The Blog

Well it's definitely the best Michael Mann movie Scorses has ever made ...

I share your sense of outrage at the general complacency about the frightening situation the world is facing. I'm delighted about the major Kiarostami retrospective starting tomorrow at MoMA in New York, yet I can't help being reminded of Bush's insane policies toward Iran.

I'm less surprised that you haven't seen "The Departed" (it's superficial and instantly forgettable) than I am that you actually watched the Oscars.

Can we really blame The Academy Awards for not talking about Bush's crimes against humanity? After all the Oscars have always been a "happy ending" in the massage parlor that is the motion picture charnel house. And speaking of Michael Mann: I think more damage was done to America by his montage than Ellen DeGeneres' lame monologue. What was anybody thinking when they allowed his operatic.... er... diarrhetic "montage" to be unleashed upon anyone's eyeballs. Don't these people (The Academy producers, Michael Mann, et al) know that you can't unsee things? It might have been the worst montage ever assembled... one notch above the montage in Sylvester Stallone's "COBRA" where he goes about "rousting sickos"

I think these comments are a bit drastic. While for years I have repected J.R. and the READER in general, how in the world has he not scene "The Departed." I mean, it's not nearly as great as many other of Scorsese's movies, but come on. I thought a film critic is supposed to see everything. Instead of asking us idiots (the public) what's so great about this Boston gangster picture, why don't you just sit down for 3 hours and watch it yourself. As far as the best picture nominees, I thought it was the right choice.

Drastic or utterly predictable? I'm surprised to have the thought that a roomful of Hollywood celebrities would have better taste and discretion than a well-regarded film critic, but it appears that they know recognize that every anti-Bush comment made in public appears shrill and whining and actually does more to hurt most of the Hollywood liberal set's causes than it does to advance them. And I say this as a bona fide liberal.

Joseph Campanella wrote: "I thought a film critic is supposed to see everything." That's obviously impossible. And if you meant to say "I thought a film critic is supposed to see everything mass-marketed by a Hollywood corporation", then you have little understanding of Jonathan's value as a critic. That said, I'm surprised by Jonathan's expectation that the Oscars reflect "the world’s collective cinematic wisdom." The Oscars is little more than a spectacle which shares the Bush administration's raison d'etre of generating revenue for its sponsors. It has little to offer those of us interested in the art of cinema -- not only does it focus on actors, but as an added dose of absurdity, trying so very hard to mimic the sports industry, it segregates male acting races from female acting races.

I also think it's strange (to say the least) that Rosenbaum hasn't seen “The Departed”, and probably will never do it. Specially because it's a great movie about how weak can a film be when it takes psychological matters seriously. In a way, “The Departed” is Scorsese apologizing about that last image of “The Aviator”, when we see Howard Hugues’ mother appearing as a flashback on the mirror while Di Caprio washes compulsively his hands: such a shameless shot, when Scorsese shows us he believes deeply in the most questionable of Freud’s theories, “just blame it all on mama, ‘cause that explains the hole thing”. So for the next film he chooses a script based on the plainest regional cinema of today’s world, Hong Kong (and I don’t mean that in a bad way). The place where characters are just pixels kicking and shooting guns over the negative, no depth what so ever, ‘cause it’s really stupid to except such thing from a movie: cinema is, by nature, a plain and superficial thing – the screen is flat, the negative either, the profundity is pure illusion, is created by a lens trick (we’ve known that since Welles). It’s amazing what Scorsese does with this material, how shallow he can turn a movie just by living intensively the shallowness of his characters. And, to be clear about it, he even includes a female character to incorporate, at the same time, the mother and Psychology, the shrink played by Vera Farmiga and, well, she’s literally screwed by both the protagonists. (did you noticed how desperate I am to convince Rosenbaum to see this film?) About the Michael Mann montage at the Oscars, well, when you put “Once Upon a Time in America” as your first image, and then you connect that with a scene from Malick’s “The New World”, the natives first contact with the whites, that certifies you really GET what’s the image of American on film. Last thing about the Oscars: if you count the time of all the Sergio Leone’s films scenes that were shown in many segments of the show, you’re gonna get a higher number that Jennifer Hudson’s acceptance speech. That, to me, made the hole thing worthy. And as a brazilian guy who’s been watching the hole war-against-terror issue just shocked and really sad about what it represents to the term “civilization”, I’m just glad to see the words “Bush” and “dictator” putted in the same sentence.

