« Departed Spoiler Entry | Main | The World Is A Circle.... »
September 19, 2006
More Love For The Departed
After seeing The Departed twice in NY this weekend, I took a look at Infernal Affairs on DVD last night… and then returned to the scene of the intense, funny, glorious crime for a third look tonight.
And after 3 viewings, it just keeps getting better.
The big question emerging from the last comments on Saturday was how faithful this film was to the original.
The answer is, it is very loyal… and it is a completely different and in my opinion, completely superior work in almost every way.
The one area where a non-Asian English speaker like myself, who understands who Tony Leung and Andy Lau are, but can never really understand who they are in that culture, is comparing apples with oranges. The acting, obviously. The are icons in Asian cinema and the power of that would be silly for me to discount.
But what’s interesting about how this film goes is that while the cast is loaded with familiar, big name actors, Scorsese really doesn’t much play on their celebrity status. Even Nicholson, whose work here is not wholly unfamiliar, is not really trading on any of his previous Jack-ness. He simply gives a genius performance.
And I want to continue to emphasize the person who will be most quickly forgotten as people talk about this film… William Monahan. I’m sure there was some improv on this set, but damn, Monahan’s screenplay has got to be battling neck-and-neck with Little Children to win the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar. Bill Condon will get his nomination for Dreamgirls and I know we should all fear the power of the script for Flags of Our Fathers, but I can’t imagine two screenplays this year that will come close to the work in these two. And The Departed has an even better shot because the adapting is so dramatically different than the original in so many ways.
Monahan has given the movie context that Infernal Affairs simply doesn’t have. Almost all the characters are there in both and many of the plot points, from start to finish, match. But as the Oscar winning screenplay for Good Will Hunting touched on in a more personal way, the screenplay for The Departed brings a major city (Boston) and the culture clashes in it to life in a way we haven’t seen since the New York movies of the 70s.
(Yes, I have to acknowledge that this is a dark, adult, bloody film and it could seccumb in the Oscar finals to a sweep... but it is more likely to win at WGA and with critics groups that are a little more adventurous.)
Watching some of the early cut of Scorsese’s Gangs of New York, also last night, it is almost like a before and after with this film. That film is so full of cultural seed-planting. This film is the tree that bears rancid fruit. And frankly, I was intrigued to notice some of the techniques from the later, Harvey-influenced cut, in The Departed. Still, Scorsese’s tendency not to cross cut between action involving two different strands of the story remains strong here, except in two sequences.
Also, remember that Leo’s story in Gangs was in playing the role of a near-son to the evil crime boss until he could get close enough to kill the man who killed his father. Leo’s goal here is not to murder Nicholson’s Frank Costello. But the vagaries of parenting are addressed rather specifically, with both DiCaprio and Damon.
Another advantage to seeing the movie again is that you start to pick up on smaller things, like the very brief cameo by producer Graham King as Leo’s Uncle Jackie. And this time I wrote down the quote of the year, which opens the picture, “I don’t want to be a product of my environment. I want my environment to be a product of me.”
So here is what I am going to do for those of you who want to play. I am going to start a “Departed Spoiler” entry also. You can ask whatever specific questions you have in the comments section and I will answer them there.
But what tonight’s screening of the film – and the conversations I have about it every time someone asks about the film – made clear to me is that this is one of the very best films of the year and that after repeat viewings, it is looking like this film may come close to the very best of Scorsese all-time.
Posted by poland at September 19, 2006 11:22 PM
Comments
AGREED.
But I seriously doubt the screenplay even gets a nomination, let alone ends up in the hunt for the win. It's old Marty, therefore, non-Academy-friendly Marty.
But - otherwise - AGREED. I feel like I'm on a coke high after tonight's screening.
Posted by: Kristopher Tapley
at September 19, 2006 11:35 PM
That I will put money on, Kris.
Screenwriters vote for screenplay. They will get it.
Posted by: David Poland
at September 19, 2006 11:37 PM
Next time I see you, put your money where your mouth is. I have one healthy bet on every year's Oscar race. This looks like the wager this time around. And ultimately, I hope I'm wrong. You game?
Posted by: Kristopher Tapley
at September 20, 2006 12:43 AM
So, let me ask again: should I rent Infernal Affairs before I see The Departed? It sounds like the important elements (performances, thematic development) are different enough that Scorsese's movie won't be hurt.
Oh, and hey Dave, if I'm really nice to you can I borrow your copy of that early cut of Gangs of New York?
