Page 10 of 16
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:38 am
by Anonymous
Do we know what was in the envelope Leo gave to the therapist? It seems like it was superfluous since she heard the evidence from the CD. My wife seems to think it was a message to Dignam, but it seems like there is to big a jump in logic for that without more onscreen evidence.
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:59 am
by Abulafia
"Do we know what was in the envelope Leo gave to the therapist? It seems like it was superfluous since she heard the evidence from the CD. My wife seems to think it was a message to Dignam, but it seems like there is to big a jump in logic for that without more onscreen evidence."
My wife came to the same conclusion. To some extent I agree that this is a big jump, but again I think that is largely how the film's narrative operates and it seems like the only logical explination. Yes, the therapist heard the tape, but she has no idea who Dignam was or his relationship to the other key characters without the message from Leo, which one assumes leads her to contact Dignam. What I will say is imagine this was actually in the film - that we viewed the therapist opening the letter, reading it, calling Dignam, etc. This in fact would prove redundant and unnecessary, not to mention would somewhat ruin the closure Dignman's "surprise" appearence affords us.
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:36 am
by GringoTex
Matt wrote:I think we should all keep in mind, though, that this is essentially a "work for hire." Scorsese did not originate the project, and though he is listed as a producer on the film, he came onto the project after it had already been developed.
I think this is important to emphasize. Scoreses claimed great fatigue after his birth-to-death shepherding of Gangs of NY and Aviator, and I think he was looking for a pure excercise in mise-en-scene. That's why he didn't want to see the original or was bothered with the logic of the story. Really, this obsession with logical versimilitude confounds me. Departed isn't about logic- it's about emotion via power relations. I think he pulled it off brilliantly.
Abulafia wrote:Fine. But why base a criticism, valid or not, of Hollywood in general on The Departed alone. Moreover, as I said previously, I am convinced that this approach was deliberate with form and content related to one another. Geography is not neccessarily the point of this film, I mean it is not showing that is often just as important as showing. Of course, Mr Bordwell has written several books on Classic Hollywood Cinema and no doubt Mr Scorsese's lack of following classic continuity (to some degree at least) does not sit well with him. Moreover, I've seen plenty of films that hold two-shots, etc, and are no good. The editing has to match the film, not simply adhere to Mr Bordwell's "the rules and guidelines of classic continuity". Different horses for different courses.
I think you're being a little too hard on Bordwell. He is, of course, a theorist rather than a reviewer, and I'm surprised he offered such a quickshot judgement of a film, but his observations are dead-on. Although, like you, I love the film, it DOES represent a complete departure for Scorsese in terms of style. I think Bordwell deserves credit for being the first to realize this, even if I disagree with his evaluative assesment of it.
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:09 am
by marty
I feel that people are unnecessarily picking on The Departed for reasons of logic when, let's face it, all films are illogical to some degree. I am sure if we are picky enough and have enough time, we can identify many areas of every film that defies logic or commonsense.
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:24 am
by Anonymous
Abulafia: Thanks for the reply.
Marty: I don't know about other people, but suspension of disbelief can only go so far. It will go as far as you set it up with the characters you have created. For me, it was hard to believe Billy would risk being shot just to bring Colin in himself. He has the evidence and he said he didn't care if he was convicted or not. So why not put the gun down? I really liked the film other than that little bit.
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:02 am
by flyonthewall2983
Somewhat unrelated to the discussion at hand, but I thought it was cool to see Mark Rolston cast in the role that he played. I loved his work in The Shawshank Redemption and Aliens, and think he's underrated as far as a supporting actor goes.
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:58 am
by Abulafia
I take your point GringoTex, although Mr Bordwell is a proponent of post-theory, which more or less proffers middle-level research over and above theory. Moreover, he has himself claimed that it is ridiculous to assert an argument based around one film text, yet, to some degree at least, this is exactly what he seems to be doing here. True, he is probably just venting an opinion like we all do. I think the thing is here that he is a researcher, not a filmmaker, although he seems to feel that he knows how to make a Scorsese film better than Mr Scorsese himself.