My favorite aspect of this year’s Oscars was the excuse to invite some friends over, cook up a good meal, drink some good wine, talk through most of it, and afterwards talk about our own possible future film projects – having already forgot most of the show itself. Maybe a better answer to Bush & Co.’s criminal/anti-democratic/non-constitutional war mongering activities is to refuse to hold the Oscars until… until I don’t know what, but it would be like boycotting the 1980 Olympics because the host, CCCP, invaded Afghanistan – oooh that’s ironic! Still, I watched the Oscars, including the red carpet on E! and I liked Ellen’s hosting even though it was rather milquetoast. I’m just a happy/sad junkie. And yet, why is so much given over to something that comes across as so trite when it obviously could be so much better? The whole “going green” thing paled in comparison to actually taking a stand on or for something grander. But the real point of the Oscars is to re-advertise and reward films for increased bottom-line revenues. In that light the Oscars could still have been better I’m sure. The other best aspect of this year’s show was The Daily Show’s response.

no one can see everything. but how exactly is the corporate movie exec denying the american public the opportunity to see better stuff--based on his or her ignorance or disinterest--much different from the movie critic denying the american public his or her opinion due to ignorance and disinterest?

Jonathan, you don't missed much just Scorsese doing another 60's bloat without any sense of scale or rhythm, not that far from The Aviator. Somehow, I doubt that if Jonathan had said that he missed, let's say, A Good Year, that he would be getting much of hard time. And as much as I might enjoy to read the likely mixed review that he would have wrote; I can see knowing his personal taste, how after taking a look in previews and reviews, he decide to skipped.

Well, there's nothing special about departed, unless you're the director's fan or simply wanna jump on the bandwagon. The best quality of films like that, they are pretty forgettable, no risk involved. So watch, then forget. The main reason for directorial oscar i suppose is to complete biographical happy-ending chapter in Scorsese's book. In my opinion the only US best picture that truly deserved Oscar was Richard Linklater's Fast Food Nation. I have a question to Jonathan and to others at hands with film festivals. Have you seen Ulrike Ottinger's Taiga and do you know is it available in any form anywhere other than 16mm print? Is it in the same league with other very best 'long' pictures such as Berlin Alexanderplatz, Dekalog, Heimat, Out 1, Satantango?

I'd be curious to know what the specific reasons are for Rosenbaum boycotting "The Departed." I read the transcript of his conversation with Molly Haskell and he said something like "Harvey Weinstein and Martin Scorsese should feel free to make any kind of film they want to make as long as I don't have to see it." Does Rosenbaum make a point of refusing to see every film wherein he has a problem with the people who made it? And what is the problem with Scoresese? How is he a "Miramax puppet" as Rosenbaum put it once? Continuing to call attention to the fact that he hasn't seen the film and "isn't convinced he's missing anything" seems to have a weird parallel with people like William Donahue of the Catholic League and other rabid right wingers of his ilk who constantly draw attention to themselves over whatever cinematic "outrage" they're boycotting usually without having seen the film. If I had the choice I'd rather read a review wherein Rosenbaum dismissed The Departed as the work of a "Miramax puppet" and all that having actually you know SEEN the film then just making statements to Variety and the Rader's blog about how he isn't sure yet that he wants to.

There are so many incredible films out there. Perhaps he doesn't have time to waste seeing something so middle of the road and unimportant, when he could be telling us about life changing, beautiful films. Why do you need him to see this film so bad, if you already think you know how he would respond. Is that the point of a film critic? And I don't think this is a boycott, its seems a lot more like (with good reason) apathy. Don't watch it. I hope not to as well.

The bush administration has changed the country profoundly. For the worse. For instance how likely do you think it is that even if a democrat wins the presidency in 2008 that the patriot Act will be rescinded. These things always seem to be easy to pass and impossible to get rid of. While I don't think it is possible even for this group to invade Iran I would not rule out another Shock and Awe episode. Who knew that the botched 2000 election would lead to the permanent decline of the country.

