|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.178.211.68
In Reply to: RE: You need strawmen? posted by jamesgarvin on January 19, 2010 at 06:31:03
You pretty much gushed about what normal guy Dillinger was. That there was no "gangster" behavior for Depp to present. You're ignoring who the man was. It's not a documentary, it a dramatic representation of a violent man. And as for Gandolfini's Tony S., you'd be surprised. I grew up with some of those guys as neighbors."We must beware of those who burn with zeal but are not endowed with much sense." - Angelo Roncalli
Follow Ups:
I never gushed that he was a normal man. Here are my quotes: "He was playing Dillinger. I suggest you do some research on Dillinger, because he was generally well liked, and the citizens at the time actually liked him. Watch the actual video of the scene in which Dillinger was captured, and he really did smile with his arms around the coppers. The coppers really liked Dillinger."
Whether you like it or not, or are willing to admit it or not, that video speaks volumes about Dillinger, and much of the public sentiment about him. Have you ever seen any such videos relative to Bonnie and Clyde? Baby Face Nelson? Pretty Boy Floyd? Nope. Clearly, Dillinger was different. That is not my opinion, those are simply facts.
"That there was no "gangster" behavior for Depp to present."
Read my quotes: "He was likeable because he was the one gangster..." [I called him a gangster], "The point is that while Dillinger did bad things" [Not to worry, I later fill in the blanks on those bad things], "though he most certainly was a gangster" [there is that gangster again], "the film show[s] Dillinger shooting at people? Yes. Did it show him robbing from banks? Yes. [where did I ever, ever, suggest that shooting at people and robbing banks was 'normal?'], "He was not a good guy."
You are trying very hard to put words in my mouth, and attribute meaning to statements that were clearly not intended.
So, again, I'll ask the question for at least the second time. The film shows Dillinger shooting at people and robbing banks, so what do you think Depp's performance should have included that it did not, and, at the same time, made it factually correct? I think you would have preferred Depp to make Dillinger more of a prototypical gangster in order to satisfy your notions of how a gangster should act, when every history lesson on Dillinger tells us he did not act like every other gangster.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: