The Departed (2006)

This Oscar winning film was a remake of the 2002 Hong Kong crime thriller Infernal Affairs, leading to a rarity in the industry – a remake outdoing the original. Martin Scorsese, the director, made a deliberate effort to not watch Infernal Affairs until after The Departed was completed. Instead, he used William Monahan’s script as the epicentre of his vision. Monahan’s script relocated the story to Boston, Massachusetts and gathered inspiration from the real Irish-American gangster Whitey Bulger and corrupt FBI agent John Connolly, combining this with the plot of the original Hong Kong film. Scorsese’s film has a 50 minute longer running time than the original, but this isn’t the only way it exceeds its predecessor; it possesses greater substance in the form of its thematic complexities.

Scorsese has said this “is the first movie I have ever done with a plot’’. If this is the case, then I make the argument that he should do more. It follows Billy Costigan (Leo DiCaprio) and Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon), both characters beginning in the Boston police academy but once graduating they undertake opposing parallel paths. Costigan is assigned to go undercover and infiltrate Frank Costello’s (Jack Nicholson) Irish-mob syndicate. Simultaneously, Sullivan – who has been under Costello’s wing since his youth – works as an informer for the mob. Both men struggle with their double lives and the concept of identity is perhaps the central theme.

This was DiCaprio and Scorsese’s third collaboration together and it’s easy to see why they have established such a formidable partnership. DiCaprio’s Costigan is someone whose heart is filled with pain and head is enraged with anger. His family name isn’t the most honourable as many of his relatives are convicted. He joined the police force to shake off this degradation and become the good guy but, unable to escape, he is dragged into the criminal life. He is subjected to a tirade of abuse by Mark Wahlberg at the beginning and then ordered to intrude Costello’s mob. Costello being the complete incarnation of evil, the mission doesn’t sit well with Costigan, torturing his psyche. Costigan, in some ways, fits naturally into the mobster mould, being careless and violent. In other ways, he is the hero for the audience due to his determination and that’s the real testament of DiCaprio’s performance.

On the flipside is Damon’s Sullivan – the most complex character of the piece. Someone that appears to be the typical confident hero on the surface, possessing many likable qualities. In reality, his life is rooted in lies and the deception starts to haunt him. Damon portrays these complexities subtly and superbly. Sometimes so subtle you miss them, specifically his sexuality which you should give close consideration to when watching the film. DiCaprio is loud, brash but ultimately admirable whereas Damon is slick, smooth and deceiving. Two people who are lost in their identity.

Scorsese’s pedigree allowed him to attract a ridiculous cast, with many ‘leading-men’ performers taking supporting roles. Scorsese’s original vision was a low budget production but the budget soared as more stars became committed. Jack Nicholson becomes Costello in typical crazy Nicholson fashion. Costello is a truly menacing figure whose extreme violence and prejudices are always accompanied with a smile. Costello represents the entire evil entity of Boston – ‘’ I don’t want to be a product of my environment. I want my environment to be a product of me’’ is a line that stays in mind. Mark Wahlberg gives one of the performances of his career as foul-mouthed Staff Sergeant Dignam, his aggressive antics producing a lot of the film’s humour. Mentions also must go to Martin Sheen as Captain Queenan and Ray Winstone as Costello’s number two, Mr. French. Sheen brilliantly contrasts Wahlberg’s Dignam and at times acts as a father figure to Costigan. Winstone is convincing as a hard thug even if his Boston accent isn’t. Significant credit lies with Scorsese as he expertly balances the screen time of each performer and allows all of them the opportunity to showcase their talents.

Music is a recurring allure of many Scorsese films; The Departed being no exception. The film begins with The Rolling Stones’ Gimme Shelter – which has appeared in two other of his films – some may see this as overindulgence but it is perfectly suited to the rhythm of the opening scene when we are introduced to Costello. Music is also exceptionally applied during a love scene. The featured song is Comfortably Numb by Roger Waters, Van Morrison and The Band – starting off quietly to build sexual tension and then exploding into the chorus when it reaches boiling point.