Hi Jonathan- I felt something was deeply wrong Sunday night when, for the first time in my 26 years on this planet, my favorite film of the year won Best Picture. I was actually quite horrified. Funny thing is, I wouldn't even call myself a Scorsese fan. But I believe THE DEPARTED to be his best film since THE KING OF COMEDY and one of the great crime dramas of all time. My first thought after seeing it was - and I'm not kidding - "Wow, that was better than Richard III." Okay, I know, but... And indeed, I believe it is exactly the kind of movie/screenplay Shakespeare would be making today. The detached but empathetic eye, the steamrolling forward momentum, the Master Hand, every moment feeling absolutely necessary, with utmost mastery/control of every element, at each moment, all at once; not far at all from Shakespeare's thrilling masterpieces of moral decay. Shakespeare, Mamet and Pop Art. That's the blend here, I feel. It is pared-down Scorsese (it's the bloated style of Goodfellas that is truly banal) and a Masterpiece of American Cinema. It is the sad sight of people trapped in evil, the thrill of power, too frozen to cry, pushed inevitably towards The End. I finished MISS LONELYHEARTS the other day, a book that thrilled/chilled me to the bone book. Somehow my Internet research on it took me to a quote by Nathanael West, which perfectly sums up my feelings about THE DEPARTED: "Few things are sadder than the truly monstrous." I do hope you will give the film a chance one day. It deserves, at least, your attention. Best, Stephen PS - This is my first comment to a blog posting ever. Weird.

In response to Todd: Okay, a film has to be "life changing" and "beautiful" before he should review it? Are you sure about that? Wouldn't that negate the point of criticism if a critic only picked out films to see that he could actively endorse made by filmmakers and cast with actors that he felt had sufficient integrity for him to find worthy of reviewing? That's absurd. I remember him liking "Hitch" and "Maid in Manhattan" - were those life changing and beautiful films for him or you? I sort of doubt it. Second of all, I don't know how he would respond to the film. I was being hypothetical in suggesting that, for me, having him dismiss the film wholeheartedly having SEEN it would be more worthwhile than reading various reports published in various outlets about how "apathetic" he is to the notion of seeing it. Still, though, I'm genuinely curious as to what the specific "good reasons" for the apathy over the film from you guys as it would at least help qualify an apathetic dismissal of a film gone unseen by its critics (in your case).

It's nice that ol' Marty got his pseudo-Lietime-Achievement-Award, but seriously, people, "The Departed" sucked snake eggs. Okay, to be fair: "The Departed" was a great a movie and well worth seeing when it was a Hong Kong movie called "Infernal Affairs" P.S. The problem with Harvey "Final Cut" Weinstein is that he's an assassin of cinema

Okay, so Harvey Weinstein butchers films. So then what about films that were made at Columbia under Harry Cohn? Would you make a point of not seeing "The Lady From Shanghai" because the final cut was heartlessly taken away from Welles? Is that really a good reason not to see a movie, because you don't like the producer?!

No: not liking a producer is not a good reason not to see a movie, but it certainly is a good reason not to make one with him (E.G. Marty Scorsese)

I think Christopher Doyle is the only reason to favor INFERNAL AFFAIRS. However, I don't think J.R. is missing anything by not watching it because I think the moral system that the film evokes (or lacks) is contrary to what he values in other movies. Whereas IA had a good guy playing a bad guy and a bad guy playing a good guy leaving intact categories of good and bad; by making Jack Nicholson himself an FBI informant, THE DEPARTED collapses any hopes of distiguishing between good and bad, law and outlaw. Also I had some interest in Matt Damon's upwardly mobile motivations being indistinguishable from his search for a father figure (whereas Andy Lau just wanted to be a thug until he didn't want to be a thug).

Matt: Seriously, give Mr. Rosenbaum a break. He just does not want to see the movie, plain and simple (in addition to any art film that Harvey Weinstein endorses, I guess). I do not know exactly how his job goes as a critic, but I have a feeling that he has the freedom to select the films he wants to see. He should spend his time any which way he wants to. After all, one is free to decide whether or not the concept of a movie and the publicity material surrounding it are enough to convince him/her to spend a few hours in the darkness of a theater. Life is already too short. Sometimes you just have to go with your gut feeling of whether or not to see a movie. Mr. Rosenbaum's gut tells him "no". I don't think he needs to explain further. He's gracious enough to admit that even he might be wrong about his decision: "But if I'm wrong--if there's something exceptional or different about this movie that's being recognized--could somebody explain what is it?" Maybe it would be better if you argued your case for The Departed (assuming that you think it's worth a look) instead?

