ellen_datlow | A Deadwood evening and more

Last night I watched four episodes of Deadwood, beginning the second season. And they were very fine. I was talking to my mother about the series today while visiting her and my dad. We talked about its Shakespearean aspects and she thought there were elements of Antigone --I'm not sure which one--I assume the original. She felt Al commenting on the action from his balcony was kind of Greek Chorus like--I don't agree with that but the dialog is becoming more and Shakespearean in both its cadences and the language itself (except for the "fucks"). The characters get richer as the series goes on. I told my mother she should try to rent it for my dad to watch--I think he's like it. Or maybe there would be too much talking for him and not enough action.

Tonight I watched American Gangster. I'm not sure what I expected, but I did hope for more. I have the feeling that Ridley Scott was going for an African American Godfather and it just didn't work as such. I skimmed the original article by Mark Jacobson in NY Magazine a few years ago upon which the script is based and was unimpressed by the character of Frank Lucas then. He was a thug in real life. He's a thug in the movie, no matter how good-looking Denzel Washington is (and he IS). In the opening scene he murders someone horribly, passionlessly, and we don't get inside him at ALL.

I've been comparing his character (and others in the movie) to other gangsters in some relatively recent American movies that worked better (I'm not saying they're necessarily better movies, although some obviously are) in order to figure out why HE as a character didn't move me.

The Corleones in The Godfather--each son had a distinct personality. In American Gangster Lucas's brothers did not --we spend very little time with each brother. The mother (played by Ruby Dee) is good in a very small role.

In Scarface Pacino goes way over the top but at least he's dramatically interesting. Goodfellas of course has the terrifying performance by Joe Pesci. Ray Liotta's a mook but it doesn't matter because the gang around him is colorful.

Denzel Washington is smart, greedy (I guess), ruthless (although it seems to come out of nothing), passionless. Basically, he's a very dull character. I don't know if it's the script or the performance. Russell Crowe as the one honest cop in town is much better. And for me, the most interesting part of the movie is the end when they meet for the first time and the last 15 minutes. I'll have to see if I come to any other conclusions after the movie sinks in... but I'd very much like to hear what others felt about the movie if you've seen it. And if you disagree, please tell me what you think I've missed.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I kind of felt jarred at the end, once they met. The movie felt like three very distinct movies co-located a bit awkwardly. I liked the Russel Crowe story more, though I felt like he was getting a bit of an unbelievably idealistic "Howard Roark in The Fountainhead" kind of presentation, all gussied up for a cop drama. The Denzel story was interesting but from a more logistical, caper-film perspective, where you aren't expected to dig too deep into the characters, because the plan/plot is so glittery and all-consuming. I didn't feel pulled in to any of the characters there, except for the dead patron at the beginning. (pre-death, eh?) :)

But then we have this weirdly flat scene where Russell Crowe makes the arrest. There is no payoff here for me--I think it feels that way because this is literally the first interaction of these two characters, and as fantabulous as these two characters are, I felt absolutely no sense of the significance of the scene to either one of the characters.

Sadly, much as I liked the events of what happened after that, even the surprising turn Russell Crowe took defending the gangster, I felt like it was all captured in an almost Discovery channel style of story telling. They might as well have had a narrator. Totally took me out of experiencing the story (stories) and into another mode of viewing entirely.

The three different movies within it each worked pretty well overall individually, but it seemed like they were never made to come bundled together....

That's my 2 cents, anyway.

PS Sorry, I suck at remembering character names from movies!

The problem for me is that the plan/plot wasn't glittery and all-consuming. It would have been far more interesting if Lucas had been played interestingly.

Washington was terrific in Training Day so he certainly can do unabashedly evil characters...he just didn't pull it off in this one.

Oh no, I didn't think it was glittery either, but I really got the feeling that the director wanted us to think it was. Seemed like he made a conscious choice to focus on the development of the plan rather than any of the characters and even some of the montage and jumpcut filmwork on that segment of the movie had a distinctly "Oceans 11" air about them, despite the less than glitzy environs. (To me, at least.)