Posted by: jeffmcm
at September 20, 2006 12:54 AM
I don't think you have to see Infernal Affairs. I saw it two years ago and it's so forgettable that I can't recall much of it. Though this is a somewhat unique opinion. The Departed has so much more meat on it and so much more texture that the original is really inconsequential.
Posted by: Kristopher Tapley
at September 20, 2006 01:59 AM
On first watch, Infernal Affairs is not a particularly great movie in itself because it's not that easy to follow...but once you see the prequel, it's a completely different experience and you understand the complexity of the relationships (something which was incorporated into the Departed). That said, the camerawork and visuals are superior to Departed and as good as DiCaprio is as an actor, he's no Tony Leung.
Posted by: EDouglas
at September 20, 2006 03:06 AM
I agree with Dave.. Departed will likely get noted for its screenplay (though being adapted will put it in what might be the most crowded category, as it is every year)
Posted by: EDouglas
at September 20, 2006 03:09 AM
On the other hand, it's statements like this...
"this is one of the very best films of the year and that after repeat viewings, it is looking like this film may come close to the very best of Scorsese all-time."
...why I hate hyperbole. If I had read this before seeing the movie, I would have remembered what David said about Miami Vice and avoided this movie like the plague. (Heck, I would want to contract gangreen before I sit through Miami Vice again.)
I think any "writer" who uses the old "This is the best movie of the year" phrase is setting himself him up for ridicule and scorn on EFilmCritic, because there will be plenty of people who disagree with him, critics and moviegoers alike.
Now to say "this is my favorite movie of the year" or "this is my favorite Scorsese film"...that's a different statement and one that can't be argued with.
Posted by: EDouglas
at September 20, 2006 03:16 AM
Warner Bros not only have the remake rights of INFERNAL AFFAIRS, but also INFERNAL AFFAIRS 2 and INFERNAL AFFAIRS 3. So Warner Bros can put the elements of all three INFERNAL AFFAIRS movies into THE DEPARTED.
I think that INFERNAL AFFAIRS 2 and INFERNAL AFFAIRS 3 are unnecessary movies.... Maybe it is just me, but I doesn't like INFERNAL AFFAIRS 2; I think it is just [GODFATHER-wannabe] and it is nothing special (except Edison Chen's breakout performance). INFERNAL AFFAIRS 3 is just OK. In concussion, I think that both movies didn't need to be made.
By the way, The Weinstein Company was in advanced talks to acquire North American rights of INFERNAL AFFAIRS 2 and INFERNAL AFFAIRS 3, so these two movies should be coming soon to a cable channel and a video store near you.
http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=print_story&articleid=VR1117932564&categoryid=1975
Posted by: marychan
at September 20, 2006 04:28 AM
mary, Scorsese didn't take anything directiong from IA2 or 3... he just used the extra hour he had in his movie to develop the relationships, but a lot of it seems like unnecessary exposition to me, as funny as much of it is.
Posted by: EDouglas
at September 20, 2006 04:54 AM
Oh.... I'm so sorry....
Anyway, I will see THE DEPARTED.
Posted by: marychan
at September 20, 2006 05:12 AM
I'm all for The Departed— Infernal Affairs being like a glossy, souped-up version of A Better Tomorrow. But I thought IA could be improved upon.
That said, what's this about an early cut of Gangs of New York at your disposal, Dave? Is it readily available?? If so, how could I not have known of this?
Posted by: Campbell
at September 20, 2006 05:31 AM
What's the runtime on Departed? Is it GoodFellas length?
Anyone have any guesses on which will win the weekend, Departed or Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning?
Posted by: Jimmy the Gent
at September 20, 2006 07:00 AM
2 1/2 hour running time. Tough call between the two without knowing how wide a release WB will give Departed. Scorsese hasn't had many ultra-wide releases despite his last two movies also starring Leo... New Line has a lot invested in Texas Chainsaw, and I guess the appeal of horror to younger kids might push that slightly ahead, though I can't imagine either making more than $25 million, let alone both.
Posted by: EDouglas
at September 20, 2006 07:08 AM
I watched Infernal Affairs and read the Departed script. WM did a fantastic job of taking the story beats of the original and making everything... well, deeper. Awesome adaptation.