One surprising common trait of epic police and crime dramas that Scorsese has not adhered to with this film is the use of city skyline shots to enforce the scale. Films such as Heat come to mind when thinking of thrillers that really use the huge landscape and architecture of the city to create an expansive space for police and gangsters to battle. It is often said the city becomes an important character in the story. Boston is as much of a character in The Departed as Los Angeles is in Heat but Scorsese uses different practices to create this sense of environment. He creates an atmosphere of claustrophobia, showing Boston as a close-knit community where all of the characters seem to be intertwined in some way, family history playing an important role. Costigan and Sullivan seem to be trapped in an intolerant city with their double lives taking its toll on them psychologically.

Verdict

The Departed should be the benchmark for the remake concept. It doesn’t remake the original in the traditional Hollywood framework of repackaging it for a new generation/English-speaking audience. It takes the general concept and expands upon it, elevating the themes and intensity as well as perfectly transitioning it to an American culture. It’s a downright thrilling experience seeing this A-list ensemble cast play out this complex escalating plot with interesting untypical characters. Possibly my favourite Scorsese film.

Orgazmo (1997)

Before Trey Parker and Matt Stone hit the stratosphere of their success with television’s South Park, the duo’s interest resided in the world of movies. The two formed a partnership whilst attending the University of Colorado Boulder, collaborating on short films before creating their first feature film, Cannibal! The Musical. Years later, in 1998, before South Park had been given the full go-ahead by Comedy Central, Stone and Parker signed contracts to star in the David Zucker (of Airplane and Naked Gun fame) comedy BASEketball. Zucker wanted two unknowns at the time. In between these two projects, the duo managed to raise funds for a comedic look at the porn industry – a film centred on a devoutly religious young man who steps into the role of a lacklustre porn superhero named Orgazmo, turning him into a legendary icon. From that synopsis alone you would assume the film was cheap, ridiculous, stupid and indecent – you wouldn’t be wrong. But you should still watch the film. It’s hilarious.

It’s written and directed by Parker with him also starring in the lead role as Mormon missionary, Joe Young. Joe spends his time traveling door-to-door in Hollywood, attempting to spread the word of the Mormon faith with no success until he knocks on the innocent-looking door of a porn set, inside they are shooting the superhero sex adventure, Orgazmo. Joe, with the help of his martial arts skills, attracts the eye of antagonistic director Maxxx Orbison (convincingly played by Michael Dean Jacobs) who wants him for the role of the lead character, offering a healthy fee for his services and without taking no for an answer. Reluctant Joe accepts the job as he needs the money to pay for a temple wedding in Utah with his beloved fiancée Lisa (Robyn Lynne) under the condition a ‘stunt cock’ is used (so he doesn’t have to engage in penetration). Joe teams up with his sidekick co-star, known as Ben or ‘Choda-Boy!’, who has PHD’s in physics and engineering and the two soon transition their on-screen characters into the real world – with the aid of Ben’s technical innovation – when their friend G-Fresh comes into conflict with violent mobsters. Stone produces the film and co-stars as the hilariously manic Dave the Lighting Guy.

The performances may on the surface appear amateurish and simplistic but this is clearly a deliberate intention that is consistent with the film’s comedic tone. The B movie style of acting is reflective of the porn industry that the characters operate within. The theme of porn and the notion of the classic Hollywood underdog story are parodied and the over-the-top typical character traits that are common in both are served superbly by the performances. Firstly, Trey Parker is fantastic at giving off an innocent and wholesome vibe throughout, simultaneously appearing tortured with religious guilt. The vast confliction of Parker’s complete innocence and heartfelt devotion to Jesus stumbling into this bizarrely sexual world is an obvious comic concept on paper, as well as an absurd one. It’s a premise that allows for huge comic potential as long as it’s not solely focused on the gratuitous sexual exploits. The film succeeds in employing the correct type of parody and humour in this regard – when the audience expects to see the erotic sight of a woman’s exposed breasts appear on-screen (a common occurrence in raunchy Hollywood films and porno), the view is always blocked by a set of hairy male buttocks. Parker is playing with the audience by presenting a story set in an erotic backdrop but making it very un-erotic.