Heartily agree with you on Washington in Training Day!

Yipes. Just throw a period into that second sentence after "characters" and it will likely make more sense! :)

I had a very similar reaction to the movie. The most interesting aspect to me was the historical fictional progression of the inner city drug trade. The movie begins with the dying days of "Bumpy" Johnson and Frank Lucas takes his place and then by the time he gets out of prison its "New Jack City" time. From there its not much of a stretch to see how things evolve into "Clockers" and "The Wire."

I've been thinking of watching Deadwood again from the beginning... we missed a few episodes of the third season, and it's been long enough, I think, that a rerun would seem pretty fresh.

Oh do.

Heh. Now I'm salivating over Ian McShane.

Yeah. There's something about him.

Being prepared for the idea that the series never ends on a satisfying note (as per Constance's post) makes me appreciate the brilliance of what I'm watching as I watch it.

Sometimes it's good to know you're not going to get closure before you start. I'm noticing a trend in mystery fiction lately, whereby major storylines, which are set up as mysteries, aren't satisfactorily resolved by the end of the novel. And... you know, I don't expect literary novels to tie everything in a bow by the end, but when I pick up a mystery and am trying to sort out the clues, it turns out I do want the answer when I hit the last page.

I haven't seen any of those--literally, not one of the movies or shows you mentioned. I'm so hopeless.

But I just wanted to comment on what an awesome conversation it sounds like you and your mother had. Dang, I wish someone in my biological family were capable of bringing up Antigone and Greek choruses in a conversation! All I get is "interesting" or "boring" or "exciting" or "funny" or "scary."

My mother took me to the theater regularly when I was young. I saw Burton in Hamlet on the stage and then she had a subscription to the Vivian Beaumont Theater for a few years. I know that she loved musicals when I was a kid and that her parents and my parent were theater goers.

I watched American Gangster after meeting Mark in April. It wasn't as compelling as I expected. Maybe because, in general, I just don't care that much about gangster flicks, unless they are extraordinary, as was The Godfather? So I didn't bring up the movie earlier this month when we had dinner in NO (he's got a place there now).

I adored Deadwood, and was terribly disappointed that it just -- stopped. It never went anywhere, it never concluded.

That is why I didn't care for it on second watching, I think. Knowing there was no resolution to anything, it began to appear self-indulgent, rather than brilliant the second time around.

But that may well be just me.

Love, C.

Interesting - I'd thought about watching this movie, but it didn't seem that exciting to me - kind of like what you said, with it trying to be Godfatherish. Hm.

P.S. Denzel Washington is v. pretty, though. :)

I think it was both the writing & the acting. Mr. W is simply not the deepest actor on earth (have you seen his performance in "Philadelphia?").

I had a strong objection to the ending, not because of the work or even the writing. I object to the facts. The man was, as you say, a rather brutal murderer. & because he helped this cop catch a lot of crooked cops, he only served, what, 15, 20 years in jail? & we're supposed to be good with that? I'm really not, thanks.

ADORED Ruby D, though, & Mr. Crowe was, as usual, excellent.

As more than one person pointed out to me, most everyone involved in creating The Godfather movies, Goodfellas, Mean Streets, and The Sopranos were steeped in the Italian culture and history. The creators of American Gangster, from the author of the original article to the final movie had no emotional stake (or first hand knowledge) of Harlem, or African American culture of the period during which the rise of Frank Lucas takes place. This to me explains totally why the movie is a failure.

Coming to this a bit late, but: _Deadwood_ is _way_ Shakespearean. There was at least one episode that Jeanne is convinced was written in iambic pentameter, and one scene, where Al is addressing the Native-American-head-in-the-box, almost certainly scans to something. As I've said before, the series as a whole is one of the best things I've ever seen on television.

Not too late ;-)
I remember one episode that certainly felt that way--does she remember which? (I'm one third of the way through the second season I think).

A Deadwood evening and more

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

felt much the same...

Re: felt much the same...

no subject

no subject