The thing about "The Darted" that J.R. and many of you respondents seem to have missed is that its one of the few films last year that became a box office hit in the US purely on word of mouth. People really responded to the movie .. it was talked about, quoted, recommended. In fact, it was the movie's success as a pop phenomenon that got it nominated in the first place, and likely accounted for its win against four other movies that, whatever their merits, didn't strike much of a chord with anybody. Regardless of its merits as a Scorsese film or Miramax release, I think its reasonable to assert that something in the movie got under people's skin. My guess is that the "something" is the movie's provocative attitude toward poverty and work ... for example, its equating of poverty with moral corruption and its assertion that being good at your job constitutes character regardless of your behavior. Cathartic stuff for a middle class in decline.

John S said "its one of the few films last year that became a box office hit in the US purely on word of mouth." Are you serious?!? A report last week noted that "'The Departed' spent $40.3 million in advertising from January through November 2006." (That $40.3M seems about average, since the industry's average three years earlier was $34.8M.) Plus, it had celebrity actors, a celebrity director, and raves from mainstream movie whores, er, critics.

Don't see it. A waste of time. I laughed at the ridiculousness of the last 5 minutes. And Bush is a dictator.

Something no one else has mentioned. . . Harvey Weinstein had NOTHING to do with this movie. Neither did Miramax/the Weinstein Co. "Gangs of New York" and "The Aviator" were both Miramax films, but this was released by Warner Bros. Whatever anyone's feelings about the film are, at least get the credits right.

You could make up for no one criticizing Bush at the Oscars by working a criticism into every review you write.

Never thought we would be talking about the Oscars here, I thought this is fodder for hacks that post when JR doesn't... Anyway, I didn't see the show so I can't comment on the lack of Bush jokes, but I enjoyed The Lives of Others...not as much as Pans Labyrinth though. As for The Departed, I admire Scorsese but this film is pretty lame and nowhere near as fun as The Aviator. Not shocking that Mr. Agenda hasn't seen it..

"The Departed" is kind of like Oklahoma City. So long as I am never required to, I know I will never visit Oklahoma City. Why? Because, there will always be somewhere else I would rather go. Is this ignorance? I would call it hedging my bets in a rather short life. Rosenbaum could waste three hours watching "The Departed," or spend that time watching something of more mysterious interest, reading a book, or taking a walk outside.

I think Colbert's performance at the national press club dinner is not unrelated to the silence about Bush. As much as the world clearly enjoyed it, I think it had something of a chilling effect; as a result, has-been Rich Little is hosting this year's dinner and has basically said he can't make fun of Bush. I think Colbert's roast reminded people that political humor can be dangerous, and I think people are a bit jumpy.

Was your 2nd question meant as sarcasm or are you truly unable to think of a reason why Hollywood and ABC would want the movie-going world to labor under the delusion that world cinema is a collection of bana cliched tearjerkers?

"Okay, to be fair: "The Departed" was a great a movie and well worth seeing when it was a Hong Kong movie called 'Infernal Affairs'" i think you've hit it on the head--if "The Departed" were a Hong Kong film, JR might not only have seen it, he might've liked it. in all seriousness it's a much better movie than "The Aviator," at least. (which i liked, but.) and its absolute emptiness/formalism/moral centerlessness is crucial to what it's trying to do--i'd say stephen and rodrigo are on the right track, and i'd add to their four cents (again) overtones of michael mann, recent korean and japanese stuff (as well as the obvious hong kong connection), and jean-pierre melville et al. (and as far as "Infernal Affairs" goes, what can i say, i like "A Fistful of Dollars" and "Yojimbo," wouldn't want to have missed either of 'em.)

ps "The Departed" also features some of matt & leo's finest work.

Rosenbaum. PLEASE SEE THIS DAMN MOVIE AND TELL US WHAT YOU THINK. As for all of you who write long-winded responses, get over it. We get it. You've seen a lot of independant and world cinema. SO HAVE I. But it still doesn't make me hate movies like the Departed, simply because it comes out of the Hollywood system. I for one, LOVE MOVIES.