Michael Dean Jacobs fits perfectly into the role of sleazy and aggressive porn baron, Maxxx Orbison, proving the character to be the obvious opposite of Joe in terms of morality. The character invokes typical superhero villains from 60s cartoons as well as bullying Hollywood producer types. Dian Bachar succinctly plays Ben/Choda-Boy! – basically a porn version of Robin. Memorable characters also come in the form of Matt Stone as Dave the Lighting Guy and David Dunn as A-Cup, one of Orgazmo’s more formidable adversaries – his stinging weapon being the power of farts. Stone’s plays an extremely enthusiastic, sex-crazed, sexually ambiguous photographer who takes a liking to Joe. ‘’I don’t wanna sound like a queer or nothin’’ always being the precursor to his utterances to Joe. Parker and Stone have little screen time together but when they do it is clear to see they are a natural comic pairing. A final mention has to go to Masao Maki playing sushi restaurant owner, G-Fresh – a Japanese guy who thinks he’s black. Maki is clearly not trained as an actor and I would imagine had very little acting experience before appearing in this (and no films since, unfortunately). But this slapdash performance may be the funniest of the bunch. Parker is poking fun at the Hollywood trope of minority-race sub characters. It’s truly amusing to see an inapt Japanese man say lines like ‘’but homie don’t play that!’’ and ‘’ You gonna get popped! if you keep ridin’ me…’’

”G-Fresh in da motherfucking house”- G-Fresh

One coherent aspect of the collective performances that obliges the bizarreness of the comedy is that everyone plays it straight, never once forcing a wink to camera or a nod to the audience. Although the acting at the majority of times is heightened, it is as if the characters believe they are part of a dramatic uplifting tale of good overcoming evil, showcasing the triumph of the human spirit. The reality of the situation is what makes it so funny for the audience.

Verdict

Orgazmo incorporates the genres of superhero, martial arts, romance and sci-fi to parody the spheres of both porn and mainstream Hollywood cinema in typical Parker/Stone fashion. It may not provide as many hard laughs as Team America or South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut but if you submit to its self-aware stupidity then it may come close.

The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)

This particular Bond adventure, and the entire Roger Moore era, seems to have an underwhelming reputation. From the day of its release until now, the general consensus among critics has been negative with Moore failing to impress with his acting range and the campy humour souring the slick action sequences. For me, the film for sure has faults but Roger Moore isn’t one of them. This was his second outing as Bond (after the success of Live and Let Die) and the performance is likely to have cemented his place in Bond’s shoes. It may not have struck a chord with critics but certainly did so with audiences as the box office success of the franchise allowed him to entertain as Bond for a further five films until his age proved the fatal factor and he stepped aside for Timothy Dalton. The film disappoints me with its forceful cheesy comic relief – mainly from the character Sheriff J. W. Pepper (Clifton James) – that doesn’t streamline well with cold menace of Moore and sinister threat of the villain: the film’s biggest redeeming quality ,Christopher Lee.

It has a cyclical structure, opening with an unknown man arriving on an unknown island before being lured by a mysterious midget (Nick Nack) into a dark funhouse. A gun duel ensues between the nameless gangster and the island owner, super-assassin Scaramanga (Christopher Lee) – The Man with the Golden Gun. Needless to say, Scaramanga is a pro and doesn’t charge a million dollars a hit for nothing. He ends the duel with a sweet headshot before light shines on a wax dummy, revealing his next target: James Bond. The plot is loosely based around Fleming’s book of the same name and centres on a device called the Solex Agitator, which can harness the sun’s power. Bond has to balance the objective of the locating the Solex with the lethal threat of Scaramanga towering over him.

