 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.214.212.23
In Reply to: Re: The Departed - better than you give it credit for posted by halfnote on March 27, 2007 at 22:20:14:
I'd like to hear more.Your first sentence could be said about virtually any film; how does it speak to the qualitative nature of this one?
What is the "blowing out of brains" telling of? Again in the context of an argument for the film's quality.
What are the uniforms or frocks or their lack thereof "interesting keys" to?
The "twins" device is a classic one but does its mere inclusion imbue or underpin automatic excellence?
Finally, are you aware of the inherent derivative nature of The Departed, it being a virtually straight forward remake of the Japanese original? Isn't it incumbent on the part of the "copiers", so to speak, to attempt to bring something new to the remake attempt? The new, or lack thereof, then becoming legitimately subject to a qualitative comparison to the original, or to previous standards set by the "copiers"?
I give you the fact that the character renderings are personal judgement calls and are a pointless object of pursuit for argument.
Follow Ups:
"Your first sentence could be said about virtually any film ..."Really? Could it be said about Jaws? Or Meatballs? I used the word "didactic;" while not entirely inappropriate, perhaps "dialectic" would have been more more to the point. The film, quite consciously, sets up mirror images, opposing poles, of good and evil, morality and immorality, of the police, say, and the underworld, and then begins to dismantle them. The uniform, the identifiable good, is replaced by the more ambigious "under cover" guise. The good is infiltrated by the evil, the evil by the good. The Damon character assassinates his superior, the Nicholson characerter, on "moral" grounds, because he is a "snitch". There is a simple irony here: the Damon character is himself a snitch. His outrage is sparked by the realization that his moral compass has been lost, that he has, in effect, been worshiping a false god. And isn't the Nicholson character just a replacement for the Priest he served as a boy? The DiCaprio character's origins are from the opposite pole of the social order: though he has a criminal background, he gravitates toward the police. Without getting into a carefully premediated exigesis on the films themes and conceptual structure, I think it is fairly easy to agree that this dialectic was consciously contrued and explored by Scorcese. The film's dramatic development can be seen as an exercise in cancelling out these polar opposites, in an attempt to arrive at come irreducible kernal of meaning, or morality, or goodness.
Mind you, I have seen the film ONCE. But these themes struck me as preoccupations of the director.
With regard to "blowing brains out," this is a central image that reoccurs, not accidentally or without conscious purpose thoughout the film. Think of the number of such executions. Also, remember the police instructors explain in almost pornographic detail what happens when a certain shell enters the brain, with the little pieces of of the shatter bullet cutting though grey matter like tiny razor blades. To me, this suggested oblivion, nihilism, the existential irradication of meaning, morality and human impetus. This blackness highlights and exposes the futility of human action, and casts a tragic pall on the characters whose actions are predicated upon the arbitrary human contructs of good and evil, and of morality. That again relates to the idea of "frocks" and "uniforms." Moral action in this film is reduced to a costume; or, it could be argued that Scorcese really intended to show that morality transends costumes and human endeavor -- that, again, demonstrates the dialectical nature of the film.
Do you find this kind of studied exploration of morality and meaning and human motivation in "virtually any film"?
As to the derivative nature of the film, it is artistically irrelevant. Shakespeare's greatest play "King Lear," was derivative. Kubrick's undeniable masterpiece, "2001," was derivative. So? But derivativeness is certainly NOT a basis to demean or devalue an artistic work. Often, it is suggestive of a broader range of reference, an consciousness of literary and artistic tradition, which ought to militate in the opposite direction.
Before I saw this film, I was ready to dismiss it myself. "Oh no! not another Scorcese crime flick! And now they're rolling out Jack Nicholson as a bad guy? What happended, was DiNiro too busy?" The only reason I ordered it was because there was absolutely nothing else on television on a night when I really felt like watching television. But I found myself, as the film unfolded, with a greater and greater appreciation of what Scorcese was trying to achieve.