I like The Departed; same time I'm cool with Jonathan not seeing it. It's not Scorsese's best, but I prefer it over the original (the original film, not the entire trilogy--that's apples and oranges) with reservations (DiCaprio, fine as he is is not Tony Leung). The Oscars are over? Huh.

Did Rosenbaum perchance notice that in addition to winning its (sure, meaningless) Oscar, The Departed also topped Film Comment's year-end poll for 2006—a survey of fellow critics whose collective taste clearly runs to the highbrow and adventurous? Crash this movie ain't.

I can't recall how many years its been since Jonathan has liked ANYTHING that Marty has directed. Suffice to say he wouldn't like The Departed, and would probably dismiss it in two sentences.

(To David E.): Not true. I adored Scorsese's MY VOYAGE TO ITALY, and even included it on my list of 1000 favorites. Sorry I was in error about Harvey Weinstein being in charge of THE DEPARTED; since he produced the previous two Scorsese films, I was beginning to think it was a semipermanent marriage. So if Scorsese doesn't include Jack Nicholson or Harvey Weinstein in the credits of his next movie, it's more likely I'll want to see it.

What have you got against Jaaaaaack? I find him peerlessly funny (offscreen as well as on)

While I can sympathize with Mr. Rosenbaum's frustration when faced with the critical haze of reverence surrounding the very inconsistent body of Scorcese's work, I can't help but be reminded of a similar mist that envelopes the sloppy, flashy, intellectual puerile, politically naive work of Jean-Luc Goddard. Like Scorcese, Goddard is a moderately talented artist the quality of whose work greatly depends on the abilities of his collaborators. However, if Mr. Rosenbaum is interested in reading a thoughtful apreciation of The Departed I would like to recommend Jean-Pierre Gorin's artical in the November 2006 issue of Film Comment. As for the Academy Awards ceremony and the silence regarding Bush II, given the way in which the government has been subsumed by the Entertainment Industry it is not difficult to understand. The Academy Awards are a celebration of success and George W.'s current spectacular is not.

"Rosenbaum. PLEASE SEE THIS DAMN MOVIE AND TELL US WHAT YOU THINK. As for all of you who write long-winded responses, get over it. We get it. You've seen a lot of independant and world cinema. SO HAVE I. But it still doesn't make me hate movies like the Departed, simply because it comes out of the Hollywood system. I for one, LOVE MOVIES. " Hmm, someone forgot to take his pills :) I don't think any of the comments have taken a condescending stance towards Hollywood movies. Most of them just did say that they did not like The Departed. I don't think that's equivalent to a sweeping dismissal of Hollywood. I think everyone on this thread loves movies just as much, Hollywood or not. It's just pretty clear that Mr. Rosenbaum simply DOES NOT want to see this film. And who says that he has to? Mr. Ehrenstein makes a good point. I don't think Mr. Rosenbaum has ever been a real admirer of Martin Scorsese. In his list of 1000 favorite movies, he names only My Voyage to Italy and The King of Comedy. He also does mention at least liking Gangs of New York and Kundun (check out his lists here hxxp://www.chicagoreader.com/movies/index.html), though his opinion on them might have changed over the years.

I for one never meant to imply that I thought Rosenbaum needed to see the film. Only that, if we are to take his criticism seriously, he needs to see a movie before he announces his outright dismissal of it. The fact that it has been confirmed that one of the principal objections he had to his publicized "resolve" to not seeing the film was the supposed involvement of a collaborator who, as it turns out, had nothing to do with the making of the Departed makes his views on this film he hasn't seen entirely moot - something to expect when you smugly criticise without knowing what you're talking about. Shoddy journalism, shoddy criticism. Mr. Rosenbaum, I'm glad you apologized for your error but this entire episode makes you look like an ass. If anyone's curious about the original quote of dismissal made to his own colleagues about it here it is: I've resolved not to see the film -- and haven't felt in the least bit deprived as a result -- figuring that Scorsese and Harvey Weinstein and Jack Nicholson should be left free to do whatever they want with and to one another, just as long as I'm not obliged to pay attention to the results.

