More Active Posts
Front Page
American Gangster
 |
 5 Comments |
Director Ridley Scott, who did his research well for Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven, also prepared well for American Gangster. The film’s visual challenges (the R is well issued for violent deaths, physical brutality, sex and full frontal nudity) and seemingly sacrilegious moments (hymns accompany images of junkies and drug raids) occur because this is a true story about real people.
Scott is not attempting to defile religion or aggrandize criminality; he is telling us about the real consequences that surround the decisions men make. His visual tones are dark and drab so that even the glitter of the high life appears cold and grey. The film has no flashy edits, Technicolor moments or particularly grand vistas.
Denzel Washington displays the morality of his character, Frank Lucas, only after making it clear that he is an amoral killer; in his capable hands we are not allowed to forget that dichotomy. Russell Crowe embodies Ritchie Roberts, an honest cop whose dedication and decency we see only after watching the slow and painful way he destroys his son and ex-wife through neglect and meaningless sex with nameless women. We are not asked to admire these men. There is no Maximus here (the hero played by Crowe in Gladiator), just a flawed police officer’s determination to catch one drug king when most of the other officers are trying to become one.
His reward and ours comes at the end of the movie, and while brief it is worth the wait. With the last visual image, brilliantly shot without dialogue, Ridley Scott expresses the thesis of his film: no one escapes the consequences of his actions. It is a hard but surprisingly moral lesson for an R-rated film, and it comes wrapped in a piece of history few of us remember.
 |
Topic: Movies & TV, Reviews |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: american_gangster, denzel_washington, director_ridley_scott, drugs, gladiator, russell_crowe |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
One more diversion
Fabulous movie. Oscar material. Very complex characters.
Why exactly is this even on this site? It seems to me that while it does have a tiny bit of redeeming value (believable characters and realistic depictions of evil[redeeming?]), it has everything that should not be glorified and enjoyed. In fact, it has all that sin depicted in pretty thorough detail from all I’ve heard.
If this article was geared as a warning, I would not complain, but as it is, it seems like a bit of a glorification with a little disclaimer at the top.
If we try to rationalize this by saying “It’s reality”, I am reminded that we are to be “[..]be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves”(Mat. 10:16 NASB), and “not of the world”,(John 17:16, 17:14 NASB).
If we rationalize it by claiming its redeeming value, I’m inclined to wonder a) what that redeemin value is, and b) how it gets over this verse:
“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all”(James 2:10 NASB).
Just some thoughts…and questions…
John M. and I can agree wholeheartedly on something!
Propjets:
“the thesis of his film: no one escapes the consequences of his actions”
Sounds like a central Christian theme to me. That’s why it’s here.
Proj Jets says “Why exactly is this even on this site?”
1. Because it is news.
2. Because this movie tells the truth far more honestly than “Facing the Giants”. Maybe we can learn something.