One common trait of the Roger Moore Bond filmography is the influence of cinematic trends that were popular throughout the era. Previously with the blaxploitation genre in Live and Let Die and successively with sci-fi (particularly Star Wars) in Moonraker and action/adventure (Raiders of the Lost Ark) in Octopussy. In 1974, the current phenomenon was Bruce Lee and Kung-Fu with Enter the Dragon being a huge hit. Therefore, it seeps into The Man with The Golden Gun. This aspect works well when Bond is pitted against a top martial arts student with the combat and stunts creating a worthy battle sequence. Unfortunately, the film over-indulges itself with over-the-top martial arts as Bond’s Hong Kong cop sidekick Hip (Soon-Taik Oh) arrives soon after and, along with his two nieces, proceeds to defeat the entire dojo.

This kind of outlandishness is unnecessary but is a reoccurrence throughout the film, most prevalently when the character of J.W Pepper enters into the frame. Pepper is one of the few reoccurring characters of the franchise, having previously featured in Live and Let Die, and many fans would have been pleased that this was his last appearance. Pepper’s loud and obnoxious ways fuse a great contrast when he’s by the side of 007 – most of his screen time is during one of the film’s action set-pieces when Bond and Scaramanga engage in a car chase along a canal. However, the contrast between Bond and Pepper is not one that allows for comic potential. The two do not make an unlikely comic partnership; it’s just an unbelievable relationship that doesn’t serve the plot in any way.  Pepper has been inserted purely as comic relief but when you’re in the midst of a vital prospect, an enthralling chase between the protagonist and antagonist and one of the fantastical highlights of the film, is it really necessary to have fat loudmouth belting out meaningless quips as James Bond tries to save the fucking world?  The negative influence of what Pepper represents is epitomised when the film’s legendary stunt takes place as Bond executes a corkscrew jump over a wrecked bridge, landing on the other side of the canal.  But as the car is in mid-air, instead of the usual thrilling score a horribly misplaced slide whistle sound effect is played, turning what could have been the breath-taking climax to a chase scene into a cheap clownish spoof. Unnecessary.

Returning to what makes the film worth watching, Christopher Lee is a superb choice for the deadly assassin, Scaramanga. His tall frame and deep, haunting voice commands a sense of fear and ice-cold precision, especially when he addresses his lover Andrea (Maud Adams). He is truly menacing when delivering lines like ‘‘yes, it’s a guest I’m expecting…no, he won’t be leaving’’ over the phone. Unlike Bond and Pepper, the contrast between the lanky Scaramanga and his miniature servant Nick Nack forms an interesting and humorous partnership. But the most fascinating relationship in the film is the one between Bond and Scaramanga – essentially they are not too dissimilar in terms of character. They are both two cold-hearted killers with little respect for women. It’s when this dynamic is explored and the relationship between the two is on-screen that the film is at its best. This is most evident towards the end of the film when Scaramanga and Bond dine before going head-to-head in the final duel which once again takes place in the darkness of the funhouse. Scaramanga has a clear affection and respect for Bond but Bond is not charmed and makes clear his distaste for what Scaramanga does. Scaramanga retorts with ‘’you get as much fulfilment out of killing as I do’’.

Verdict

This entry in the Bond universe has many flaws but in the end they are overshadowed by the captivating Christopher Lee as Scaramanga, creating one of the most iconic villains ever. Roger Moore proves he is perfect for the role of Bond by being effortlessly cool and charming whilst remaining convincing when portraying the darker aspects of the character. The two combine to produce a frustrating but nevertheless watchable James Bond venture.