I am sorry if this is not as lucid as it might be. Heck, I'm not writing a term paper here. But I hope that, at least, you can see there is some empiracal basis for my assertion that this movie, itself masquerading as a simple crime flick, an underlying high seriousness.
I wish there were more of it. I much prefer personal elaboration, no matter the eloquence, to sarcastic sniping or sophomoric witticisms. There's some pretty smart jousting occasionally. That's fun.As for Jaws or Meatballs having elements in opposition. I think the answer is yes. Any good story, by definition, will. The descriptions and the devices used - the moral context - will vary, of course. How that variance is characterized determines the art of it.
God vs evil. That's what life and stories of life are all about. It can be handled as comic or dramatic in any art form.
As for derivation, I think you missed my point. I asked about the validity for an expectation of bringing something qualitatively new to the remake. Any critical comments are insufficient, otherwise.
I solicited your further remarks sincerely. I thought you opened up a lot of " 'splainin" room. LOL. My reasons for participating here are to learn, to share, to be sociably involved, to be entertained. Yours weren't apparent; that's why I asked.Your term paper? A+, for effort! ;-)
Your challenges were, in my view, entirely appropriate, and pointed. My first post was intented only to suggest that this film had much greater merit than some had bestowed upon it. I employed shorthand in an instance where more expansive and specific arguments were really in order. I left a lot, "unsplained."With regard to the idea that a derivational work ought to bring something "new" to a story's treatment, I guess I would have to agree -- otherwise, why bother? Interesting cases in point are the recent remakes of "Psycho" and "King Kong," I found the first pointless and gratuitous; the second, an earnest, and sucessful, attempt to put more flesh on the bones of the original story.
In the case of "The Departed," I can't really say, since I have not seen the original film upon which it was based.
Even so, taking the film on its own terms and without reference to its predecessor, I think it packs a wallop. There's a lot going on there. It has, in my mind, an allegorical, almost mythical quality to it, disguised in the wrapper of a crime thriller. If Scorcese cribbed this from the original (was it "Internal Affairs"?) shame on him! If he saw this in a story which lacked this dimension, it bears testament to his superior artistic vision.
...is well-taken.I've only seen it the one time, and after watching Infernal Affairs. In disappointment, I judged it hard. Dammit, with all that firepower, it should be better.
I did have few specific compliments for it in an earlier discussion.
I won't rush out to see it soon again but if/when I get around to it, I'll try to be a little more forgiving. Maybe I'll see something I missed. After all, to a real movie lover, even a bad film can be a good experience. Heh, heh.
Leonardo is improving, you're right. So much is expected of him. He has so many superior contemporaries. Is he the "new" Gable?
Mr. Scorsese should have you on his marketing team.
Thanks for sharp little chat. I enjoyed it.
.
Thanks.
but it seems like such an obvious fact, so much so, that even the Oscar people blew it during the broadcast. The t.v. voice-over claimed it as Japanese while they were presenting the screen play award.
...humble.I didn't warch the Oscars presentation. So they acknowledged the original in their praise for the remake? Have you seen the "sequels" referred to in a thread above?
You seem pretty handy around Oriental film. Any overlooked gems to recommended?
Cheers.
Tsui Hark and Wong Jing, both from HK.There is a great film you may have missed by Japaene director Kaneto Shindō, called Onibaba (1964). I don't visit this board enough to know how popular it is.
I also like OZU films and the insanity of Takashi Miike (Ichi the Killer, Audition).
By the way, a few years back the term "Oriental" was replaced by "Asian".
....Ozu IS JAPANESE!!!!!! LOL!!
...I'm familiar with. I'll look into the others. Thanks.Who replaced "Oriental" with "Asian" Why?
I sincerely appreciate your looking out for my manners but Oriental has been a good word for centuries. I stiffen at PC language. I'll take your word for there being a better reason, if you can just clue me in.
Negro was once used wdely, today it is appropriate to use either Black or AA.
Asian?
no.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