Sorry for sounding like an apologist, but, well, I don't think any sort of legitimate criticism has actually been attempted on Mr. Rosenbaum's part. Shoddy journalism? Sure. But shoddy criticism? He hasn't even started writing any regarding The Departed. I take his statements about the movie to be more of assumptions or precautions than anything else. And I certainly won't fault him for that. It's akin to, say, my refusal to pay good money to watch any film by Soderbergh or with Julia Roberts in it. Does that invalidate my opinion of dismissing any possibility of seeing their films? If Mr. Rosenbaum had called The Departed a bad film outright, then that would have been shoddy criticism, and he would justifiably have been an ass. As of now, he's just saying that he "feels" it will be a film he would not like. No real harm done to The Departed, really.

Jason G: You're right that compared to, say, "Half Nelson," this movie had all kinds of help, although 20-something percent drops in per-screen attendance over its first few weeks of release suggest either strong word of mouth or a perfect storm ... but all this aside ... Let's say that *hypothetically* there was more grassroots support for "The Departed" than "The Prestige" or "Babel" or Eastwood's Iwo Jima movies. Wouldn't that be reason alone to spend three hours with it? All I'm really suggesting is that the auteur theory might not be the the most useful way to approach this movie.

Jason G: You're right that compared to, say, "Half Nelson," this movie had all kinds of help, although 20-something percent drops in per-screen attendance over its first few weeks of release suggest either strong word of mouth or a perfect storm ... but all this aside ... Let's say that *hypothetically* there was more grassroots support for "The Departed" than "The Prestige" or "Babel" or Eastwood's Iwo Jima movies. Wouldn't that be reason alone to spend three hours with it? All I'm really suggesting is that the auteur theory might not be the the most useful way to approach this movie.

Jonathan, Given your stated preference for "The King of Comedy" and "Kundun" over "Taxi Driver," "Raging Bull" and "GoodFellas," there's precious little to recommend "The Departed" to you. To be honest I'm shocked at the amount of attention (both positive and negative) that this film has received, since I think at best it's middle grade among Scorsese's films. Yet somehow it's this film that has become emblematic of the director's entire body of work.

>>Subject: The Rest of the Story >> >>Do you know? >> >> I didn't know! >> >>How could we? >> >> Did you know that 47 countries' have reestablished their >>embassies in Iraq? >> >> Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 >>million Iraqi people? >> >> >> Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, >> >>364 schools are under rehabilitation, >> >>263 new schools are now under construction >> >>and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq? >> >> Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of >>20 Universities, >> >>46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, >> >>all currently operating? >> >> Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United State >>s in January 2005 >> >>for the re-established Fulbright program? >> >> Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? >> >>They have 5 - 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval >>infantry regiment. >> >> Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational >>squadrons, >> >>which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft >> >>(under Iraqi operational control) >> >>which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters >>and 4 Bell Jet Rangers? >> >> Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a >>Commando Battalion? >> >> Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 >> >>fully trained and equipped police officers? >> >> Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq >> >>that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks? >> >> Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on >>in Iraq? >> >>They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 >>railroad stations, >> >>22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical >>facilities. >> >> Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 >> >>have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations? >> >> Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in >>primary school by mid October? >> >> Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in >>Iraq >> >>and phone use has gone up 158%? >> >> Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of >>75 radio stations, >> >>180 newspapers and 10 television stations? >> >> Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of >>2004? >> >> Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election >>had a televised debate recently? >> >> OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW! >> >> >>WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW? >> >>OUR MEDIA WOULDN'T TELL US! >> >>Instead of reflecting our love for our country, >> >>we get photos of flag burning incidents at Abu Ghraib >> >>and people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades. >> >> Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves >>two purposes: >> >> It is intended to undermine the world's perception of the United >>States >> >>thus minimizing consequent support, >> >>and it is intended to discourage American citizens.

