was the leader of the kids when they wrote in the cement and had Dave Boyle kidnapped and raped. He shows no remorse for this indirect responsibility and carries no guilt - which is perhaps understandable. Nevertheless, it is his actions which set off this tragedy - and it is he who must fall to bring about the true catharsis.
We know right from the start of looking at this kid that he is a punk and he will always be a punk. As soon as we know it's his daughter that has died, we know somebody is going to die, and we also know that that somebody is going to be Dave Boyle. The only thing open to question in this film, is Jimmy Marcum's moral journey. He is wound up like a pit bull from the start to the finish, his tragic flaw being his over zealous love for his daughter and his need for revenge and it must be this which brings about his downfall and creates the catharsis of the film. It is his arrest and the total destruction of his family - that fall of the king - which brings about the moral wrenching which we needed to feel the full impact of this story. Instead, we end up with random marching parades, the return of the wife and child of a supporting character for no real dramatic effect, and some funny glances with an open ending. Most of all there is no justice for Marcum which is what this story demands. A Tragedy where the tragic hero doesn't fall. Tragedy's with a happy ending does not a masterpiece make.
Nevertheless, it has to be said, the acting here is flawless. What's missing in the perfect Aristotelian or Shakespearian plot is made up for in this powerful cast. It is only when a film is this well crafted that one can see so perfectly just where all it's flaws lie. Clearly this film has worked well enough to get Oscars and garner rave reviews, but it simply isn't the film it should have been.
Dah (2002)
Iran: Most significant cinema today?
My experience with Iranian film is pretty superficial having only seen a handful, but none have disappointed me. I saw Kiarostami's early film Where Does The Friend Live? and was completely blown away. I then saw Saalam Cinema by Iran's other giant Mohsen Makhmalbaf - and then I realised just how important this country's output has been.
Ten did nothing to diminish this view, and I'll try not to repeat much of what's already been said here. I saw an Iranian person on this site claim that there was too much lost in the translation from Farsi to English. This is always the case with translation, but I am quite sure Ten gets away with it. I recently saw Ingmar Bergman's Saraband and if you think language being stilted ruins a movie then I am sure seeing that film will shatter the view. The single thing that destroys it in both cases is the incredible power of the acting - the truth lies in their facial expression. I am quite sure 9 out of 10 people asked without context would swear blind Ten was a documentary.
In the western world overrun by "reality" TV, its significance is lost on some, but if you take the time to realise that these people are actually acting - and more than likely doing it for the first time - thats where the power lies. Try taking this film, put it in America and put Hollywood A-Listers in the car and see where it goes. Basically, how you could call both what they do and what happens in this film acting is opened to debate. This is true of the majority of Iranian output.
Ten would be significant for these reasons alone, but when you take into account how much insight you gain into the life of a woman in there who tries to say no to male domination and to "love herself" it really comes into its own. This is the case of much of this countries output - and what sets is far apart from other countries. What we learn ultimately is this struggle, though perhaps more explicit in Iran, is a struggle felt by all women in the world. It's a film which in that way unites rather than divides which in light of Iran's current status in global affairs is what probably what makes it one of the more important Cinema's in the world.