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.
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.
From:
no subject
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!
From:
no subject
Washington was terrific in Training Day so he certainly can do unabashedly evil characters...he just didn't pull it off in this one.
From:
no subject
Heartily agree with you on Washington in Training Day!
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
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."
From:
no subject
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.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
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.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
P.S. Denzel Washington is v. pretty, though. :)
From:
felt much the same...
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.
From:
Re: felt much the same...
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
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).