If there is one thing that The Departed should be seen for (forgive me any flaws in the details, it has been months and months since I sat in a theatre and watched it) it is that it is the extension of some concepts that Scorsese has been elaborating, bit by bit, since he started making films. Essentially, the increasingly blurred lines between a particular ‘tribal’ group (usually represented by some mob faction, as in The Departed) and what is normally viewed as "legitimate" authority--here the State Police, who send a mole to infiltrate the mob who has sent a mole to infiltrate them. The Departed has none of the gleeful, graceful storytelling of Goodfellas, but it has a separate idea at its heart, so there is no use complaining about that. It also differs from that “gangster” picture in that it is far less of an anthropological study and more a movie propelled by a particular, central idea. This seems to be a shift in Scorsese’s work as regards “gangster” movies, in as much as the entire movie is contingent on that central idea, instead of wooing you into a rousing narrative. Indeed, it might be essential viewing in order to give appropriate consideration to what could be seen as the extended “essay” of Mean Streets, Goodfellas, Casino, and to a lesser extent, Gangs of New York. The Departed may be a strong – or, if you hate it, a weak – conclusion to that essay. One could easily call the movie contrived as a result of its seeming to construct a narrative to serve a “bigger” idea, but it seems to me more like Scorsese’s elaboration of one of the themes of Casino. Namely that what we perceive to be much more civilized institutions (the corporations that by the end of that film have bought up the Las Vegas casinos and turned the place – and, by implication, America – into Disneyland, not to mention the political representatives who pretend to be squeaky clean and are really covered in blood) are not nearly as ‘white’ as we imagine the mobsters are ‘black’. Worse, some of the mobster peculiarities – the “dealers who knew your name, what you drank…” and the fact that Rothstein pays attention to how many blueberries there are in the hotel’s muffins – have been replaced by cool corporate detachment, which makes staying at a Vegas hotel like “checking into an airport.” And we’ve seen Tati’s Playtime, we know what checking into an airport is like. Nevertheless the whole Departed thing, in my opinion, doesn’t quite come off; but then again, the same could be said about virtually every Oscars Ceremony. So why so much griping about Ellen Degeneres? The main thing I would have lamented about the night was its sickeningly sentimental display of “concern” about global warming (see rousing applause for Gore, Leo DiCaprio’s wet eyes, every woman’s $50,000 worth of gown and jewels, and link it all back to Oprah’s telecast with Gore where the great Harpo, wet-eyed and dolled-up, expressed her deep emotional connection to the poor polar bear who couldn’t quite make it back to the ice floe). In any case, I’d go see The Departed. Initially I had a problem with its rampant violence, though I’ve come to terms with that upon reflection. Perhaps because I believe that Scorsese is toying with some clearer, more interesting ideas (philosophically, with personal identity & our perception of ‘morality’) than films like Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, and Gangs of New York, all of which had their own conflicting forces and flaws working against them.

So Jonathan doesn't want to see "The Departed." That's fine with me. I'd much rather hear what he has to say about films that aren't being talked about by everyone else. Much ado about nothing. As David E. might say, Oh Prunella!

I think Marty should have won for The Aviator. That year Clitn beat him with Million Dollar Baby. But it's not Clint's best. That would be Flags of Our Fathers/Letters From Iwo Jima (as inseparable as Lang's Tiger of Eschnapur/The Hindu Tomb) Casino and The King of Comedy are my personal Marty faves, but they're not Oscar type movies.

Apart from the fact that "Flags of Our Fathers" and "Letters From Iwo Jima" aren't inseperable in the same way as Lang's Indian epic (which is one continuous story divided by a cliffhanger ending at the end of "The Tiger of Eschnapur"), I can't say I'm esspecially impressed with Eastwood for making two shitty movies in the same year. The latter may seem like a provocation for Americans who aren't used to seeing Japanese soldiers as people, but by deliberately attempting to avoid the usual heroic war movie cliches, Eastwood walks into a whole set of anti-heroic anti-war movie cliches: the everyman who just wants to make it home to his wife; the commanding officer who's lived with the enemy and doesn't feel any animosity towards them, etcetera, etcetera. That said, the walking cliches of "Iwo Jima" are infinitely preferable to the vacant mouthpieces of "Flags of Our Fathers." Could some one please recommend me an Eastwood film that feels informed more my real life than old Warner Brothers B movies?

Well, narratively- and literally-speaking, Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima aren't inseparable. Their kinship is more visual and thematic. In that sense, I think they're inseparable. And, hey, if Eastwood doesn't work for you, then he doesn't work for you. I actually prefer his movies to Scorsese's.