What is more, I am not convinced that this is a stylistic departure for Mr Scorsese. While I must confess that the first twenty or so minutes threw me a little, I do not believe that Mr Scorsese's mise-en-scene is simply reducable to his use of longer takes (than the average Hollywood filmmaker (whoever that is)) and tracking shots (nor gangsters and violence for that matter).
Finally, I just want to reiterate a point GringoTex makes which is that Scorsese "was[n't] bothered with the logic of the story." I think this is an important point. While it is too extreme a statement on its own (indeed I think Mr Scorsese was certainly concerned with ensuring the logical flow and form of the narrative), how often do we watch a Godard, a Fellini or, hell, a Michael Bay and something just doesn't seem to make total logical sense. Does every one jump up and down. No. It seems that Mr Scorsese is caught somewhere in the middle of not "entertaining" enough to be purely commercial fun, nor "serious" or "foreign" enough to be art-house.
I guess he's an easy target. Many people, it seems, know how to make a better Scorsese film that Mr Scorsese himself. While I'm not suggesting that he is infallable, personally I think I'd rather stick with his. Ironically, no doubt in fifty years or so everyone will be proclaiming the late stage (assuming that this is it) of Mr Scorsese's career as a high point in his oeuvre. Those who formally derided the films will revisit them and complain that they just don't make films like The Departed anymore like they did in golden days past.
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:12 am
by marty
The Departed will be seen as part of a late and great surge in Scorsese's career but that is not as appreciated now by modern folk. Similarly, Alfred Hitchcock was derided for his later films like Rear Window, North By Northwest, The Birds at the time of their release as opposed to his earlier films but, 20-30 years later, those later films have been hailed as classic masterpieces and amongst Hitchcock's and cinema's best films ever.
If it was any other director other than Scorsese, people would be calling it a masterpiece. Bordwell is criticising Scorsese for his "bad editing". Is he serious? Why does he have to edit according to the rigid confines of Film Editing 101? Are people so clueless and dumb that they have to be spoonfed?
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:22 am
by marty
If it was any other director other than Scorsese, people would be calling it a masterpiece. Bordwell is criticising Scorsese for his "bad editing". Is he serious? Why does he have to edit according to the rigid confines of Film Editing 101? Are people so clueless and dumb that they have to be spoonfed?
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:12 pm
by Len
somewhat offtopic, but I laughed a couple of times:
Martin Scorsese's Next Film To Be Three Hours Of Begging For Oscar
Scorsese has lost to almost every major American filmmaker in his career, including actor–director Kevin Costner, who went on to create Waterworld and The Postman.
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:01 pm
by montgomery
Abulafia wrote:Ironically, no doubt in fifty years or so everyone will be proclaiming the late stage (assuming that this is it) of Mr Scorsese's career as a high point in his oeuvre. Those who formally derided the films will revisit them and complain that they just don't make films like The Departed anymore like they did in golden days past.
marty wrote:The Departed will be seen as part of a late and great surge in Scorsese's career but that is not as appreciated now by modern folk. Similarly, Alfred Hitchcock was derided for his later films like Rear Window, North By Northwest, The Birds at the time of their release as opposed to his earlier films but, 20-30 years later, those later films have been hailed as classic masterpieces and amongst Hitchcock's and cinema's best films ever.
