criterionforum.org

Nothing wrote:...surely a more valuable use of time than passing comment on a mediocre studio release that has already been given far too much column space.

The Departed was worth the ticket price, twice over. How many films can you say that about? Not everything has to be a bone chilling art film. You're probably someone who would prefer everything to be The Squid and the Whale. Count me out of that shit. The Departed was perfect for what it was. It was perfect execution, perfect movie making. Sorry if that's not good enough for some of you. I'll take The Departed over The Aviator any day of the week. Would I take it over Raging Bull or Goodfellas? That doesn't always have to be the question, now does it? If you ask me, the next project DiCaprio and Scorsese do together will be better than their last, and that's all we can hope for.

marty wrote:

Nothing wrote:I would like you to consider that Benning is one of America's most valuable filmmakers, with a career as long as Scorsese, and yet Rosenbaum is one of the few American critics to watch/review/champion his work - surely a more valuable use of time than passing comment on a mediocre studio release that has already been given far too much column space.

That's fine if that's all that Rosenbaum does. Yet, while he despises Hollywood mainstream films and Oscar winners, he still reviews films like Crash and The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D.

I know I'm not part of this discussion but are you thinking about the same Rosenbaum as I am? He consistently gives high ratings to Hollywood films. On his favourite films list, just from the past few years he has listed a De Palma film, a Spike Lee film and Down With Love! You might not agree with his last blog on the oscars and The Departed (which is obviously what this is really about) but let's not get carried away and dismiss everything he has to say and how he says it.

Nothing wrote:I would like you to consider that Benning is one of America's most valuable filmmakers, with a career as long as Scorsese, and yet Rosenbaum is one of the few American critics to watch/review/champion his work - surely a more valuable use of time than passing comment on a mediocre studio release that has already been given far too much column space.

There are two flaws with this. Benning is more-or-less an experimental filmmaker with a fairly small, specialized demographic. Martin Scorsese is a a monumentally popular and critically-esteemed mainstream narrative filmmaker. Trying to compare the coverage of each of their respective work isn't really fair, regardless on your feelings of the merit of one vs. the other.

Secondly, aside from Marty, I don't think anybody is annoyed that Rosenbaum hasn't seen The Departed or even that he doesn't plan to see it, it's that he's been so insistent on projecting his apathy to everyone who will listen. He doesn't even seem to know why he doesn't want to see it, he just wants to make sure everyone knows he hasn't been phased by all of the critical acclaim it's received -- and let's not pretend that it's accolades begin and end with the Oscars; it's received startlingly good press from the moment it was released, even being placed, I believe, #3 on the IndieWIRE poll of critics of similar mind to Rosenbaum. He even goes so far as to sarcastically ask his readers to explain to him why he should bother watching it, when there are thousands of pieces available for him to read (including raves by any number of his friends and respected colleagues).

It just seems he's being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. Rosenbaum's an extremely valuable film critic, but he's often guilty of childishness, and this certainly seems to be one of those occasions.

A journalist who responds only to mass-marketed phenomena might possibly claim the title cultural commentator, but hardly that of critic or arbiter of taste. The Indiewire poll surely speaks only of the paucity of real American film criticism in 2006. It seems that virtually all serious cinema is for a 'small, specialized demographic' these days

Titus wrote:It just seems he's being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. Rosenbaum's an extremely valuable film critic, but he's often guilty of childishness, and this certainly seems to be one of those occasions.

Very well said, Titus. Rosenbaum is often an enjoyable read (His Essential Cinema is great, if often frustrating), but childish is certainly the right descriptor for him. He can't resist shouting to the rooftops that he is above the fray at every opportunity. His refusal to see The Departed (because it was released by a motion picture studio? because it was directed by Scorsese? -- I still don't understand) is silly and bizarre, considering his chosen profession, but it is his insistence that everyone acknowledge and perhaps applaud the fact that he has chosen not to see it that borders on pathetic.

Rosenbaum isn't necessarily opposed to expensive commercial films in general. He, however, is only interested in those that the rest of America doesn't see or doesn't "get." This is especially true when they are directed by his friend Joe Dante. Witness Rosenbaum's four-star take on Dante's "masterpiece" Small Soldiers.

Nothing wrote:A journalist who responds only to mass-marketed phenomena might possibly claim the title cultural commentator, but hardly that of critic or arbiter of taste. The Indiewire poll surely speaks only of the paucity of real American film criticism in 2006. It seems that virtually all serious cinema is for a 'small, specialized demographic' these days

I don't see how it can be argued that these critics only gave positive reviews to The Departed because it was "mass-marketed" or a "phenomenon." The reviews were written after press screenings, long-before the movie had been marketed or seen by the public at all.

