Before getting to my review of Ridley’s Scott’s prestige gangster picture you should read Jeremy Smith’s article on the use of pop music in cinema.
“Ten years after the triumph of Mean Streets, the wedding of the image to popular music was now an industry in and of itself.
For true connoisseurs of cinema and music, the cheapening of this marriage has not completely eroded its ability to inspire. Until the failure of Bringing Out the Dead, Scorsese was still astonishing with counterintuitive uses of classic pop songs, his master thesis being Good fellas. From Tony Bennett’s “Rags to Riches” to Sid Vicious warbling “My Way” over the closing credits, the film is a miraculous blending of musical eras and genres.”
Smith says it better than I ever could about the great directors and what makes their use of music so definitive. Scorsese, Tarantino and the Andersons may make it look easy but their imitators fail miserably when they follow suit (see Michael Bay’s use of “Battle Without Honor or Humanity” in Transformers for a true embarrasment).
The wedding of film and pop music seems obvious but the best examples are usually counterintuitive gambles. Compare “I’m a believer” in Shrek to the same song used in Blood Simple. In the hands of a great director a scene can change the way we listen to a song. As wine with food, the masters can use cinema to accentuate a hidden dimension of a song.
And that’s why Ridley Scott does not belong in the top tier of American filmmakers. He is an imitator not an innovator. In American Gangster we watch him again and again settle for the obvious choice, the more heavy handedly a song can underscore a scene the better. From “White Christmas” played ironically over junkies shooting up on Christmas to “Amazing Grace” accompanying Frank Lucas’s downfall to whatever else I’m forgetting, Scott repeatedly falls short of the example set by the masters. And the worst transgression of all is his use of “101st street” to score a drug dealing montage, sorry but after Jackie Brown that song should be retired from general use.
American Gangster is a well made and really entertaining movie. It’s a biopic that documents the success of Harlem drug dealer Frank Lucas in the 70’s. Denzel Washington plays Lucas and Russel Crowe plays the cop who brings down his empire. It’s a film that I don’t hesitate to recommend, and at times it approaches the profound. But there’s a long and proud tradition of great American crime films and I would definitely not include American Gangster in that tradition.
Among the films successes is it’s detailed depiction of a large scale sting operation. The film documents the case built against Lucas bit by bit and the strange progression of false starts, set backs and breakthroughs, many of the happy accidents, that broke the case open. It does this faithfully without ever degenerating to a tedious lecture (see Syrianna).
I particularly like Denzel Washington in the film. Frank Lucas is a character with a lot of inner turmoil but he’s not the sort of person to emote . Washington communicates the character in a subtle and guarded away.
Both Densely and Russel Crowe are great actors and they do good work but as good as they are both these performances felt familiar like reminders of characters we’ve already met. As much as I appreciated Denzel’s character it was never as larger than life or as effortlessly imposing as his corrupt cop in Training Day.
In fact every casting choice is a minor epiphany but none really excelled in their role (strike that; fucking Josh Brolin is great as the film’s true villian).
Ridley Scott’s style is like that. In Black Hawk Down he seemed more interested in mimicking the language of Saving Private Ryan than in telling his own story. Matchstick Men was an unspectacular addition to the con man genre. I guess people like Gladiator but I see it as a modest accomplishment at best. I’m not denying that he’s made great films. But Blade Runner (which is currently experiencing a fall from grace, at least among critics) and Alien were early in his career, and I feel like his best is way behind him. American Gangster borrows a page from Scorsece here, Spike Lee there, it succeeds without advancing the vocabulary of the gangster genre. Scott is well versed in the lexicon of cinema which he borrows from ably but he adds nothing to the genres in which he works. Since Blade Runner 25 years ago even his best films remind me of great films without being great themselves.
Popularity: 23% [?]
Words
I am responding to this review without having seen the flick. The quote preceding the review is quite poiniant. I personally feel that the use of pop music in film is incredibly tired. The examples shown above were so successful that filmmakers have used them as a blueprint. But most often, this catchy music seems to be used as a substitute for substance. “Just in case you’re not enjoying this scene, here’s hit we all remember from 196…” However, there are exceptions from time to time, such as the opening of Jim Sheridan’s In America’s use of “Do You Believe In Magic”.
Why is this film called American Gangster? Don’t most of us think of “America” when we here the word gangster? I know that gangsters exist all over the world, but I don’t understand why using the word America in titles is such a selling point.
I enjoyed the way this review is professional yet slightly personal like a journal entry. Am I just defining the word blog?
I think I’ll wait for the dvd to enjoy Denzel’s always competent work.
Really good point about the title; “american gangster” is totally redundant. Of course they have gangs everywhere but the gangster picture, like the western, is a decidedly american genre. I think adding “american” to the title is supposed to make it sound profound.
Try to see the movie in the cheep seats. Also, it sounds like you would definitely find j.smiths article on chud to be enlightening.
thanks for posting
Unlike “40″ I did see this picture, and I have to say the more I think about it the more disappointed I am. I was hoping this would be either a return to or a rise to the greatness that some believe Ridley Scott once achieved. Unfortunately, this is more mediocre entertainment. MATCHSTICK MEN is way better than this, and it had 2003 Nicolas Cage in it. This movie is lazy.
You talked about the soundtrack, and you’re absolutely correct. It’s fucking lazy. Any director who’s worth anything should be aware of the strength of “Across 110th St” in JACKIE BROWN and how that movie now owns that song. Fucking “Can’t Trust It”???
Poor character development - I still don’t understand why Richie Roberts is a good cop. I understand that he’s an average working class guy, as displayed through his Joisey accent, slouched posture beer gut, brown leather jacket, but what the fuck happened to him in the past that sets him apart from every other cop in Jersey? And why all the fuss over his divorce proceedings?
More bad character development - Frank Lucas turning. After all his motivational speeches on the importance of family, sticking together, etc., we get 5 minutes of interrogation and BAM! Frank Lucas takes down the entire NJ special narcotics team or whatever the fuck they’re called. High five!!
It’s not all negative though. It does deliver with strong performances from both lead men, a surprising scene with Cuba Gooding Jr returning to form, and great supporting roles from two hugely under-recognized talents, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Josh Brolin.
Oh and Ted Levine.