This is a kind of criticism of people's opinions that I cannot stand. "History will judge all you people wrong!" Here you self-righteously proclaim something that hasn't been proven but in such a way that it's impossible to disagree (I could just as easily claim, with as much authority, that this period of Scorsese's work will be judged as his weakest; or that people will eventually decide Guy Ritchie is 10x the filmmaker that Scorsese was [p.s. No, I do not believe that]) . More importantly, so what if future generations appreciate different things than we do? That doesn't prove anyone right. Not only do different generations (much less different people within a generation) like different things, but as time passes, people like to discover and uncover new things, so things that were previously lauded become overrated, and things that were underrated become the new masterpieces. The people who didn't like Van Gogh during his lifetime weren't necessarily idiots, and neither are the people who don't like him now. Just because Hitchcock's later films "have been hailed as classic masterpieces," that doesn't mean that they'll still be hailed as classic masterpieces in 50 years (or that they won't be), and it also doesn't mean that all people today think they're great (also, Hitchcock's last films, i.e. post-Birds, weren't much appreciated then and still aren't much appreciated. It's very likely that at some point those films will be considered his greatest, most mature work, thereby making us the idiot philistines who failed to see the obvious: that Family Plot is 50 times the masterpiece that Strangers On A Train is). The canon changes. People's opinions change for any number of reasons. And most importantly, art is subjective. It seems rather sad that you don't think other people's opinions are valid; and it's rather narcissistic, not to mention misguided, to think that history will eventually validate your own opinion, when you have absolutely no evidence to back you up, other than the fact that other things in the past that have been underappreciated finally got the last laugh (though history's not over yet, so there is no defintiive opinion. Also, The Departed is being hailed as a masterpiece by a majority of people, so I would hardly say that it's "not appreciated now by modern folk." Poor, ignorant modern folk, I just hope that the enlightened people of the future can forgive us our many flaws).
P.S. I like The Departed.
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:23 pm
by jcelwin
Rear Window, North By Northwest, The Birds
Of course everyone loves these movies now, they're all are in colour!!!
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:45 pm
by Abulafia
Abulafia wrote:Ironically, no doubt in fifty years or so everyone will be proclaiming the late stage (assuming that this is it) of Mr Scorsese's career as a high point in his oeuvre. Those who formally derided the films will revisit them and complain that they just don't make films like The Departed anymore like they did in golden days past.
montgomery wrote:This is a kind of criticism of people's opinions that I cannot stand
This wasn't a criticism, merely a shallow remark. Derrrrr.
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:01 am
by jon
The last act kicked ass, unlike Casino's. The extended opening and delayed title was really cool. Everyone was awesome, Leo most notably. Some may think that the characters are a little bit too over the top, but for me, that's what will make them memorable.
The opera scene looked ridiculously cool.
I've run out of terribly juvenile adjectives at least once in this post.
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:16 am
by Andre Jurieu
montgomery wrote:... a tonne of stuff that I completely agree with.
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:20 am
by Darth Lavender
I like Casino's last act (an 'act' in this case refers to the "House of the Rising Sun" sequence)
It was an usual type of plotting/pacing; basically the whole second act was one long climax and then at the end it just completely falls apart (the situation of the characters, not the film itself) skipping the traditional climax entirely and moving straight to something like an epilogue)
Of course, frankly, in the vast majority of traditional films; the climax is the most boring part. Perhaps because I just don't have much interest in action-scenes (I always seem to tune off) or maybe because once the big finale starts; one is so very conscious of the approaching end and just waiting for that ending to arrive (watch kettle never boils kind of mentality)
Certainly, for me, basically all the greatest films (certainly the ones I most enjoy) are those which exist very much in the moment. The films which create a setting, characters, themes, etc. and simply allow us to spend time in that headspace. (Perhaps the best example is The Big Sleep, which has no particularly strong direction or narrative thread, the characters and settings just sort of exist for us to enjoy.)
Back to Casino; aside from being a wonderful scene in and of itself, I just love the way it ties in with the rest of the film's themes and intensity. The characters are in a situation with is *so* out of control that it doesn't even 'explode' in the traditional way, it just stops because the situation can't continue anymore (candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long, kind of thing.)
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:16 pm
by Alonzo the Armless
I assumed that the envelope to Madolyn contained information that she could use to inform Mark Wahlberg's character about Matt Damon's character.
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:14 pm
by Matt
I didn't think that the ending was all that twisty. It's not like anything was revealed at the end that was previously hidden (or that couldn't have been assumed throughout the course of the film, like the recording of conversations).
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:22 pm
by jon
Its not that the ending was twisty, at least for me. It was moreover shocking in that it caught me by surprise about a half-second before I knew what was going to happen... for the most part.
