In Reply to: I'll regret this, but... posted by MaxwellP on January 18, 2010 at 14:17:32:
So A is A and B is not A. That is a conclusion? Just not clear. Sorry.Okay. Here goes. Saying that Dillinger was a 'gangster' and that Depp did not portray Dillinger like a 'gangster' implies that 'gangsters' behave certain ways and all have the same mannerisms. Dillinger most certainly was a 'gangster,' but did not have the mannerisms and behaviors of BFN, another 'gangster.' The differences between the two were clearly spelled out in the movie, and while the screenwriter took certain liberties with the facts, he or she did get the differences in their personalities and their methods right.
So, when someone says that Depp did not play Dillinger as a gangster, it means nothing. That statement would also mean that Dillinger was not a gangster, because, other than being a criminal, he did not behave as a gangster. The film clearly showed him being a criminal, and so if there is something else that makes a 'gangster' a 'gangster,' then I am curious what it is.
So, my question was simple. In what way was Depp's performance lacking in communicating the 'gangster' aspect to Dillinger.
"I realize that Mann/Depp chose a perspective in which to portray Dillinger and you are defending that perspective--I'm guessing..."
You say they chose the a perspective. Again, I ask in what way would you have preferred they approached Dillinger? Their portrayal was pretty much spot on to the real Dillinger, in that they showed him being a bad guy, but also showed that his public image was as a pretty good guy, and that his criminal methods and motivations were far different than, say, BFN. Those are facts.
I am defending their choice because it is the historically accurate choice, and I'd prefer them to portray the reality rather than fictionalize Dillinger, even if it did not comport with my preference that Dillinger be portrayed as bad across the board. So, again, I'll ask you, how should Depp have portrayed Dillinger? And should he have portrayed him that way even if it was not historically accurate?
It worked for me because I appreciate Depp's performance mirrored the real Dillinger, and I am willing to accept that Dillinger was a criminal, he was a popular criminal, as far as criminals go, and he had certain qualities that made him popular. Given that fact, I like the performance because it opens a window into what made Dillinger relatively popular. Depp could certainly have made him a son-of-a-bitch along the lines of BFN, but then what would you have learned? You would have been scratching you head wondering why this son-of-a-bitch was so popular.
Edits: 01/18/10
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: I'll regret this, but... - jamesgarvin 14:56:39 01/18/10 (11)
- RE: I'll regret this, but... - MaxwellP 05:57:40 01/19/10 (0)
- In your world, "gangsters" are all scowling misanthropes. Dillinger - tinear 21:28:30 01/18/10 (9)
- You carry your daftness from outside to films too, I see... - jamesgarvin 06:47:44 01/19/10 (5)
- What balderdash you write. You may remember a certain lawyer that was a vicious serial - tinear 07:35:02 01/19/10 (4)
- One other thing... - jamesgarvin 09:09:27 01/19/10 (0)
- You've still not answered the question.. - jamesgarvin 09:00:56 01/19/10 (2)
- Uh, no. Depp's portrayal had Dillinger as a regular guy who just - tinear 08:05:27 01/20/10 (1)
- Will you ever answer the question???? - jamesgarvin 10:32:01 01/25/10 (0)
- Dillinger was aware of his "celebrity status" + played up to it - grinagog 01:54:43 01/19/10 (2)
- RE: Dillinger was aware of his "celebrity status" + played up to it - chazro@charter.net 12:16:33 01/22/10 (0)
- I think that is the problem for some here... - jamesgarvin 09:07:14 01/19/10 (0)