Posted by: MASON
at September 20, 2006 08:28 AM
THE DEPARTED is a great B movie, and definitely Scorsese's most entertaining work start-to-finish, but I want to see the final cut before I try to write a review. Way too many placeholder music cues, which is not a nitpick when you're discussing Scorsese (personally, I'm all for "Gimme Shelter" being expunged entirely; this is the third time he's used it, and it's only distracting no matter how great the song is).
Posted by: Jeremy Smith
at September 20, 2006 09:02 AM
Funny how you picked up on the 'Gimme Shelter' use. When I first heard it in the trailer it made me cringe. It was as though Scorsese was screaming from the top of his lungs that this was the Marty of Goodfellas and Casino.
As though he was trying to take the magic he had with De Niro and force it onto his DiCaprio films without it being earned.
I will definitely see The Departed and it will most likely be my 'birthday movie'. I just hope it is as good as the hype and doesn't try too hard to be vulgar. The Nicholson stuff seems way over the top, as though Scorsese is trying to compete with the new boys and prove he still has it.
Posted by: Nicol D
at September 20, 2006 09:20 AM
Agree with you that, Jeremy... though it has faded as a "oy" moment over screenings...
Posted by: David Poland
at September 20, 2006 10:07 AM
"The Departed has so much more meat on it and so much more texture that the original is really inconsequential"
"completely superior work in almost every way"
Way to piss off fans of the original! And I agree with EDouglas, Dicaprio is no Tony Leung.
Posted by: etslee
at September 20, 2006 10:19 AM
Miami Vice... Pirates... WTC... all will be forgiven, DP if you end up being right about this one. I need you to be right about this one. My girl AT jumped on your page today (sans hyperbole, bless her heart) so that's encouraging. But seriously, looking back on this year I've only agreed with you that The Da Vinci Code was very bad. (And how could United 93 NOT blow you away?)
And yes, "Gimme Shelter" has become the "Hey Ya!" of hip gansters tunes. Very played out. Just once I'd like to see a group of tough guys drown a snitch in a bucket of his own urine to the sounds of ABBA's "Waterloo."
Posted by: Crow T Robot
at September 20, 2006 10:34 AM
Well, etslee, the thing is... it's a Scorsese movie that cost a lot more to shoot and is loaded with small roles by name actors, and it was expanded from the original by Monahan, etc. So how was it supposed to be equal or worse unless it failed?
And as I acknowledge, I don't have full comprehension of the love of Tony Leung or speak his native language... so I am sympathetic to that. But the way this movie works, Leo is the calm center of the storm, much more so than Damon, who fidgits here (though he's excellent in the role). It clearly has been tailored for him and what he does as an actor. Put Brad Pitt in the role and you could be sure he would be a physical maniac and more scary. Other stars would also bring their own schtick to it.
For me, a defining moment in Leo's performance is when his voice cracks after being pressured in a scene where he has stayed silent for a while. So is that virtuoso acting or a stunt? Your call. But it speaks to the kind of actor DiCap is. And for me, he delivers big in this film.
Posted by: David Poland
at September 20, 2006 10:34 AM
Dp,
Can you give us an example of Scorsese not cross cutting between tow different strands of action? Is there an example from Gangs that you can point to?
Posted by: Jimmy the Gent
at September 20, 2006 10:41 AM
I've always thought The Departed could significantly improve on Infernal Affairs, but that doesn't mean that I thought IA was bad. In the context of the filmmaking tradition it comes from and in a historical context, IA is a very significant movie.
I would just hope that if Scorsese starts remaking classic John Woo movies that we don't start discounting those as well.
Posted by: palmtree
at September 20, 2006 11:10 AM
CrowT: Have you seen LAYER CAKE? I love how Vaughn scores the diner beatdown to Duran Duran's gooey "Ordinary World".
DP: the worst is when Scorsese replays the beginning of "Gimme Shelter" in the same scene, which is either daring or lazy. I'm hoping that's temp.
As for Tony Leung... I think he's one of the best actors working today, and will cite IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE, FLOWERS OF SHANGHAI and BULLET IN THE HEAD to back that up.
Posted by: Jeremy Smith
at September 20, 2006 12:09 PM
The entire Tammany Hall sequence was intact, lingering and allowing the significance of Tweed to built in a natural way. It is not all one long steadycam shot, but the different bits are parts of one long conversation.
As it was released, it is intercut with Leo in the tunnels.
And the Tammany Hall sequence leads into the fire brigade sequence - no voice over - which again, is Tweed on the march and is topped in the end with Bill's crew coming to his side, which is split off and a bit lost thematically in the release version.