The envelopewas obviously insurance for DiCaprio's character in case he died before he could take down Damon.
DiCaprio was suspicous, but they tested him with the information and none of it was filtered back to Damon. Really, i thought they should have been able to see through some of Damon's behavior more than DiCaprio's. It was stupid how much power they gave him while he was so conspiuously trying to get classified information and talking on the cell phone in the briefing.
I mean, they were suspicous of DiCaprio throughout the film, but Damon's actions were never questionable by anyone, except by Marky Mark.
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:05 pm
by Jun-Dai
I'm talking, I should clarify, about the main *artistic* reason for a remake, the reason someone like Martin Scorsese (as opposed to, say, Brett Ratner) might choose to remake a film, and I think the main opportinity it provides is to create a variation of the original, even taking some elements in the exact opposite direction (the best example that comes to mind, is Scorsese's own Cape Fear, were he eliminated the simple 'good vs evil' elements of the original in order to focus on the flaws of Nick Nolte's character and on the more admirable ambitions (education, etc.) of DeNiro's character.)
Perhaps 'response' isn't the best word; what I mean is to tweak the remake in new and alternative, often opposite, ways.
That makes more sense, but I think there's a big difference between remaking something that's a classic embedded into the same cultural consciousness as you're making your film for (a la
Cape Fear,
Psycho, or
Gone With the Wind (heaven forbid)) and remaking something that belongs to a different language and culture with a relatively small overlap (e.g.,
The Ring,
Insomnia,
The Magnificent Seven).
In the former case, you're much more likely to work off the assumption that your audience has seen the earlier film or knows something about it (much like when adapting a famous novel), and they're coming to your film to revisit it in a sense, not unlike making a sequel. In the latter case, other than the foreign filmophiles that watched the original, you're dealing with a wholly new audience, and you're probably making the film either because your producer figures it's a sure success based on the original film's performance, or because you're unoriginal or lack confidence in your originality and you found something you really liked in the previous film that you'd like to work out for yourself.
In Scorsese's case, I think we can be sure that the producers saw the success of the original story, and Scorsese saw some potential in the synopsis. In this scenario, I ask myself: why would Scorsese want to watch the original film? If anything, watching the original film would make it harder to do the remake, since now you would have the original film in your mind whenever you looked over the script. Easier and better, I think, to simply reimagine the whole thing from the new script.
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:44 pm
by Matt
I know exactly what was in the envelope:
a MacGuffin
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:35 pm
by Cinesimilitude
There was a Dick Cavett interview with Hitchcock on TCM yesterday, and he retold this anecdote:
-Interviewed in 1966 by François Truffaut, Hitchcock illustrated the term "MacGuffin" with this story:
It might be a Scottish name, taken from a story about two men in a train. One man says, 'What's that package up there in the baggage rack?' And the other answers, 'Oh that's a MacGuffin.' The first one asks 'What's a MacGuffin?' 'Well' the other man says, 'It's an apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands.' The first man says, 'But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands,' and the other one answers 'Well, then that's no MacGuffin!'
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:02 am
by jon
Matt wrote:I know exactly what was in the envelope:
a MacGuffin
I guess you could call it that, though we do
basically know what is in it. It isn't like the contents don't matter at all.
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:19 am
by bunuelian
The envelope will tell the story that all the dead people can't tell. But it won't tell the whole story. It also may explain why she walks by Damon after the funeral without looking at him, looking hot and aborted.
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:26 am
by jon
I did get the notion that she might have done that, but it never went anywhere. and whatever was in the envelope could not have had anything to do with the pregnancy, and she never did open it
a non spoiling spoiler?:
i could have sworn i had heard that she was killed at the end of the movie. i really thought she did and was waiting for it. maybe it was cut, maybe i misheard it. but, if she had opened the letter, then aborted, then let damon know, damon's character prbly would have killed her soon after...i duno. but i dont think that what she read in the letter led to her "hot and aborted" feelings, at least from the conclusive evidence represented in the finished product