Are you suggesting that Rosenbaum is the last man standing in terms of serious film criticism? He likes his fair share of expensive, studio-funded, genre films too -- as long as no one else likes them.

oh no, I wouldn't say that. I haven't seen the poll in question but I'm sure that, if you break it down into individual contributors, there are a lot of interesting picks. However, it does seem the case that, whenever a poll like this is taken, certain widely 'accepted' titles tend to rise to top like a rotten egg. Another tedious example recently would be The Death of Mr. Lazarescu

Nothing wrote:However, it does seem the case that, whenever a poll like this is taken, certain widely 'accepted' titles tend to rise to top like a rotten egg. Another tedious example recently would be The Death of Mr. Lazarescu

I managed to see The Death of Mr Lazarescu recently on DVD and I could see the merits in the film with a great central performance but I was quite underwhelmed by the end of it. Have I missed anything? Does it require another viewing? Please say no, it doesn't!

Hmm, these comments from Rosenbaum's Inland Empire review have me reconsidering...

Many of my colleagues believe Lynch's best early feature is Blue Velvet (1986), which I regard as a gripping but limited piece of designer porn. Like his more offensive Wild at Heart and his more charming TV series Twin Peaks (both 1990), Blue Velvet offers a vivid illustration of how a man can turn his most lurid puritanical obsessions into clout and big money -- and get an audience to wallow in those obsessions without thinking about them very hard.

Is this turning into Jonathan Rosenbaum thread?

Well, it long ago ceased being "The Departed" thread.

I have not yet watched the Departed but have seen the previous Martys and after watching Casino again last week (in a gorgoues HD disc) I have to think this must be his ultimate reflection on hubris and the state of America. And his last great movie. The subsequent pictures are like empty, indeed futile excercises to me.

David, I used to think Casino was Scorsese's last great film. Not anymore. The Departed took over that position. Do find some time to watch this sublime film. Like Casino, it's a mafia film but it's just as different as much as Casino's different than Goodfellas. The Departed is the most entertaining, deliciously fucked up film Scorsese has made in a long, long time.. since Casino I must say.

But anyway, I just finished watching Infernal Affairs and I was amazed at how much The Departed's script followed the "blueprint" of that Hong Kong film. So what exactly did the screenwriter of The Departed win the Oscar for? Yes, he added some wonderful, unexpected humor to the script.. but there has to be more than that in order for him to win the Oscar, no?

Well, if I remember Infernal Affairs correctly, it lacked the political overtones of The Departed. Also - and correct me if I'm wrong - the relationship between Costigan and Costello was nowhere near as developed. Also, the Asian film was nowhere near as nihilist as this film is.

As far as following the "blueprint", well it was a remake, but I think The Departed is far richer, more visceral film than it's Asian counterpart.

Antoine Doinel wrote:As far as following the "blueprint", well it was a remake, but I think The Departed is far richer, more visceral film than it's Asian counterpart.

It's about bloody time someone came out and said this. I think The Departed has received more than enough acclaim but I don't think it's been acknowledged enough for being such a good remake. Probably because it's a remake of a foreign film and a wildly overrated one. Scorsese follows the original very closely but has a film that is 100 times better.

Late to the debate here. Pretty good on the whole, but this can't hold a candle to Scorsese's best works. It felt somewhat impersonal, both stylistically and thematically (the deepest it got was the old cop-or-criminal-what's-the-difference chestnut). It's also Hollywood to the extreme (the hopelessly cliched female shrink character who slows the movie down; deus ex machina bloke coming out of nowhere to kill Leo; Wahlberg waiting in the apartment, etc). Even though I enjoyed all three lead performances, they were characters you were involved in only in the broadest, movie-ish sense. Compare them with the terrifying realism and depth of the Liotta, De Niro and Pesci characters in GOODFELLAS, and it's clear how far Marty has fallen. His moviemaking doesn't burrow under your skin anymore, but the film is still leagues better than anything he's done for a while.

deus ex machina bloke coming out of nowhere to kill Leo

You seem to miss the obvious irony, that the deus ex machina, as you call it, actually arrives to kill, and not save, the hero; and that the situation was in no way resolved by his actions, nor did it necessarily need to be resolved by an outside figure. The show could still have proceeded in many different directions without that sudden shot. And certainly you can't be saying that the movie needed Leo to be killed (deus ex machinas are there to perform a needed action that cannot otherwise occur).

I also don't see how Whalberg waiting in the apartment to murder Damon in cold blood is "Hollywood," since the idea that good triumphs by just means is a far more Hollywood sentiment than what the Departed offers.

As for the shrink, we'll just have to disagree about cliches there.

Mr_sausage wrote:You seem to miss the obvious irony, that the deus ex machina, as you call it, actually arrives to kill, and not save, the hero; and that the situation was in no way resolved by his actions, nor did it necessarily need to be resolved by an outside figure. The show could still have proceeded in many different directions without that sudden shot. And certainly you can't be saying that the movie needed Leo to be killed (deus ex machinas are there to perform a needed action that cannot otherwise occur).

I don't think it was played for irony. And even I wouldn't be so reductive of the film to consider DiCaprio's character simply a "hero." The resolution smacked more of narrative desperation, especially considering that yes, I'd say the worldview of the film absolutely demanded that Leo's character die.