Deep Cover (1992)

Laurence Fishburne’s first starring role was in the 1992 crime drama, Deep Cover. At the time, he was still being credited as Larry Fishburne but he proved his name with this intense and captivating performance as undercover police officer, Russell Stevens Jr. Co-starring in the film is Jeff Goldblum as corrupt attorney David Jason; Goldblum is known for his eccentricities and this performance proves no exception. The focused Fishburne and the manic Goldblum create an unconventional and highly interesting on-screen partnership in this noir thriller set against the backdrop of urban decay and drug culture.

The film begins on a powerful scene, transporting us twenty years into the past with Fishburne’s character as a young child, waiting in the car watching his alcoholic, drug addicted father attempt to rob a liquor store before being blasted in the back by the owner’s shotgun. As his father (The Wire’s Glynn Turman) crumbles to the floor with blood soaked dollar bills slipping through his fingers, he utters his last words ‘’I’m sorry’’. The scene is set during Christmas time, the picturesque atmosphere of the winter streets creating a warm sense of family. Of course when Russell’s father is shot a dark antithesis is enforced and the bleak tone of the film is established with the noir influence seeping through as Russell’s narration begins (much in the style of 40s noir films like Double Indemnity). He vows never to become like his father.

The opening instigates Russell’s sense of morality, which is a concept that is continuous throughout the film. Russell becomes aware of how the drug-abusing streets corroded a man like his father and decides to not fall down that path. Instead, gravitating to the opposite side of the law and joining the police force. But now, twenty years on, he’s enlisting with a DEA Special Agent who is assigning him to go undercover in the L.A. underworld and infiltrate the network of a major drug importer. When Russell is concealed in the crime world, he is known as John Hull, and frequently encounters narcotics Detective Taft (played by the effortlessly cool Clarence Williams III), a devoutly religious man. Crime, morality and religion circulate to present Russell’s story as a mythic tale, one where he is constantly wrestling with decisions and choices.

An unsettling scene that stands out for me takes place during a birthday dinner of the drug network with many of the big players at the table, Russell and David included. The dinner begins pleasantly but soon descends into chaos when Russell impresses psychotic underboss Felix Barbossa (Gregory Sierra); Felix then turns his attention to the failings of David and begins an assault of verbal harassment, making David and the rest of the table very uncomfortable. Felix decides to ‘lighten up the party’ by challenging David to a playground game of slaps. David gets nowhere near Felix; Felix being a thunderstorm of intimidation never fails to miss, leaving David’s face red and knuckles dripping with blood. The credit lies with the colossal performance of Gregory Sierra (as Felix) who portrays a man with troubling confidence and dead eyes – a haunting figure of the drug trade. Goldblum stands taller, broader, younger and fitter than Sierra but once they look each other in the eyes you know that David is entering a world of pain. You look into the eyes of Felix and you know that this is a man who is capable of horrifying atrocities, a man that not only is willing to destroy someone just because he doesn’t like them but also humiliate and mercilessly disrespect them for entertainment. In conclusion, Felix has huge balls.

         Gregory Sierra, Felix Barbossa 

In contrast, a scene that fails to work on a threatening dramatic level, and instead is unintentionally funny, occurs in the midst of one of the film’s action set pieces – a car chase between a limo and the police. Russell is driving the limo whilst, once again, David and Felix go head-to-head in the back with David forcing the upper hand. Sierra doesn’t underperform in this scene, being superb throughout. The same cannot be said for Goldblum and Fishburne who go way over the top, dissipating the intensity of the scene. Fishburne constantly screams from the front as violence is taking place in the back but his cries come off as childish and bizarre, as if done for comedic purposes. Goldblum is eccentric throughout this film, and in many of his other performances, but in this scene he takes it to the top level of crazy, saying memorable lines like ‘’yeah, we’ll have shrimp’’ and ‘’then we’ll have jumbo barbeque shrimp…you motherfucker!’’. These lines feel like ad-libs that have no relevance to the scene, film or in fact anything at all. Perhaps they would work in a comedy film or a stylized, unconventional piece but because the rest of Deep Cover is dealt in a carefully considered manner, the dialogue seems misplaced and the scene feels misdirected. Instead of creating tension and scaling threat, the sequence is funny.