I was considering digitizing and posting, but really, I am not sure what the ethical position on doing that would be, even years after release. It is work product, by my standard, and I think that GONY is the exception that defines the rule. But I have mixed feelings.
Posted by: David Poland
at September 20, 2006 12:09 PM
"Tendency not to cross cut between action involving two different strands of the story" is still confusing to me.
It's like saying that Scorsese has a tendency not to make movies in black and white, or not about Howard Hughes.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at September 20, 2006 12:24 PM
No one thinks there's a hair of a chance for Peter Morgan to get the Screenplay nom double-shot with one for adapted ("Last King of Scotland") and one for original ("The Queen")?
Posted by: SJRubinstein
at September 20, 2006 12:35 PM
There's something going on here, it's hard to make out.
"Watching some of the early cut of Scorsese’s Gangs of New York, also last night, it is almost like a before and after with this film. That film is so full of cultural seed-planting. This film is the tree that bears rancid fruit." So the Harvey GONY is the rancid fruit of the Scorsese GONY? ok, then why are you,
"...intrigued to notice some of the techniques from the later, Harvey-influenced cut, in The Departed." ??
Further, does DP's statement that Scorsese's "...tendency not to cross cut between action involving two different strands of the story remains strong here, except in two sequences." sync up with Roger open wide Friedman's statement that Scorsese, aka Thelma Schoonmaker, has "scenes within scenes, and the action moving back and forth almost at the same time...."
Posted by: T.H.Ung
at September 20, 2006 12:45 PM
A friend of mine worked on the sound mix for Gangs of New York for over a year, because that's how much things were changing between when it was supposed to come out and when it actually came out.
Posted by: EDouglas
at September 20, 2006 01:06 PM
That's a bitch EDouglas, anyone who goes progresses to sound without a locked picture is asking to bleed money.
Posted by: T.H.Ung
at September 20, 2006 01:08 PM
Uh, THUng... you're quoting Roger Friedman... please, take a cold compress and a bottle of Xanax and maybe you will come to back to earth...
There is only one intercut sequence. What they do make work is short scenes that jump forward and push the story along. There are also sequences that do involve both characters.
What Roger couldn't get his brain/mouth/rim around was that things were moving forward at an unusual pace (not unlike the Day In The Life sequence in GoodFellas, but with more than one central character) and he may have felt like there was internal cuts that weren't really there.
Posted by: David Poland
at September 20, 2006 01:16 PM
A year in post sound is excessive, but I believe it's the rule and not the exception for big films to begin sound work before all of the picture editing has been completed.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at September 20, 2006 01:29 PM
Funny Jeremy, I was gonna mention the Gimme Shelter moment in Layer Cake in my above post. Didn't really care for the movie as a whole but there's some good use of music -- esp. opening credits with the kick ass "She Sells Sanctuary" by The Cult. That song will put hair on your chest.
Posted by: Crow T Robot
at September 20, 2006 02:23 PM
Jeffmcm, working on sound isn't "turning over to sound," the picture editor spends an enormous amount of time getting sound (and music) right before a member of the sound or music team receives a speck of anything. You can even have a mini sound/music job done for an important screening, but turning over to sound is a definitive moment in the movie's life and it's associated with having a locked picture. Hope that clears things up a little.
Posted by: T.H.Ung
at September 20, 2006 02:36 PM
DP, notice how vague Roger's description is, he really can't wrap himself around what's going on, he's lost. Can't wait to see for myself.
Posted by: T.H.Ung
at September 20, 2006 02:39 PM
TH, I'm sorry to ruin your condescension, but I know very well what 'turning over to sound' is and I know that picture editing very often continues all the way up to and beyond the final sound mix. Expensive? You bet, but when you're battling a release date you gotta do what you gotta do.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at September 20, 2006 02:45 PM
If you know what you claim to, then you need to rethink what you said, "it's the rule and not the exception for big films to begin sound work before all of the picture editing has been completed," because you are incorrect. The vast majority of movies are not missing their lock picture/turn over to sound date. I agree that that the date is often pushed, but you don't miss it and turn over anyway, because that's suicidal. You turn over late and put sound on an accelerated schedule.
Posted by: T.H.Ung
at September 20, 2006 03:07 PM
Jeffmcm, if you're counting dropping in VFX shots, as "continuing to edit picture," don't.
Posted by: T.H.Ung
at September 20, 2006 03:11 PM
Or you lock certain reels and turn those over. Maybe that's what you mean. That's actually closest to the reality right now.