I also don't see how Wahlberg waiting in the apartment to murder Damon in cold blood is "Hollywood," since the idea that good triumphs by just means is a far more Hollywood sentiment than what the Departed offers.

I don't necessarily mean what the act achieved. I mean how it was achieved. An easy, predictable scene, followed by the winking shot of the rat. Pretty sophomoric.

rs98762001 wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:You seem to miss the obvious irony, that the deus ex machina, as you call it, actually arrives to kill, and not save, the hero; and that the situation was in no way resolved by his actions, nor did it necessarily need to be resolved by an outside figure. The show could still have proceeded in many different directions without that sudden shot. And certainly you can't be saying that the movie needed Leo to be killed (deus ex machinas are there to perform a needed action that cannot otherwise occur).

I don't think it was played for irony. And even I wouldn't be so reductive of the film to consider DiCaprio's character simply a "hero." The resolution smacked more of narrative desperation, especially considering that yes, I'd say the worldview of the film absolutely demanded that Leo's character die.

I never said it was played for irony (although something that occurs which is exactly the opposite of what is expected to occur does count as irony). The irony was in your statement.

And, fine, hero wasn't the most accurate choice of words; but Costigan's morals are clear, especially with comparison to Damon's, which are manifestly not. He is the most sympathetic character, and the one we would prefer to come out of things alright.

Finally, how exactly can a "world view" demand anything? That is an entirely meaningless statement. And I'll certainly disagree with you that anything was "resolved," or that somehow Costigan's death was "narrative desperation," because frankly the narrative set up numerous means by which Costigan could have been killed. So, no, this was not the only way to end his character (I thought it was fairly inspired to make it so sudden and without melodrama).

rs98762001 wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:I also don't see how Wahlberg waiting in the apartment to murder Damon in cold blood is "Hollywood," since the idea that good triumphs by just means is a far more Hollywood sentiment than what the Departed offers.

I don't necessarily mean what the act achieved. I mean how it was achieved. An easy, predictable scene, followed by the winking shot of the rat. Pretty sophomoric.

How it was achieved is Hollywood? How so? How was it easy? Are you merely assuming that because Damon is killed, and in a manner where you are not privy to the actions of the other side, that the movie is killing him for the sake of giving the audience justice? Again, how so? Sullivan's death is empty; it offers no justice nor peace nor resolution. The damage is irreparable. As for him walking in to find Dignan waiting in his home, that is hardly contrived. For it to be contrived you would have to maintain that it is unlikely for anyone to come home to find someone has broken into their house or apartment and is waiting for them. A hard position to maintain. To be honest, it is far easier and sophomoric to give your villain a big, cathartic death scene than to just kill him unexpectedly. To resist such a payoff is the antithesis of "easy."

I wouldn't disagree about the shot of the rat, although there are a few on here who have given a good defense of it.

rs98762001 wrote:...reductive ...smacked ...sophomoric.

Trite.

Having just watched it again tonight, what I love about the film is its Boston setting. The film lives, breathes and shits Boston, albeit South Boston. I live in Melbourne (Australia) and recently saw Billy Crystal's 700 Sundays performance and he thinks Melbourne resembles Boston as both cities have rivers running through it and he is right. Boston as seen in the film definitely looks a lot like Melbourne, not so much in its suburbs but definitely in the heart of the city.

The film is also infused with the presence of real-life Boston gangster Whitey Bulger who, amazingly, is still at large and is in FBI's Most Wanted List. I wonder if he is going to see the film.

Also, Matt Damon is excellent as are all the performances but there hasn't been much mention of Damon's performance in any reviews I have read. He manages to convey the sinister side of his characters in just a simple stare. He looks almost demonic in some scenes.

marty wrote:Having just watched it again tonight, what I love about the film is its Boston setting. The film lives, breathes and shits Boston, albeit South Boston.

I know some of it was filmed near me, in Brooklyn, New York.

From IMDB:

Nicholson's Fire Threat To Scorsese
11 June 2008 5:15 AM, PDT

Hollywood actor Jack Nicholson once threatened to set fire to the movie set of 2006 film The Departed - after director Martin Scorsese asked him to think up ideas for a scene.

The star admits that when Scorsese asked him to come up with a few suggestions for the next day's filming, his imagination ran wild and he seriously considered burning down the set in a spectacular stunt.

But Nicholson's rational side took over, and in the end he didn't go through with his idea.

He recalls, "I didn't sleep that night. Next day, I asked the prop man to get me a gun... I also asked him to get a fire extinguisher.

"That's what happens when you set me loose. I was literally planning to set the set on fire."

If only Rob Reiner had set him loose on the set of The Bucket List.

I wish he had burnt down The Departed set!:P It was another awful, forgettable studio pic from one of American cinema's most overrated directors.

The Queen lost. Get over it

flyonthewall2983 wrote:The Queen lost. Get over it

Good one!

A prequel and sequel are in early development.