Posted by: T.H.Ung
at September 20, 2006 03:19 PM
And you do picture change lists on reels you thought were locked and conform sound to it, but that there's no end to it and you can go "beyond the final sound mix" because you're battling a release date makes the whole process sound like an out of control free-for-all, when in fact it's a very orderly, tiring, one foot in front of the next process, unless you can change the date the movie comes out and spend a whole year in sound.
P.S. So the soundtrack's good, huh?
Posted by: T.H.Ung
at September 20, 2006 04:30 PM
All I know is, I had friends who were working in the music departments on Poseidon and Mission Impossible 3 this spring and they were both complaining about the long hours of work that were resulting from constantly getting updated 'locked' cuts of the picture. In my experience, 'picture lock' is a myth.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at September 20, 2006 05:20 PM
It's true Jeffmcm, post has become incredibly ugly. The reason? To be continued, I know everyone's dying to hear the rest.
Posted by: T.H.Ung
at September 20, 2006 05:45 PM
Dave and Kris,
Have you read Anne Thompson's review of the Departed? She seems to think DiCaprio's performance was out of the world. But none of you think he'll get a nomination. What's the reason? Is it because of the genre? Didn't Ethan Hawke get a nom (did he win? can't remember) for Training Day (albeit for Supporting) - and would it be the same genre?
Previous earlier reviews had mentioned problems with the ending- is it a weakness?
Any chance of Mark Walhberg getting a nod? Universally, all the reviews seem to think he is unusually good here.
Posted by: MissMissouri
at September 20, 2006 08:22 PM
pfft, Mark Wahlberg deserved a nod for I Heart Huckabees
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0
at September 21, 2006 01:55 AM
In addressing the comments that DiCaprio is no Tony Leung, I'd have to say --"Hell, of course he isn't". Does that make him less of an actor....weeellllll, not really. You have to look at the way the roles are presented in each film to be honest and fair. DiCaprio is playing a much younger version of the character Leung played in IA. Whereas Leung was world-weary and losing his grip after years working undercover, all the while showing us the character's "soulfulness" (a typical and highly effective Leung strategem by the way - no criticism intended at all), DiCaprio's Billy is a youthful protagonist who's been undercover for a relatively shorter length of time and is dealing with intense stress and isolation. It is a different characterization and actually a different character. So I'd say using the sort of statement that DiCaprio is no Leung is pejorative nonsense. Of course he's "not" Leung, who has a good decade and a half on DiCaprio agewise whatever other differences there are in the two, including an eastern v. western perspective of acting.
Posted by: austin111
at September 21, 2006 05:01 PM
Anne Hearts Leo.
The film is going to have an interesting road through the award season. There are two leads in this film, but Nicholson is a dominant force in a supporting role. And there are 3 or 4 truly great supporting performances besides that. Hard choices.
For me, Baldwin is better here than in The Cooler. Nicholson is trememdous. Leo is all intense emotion. Damon is really perfect in his turn. Wahlberg is really in an extension of his Huckabees work and he was great there too. Winstone kills in a smaller role. So what do you do?
If you put Nicholson in lead, like Streep in Prada, you might get a nod, but you knock out your two leads. Put him in supporting and he might get the nod, but knocks everyone else out. He's unlikely to win in either category. They all are. But it will be a real dance of publicists and agents and the studio. And even after all that, it could all fall aside to the movie being more commerical than Oscar, in traditional Scorsese snub mode. There is no DeNiro turn here. Nicholson is the Pesci.
Posted by: David Poland
at September 21, 2006 06:35 PM
Is there any chance Nicholson might decline an awards push in favor of Winstone/Wahlberg/Baldwin/Sheen? I seem to recall he hardly campaigned for About Schmidt.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at September 21, 2006 06:38 PM
A good point. He already has three Oscars and 12 nominations; what's left to prove?
Here's a question for you all: does anyone think Scorsese's chances for an Oscar could be improved by the fact that this is "just" an entertainment, and thus it might be considered a better job of directing because he's back on "home turf" and isn't trying so conspicuously hard to win one?
Posted by: Cadavra
at September 22, 2006 10:38 AM
^^^Or at least that's the strategy WB has adopted. Sounds similar to a more lowkey Warners campaign for Million Dollar Baby that outstripped Scorsese's Aviator.
Posted by: palmtree
at September 22, 2006 10:55 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)