The film is directed by Bill Duke, who is better known for being on the other side of the camera besides Schwarzenegger, acting in films such as Predator and Commando. Nevertheless, he has a lot of directing work on his C.V. but undoubtedly this is his strongest film (other credits include Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit). Disregarding the limo chase scene, he encapsulates a very dark and urban aesthetic where every character appears to have a crushing flaw beneath their surface; Russell is surrounded by these characters that are compelled with money, drugs, greed and dominance. Duke succeeds in taking us on Russell’s double-life journey through an underworld consisting of all these obsessions, with moral decisions and choices always running through his mind.

Verdict  

A pretty much forgotten, but underrated, noir crime thriller from the 90s filled with interesting performances. It’s also worth mentioning a great title song by Dr.Dre and Snoop Doggy Dogg. Watch it for intense drama and a good laugh.

”I gotcha, motherfucker! I gotcha!”

– Quote by Bill Duke from Predator

The Mask (1994)

The 90s is undoubtedly the defining period of Jim Carrey’s career. He was known for his crazy facial expressions and eccentric impersonations as a cast member on the US sketch comedy show In Living Color until he was launched into super-stardom with 1994’s Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. The film was met with mixed reviews but grossed a huge profit and in the same year two more smash hit comedies were released, The Mask and Dumb & Dumber, all-in-all not a bad year for Carrey. The Mask proved to be the biggest success of the three films both commercially and critically and allowed Carrey to get a huge pay rise for Dumb & Dumber. As well as its immediate popularity, the film in today’s world is considered a cult classic. I would attribute its huge appeal, especially to children, to the way it skilfully mixes genres and presents a world with many different comedic layers.

Carrey plays ‘Mr. Nice Guy’ Stanley Ipkiss, a supressed dejected bank clerk who falls in love with singer Tina Carlyle (Cameron Diaz in her first ever role) but can’t find the courage to initiate a romance with her. He stumbles upon an ancient wooden mask that transforms him into a racy, green-headed super-being with animated sensibilities. When Stanley becomes ‘The Mask’ he unleashes mayhem and mischief on the city whilst also sparking a relationship with Tina. This doesn’t fit well with Tina’s gangster boyfriend Dorian Tyrell and a hostile feud ensues between The Mask, the gangsters and the city police.

The genre of the film could be interpreted in many ways. For sure it is a comedy but it also inhabits the world of the comic book superhero, cartoons and gangsters. When Stanley is in the guise of The Mask he becomes a cartoon character, someone who is able to manipulate his surroundings and convert them into his cartoon world. Although the film is based on a comic book, its primary influence seems to be cartoons, particularly Tex Avery cartoons from the 40s, and the film does not try and hide this. At one point, Stanley watches the cartoon Red Hot Riding Hood (1943) in his apartment; later The Mask replicates the mannerisms and antics of the notorious wolf character whilst admiring Tina’s performance at the Coco Bongo Club, highlighting the release of his inner primal animal desire.

Also in Stanley’s apartment, resting on his couch, is a Tasmanian Devil cushion and, once again, when he shifts into The Mask he performs vortex spins not dissimilar to the Looney Tunes character. It displays Stanley as a huge cartoon fan, and a bit of a nerd, with the ancient mask not necessarily being a straight forward superpower but a weapon that allows him to play out his most inner desires and fantasies. The mask takes away all of your social boundaries and administers an adrenaline shot to your confidence. It lets you be who you want to be.

Carrey’s performance is one of pure comic brilliance. The concept of the film and its cartoon nature is perfectly suited to Carrey’s style of comedy as he is given free rein to dip in and out of voices, facial expressions and costumes. Much of the credit has to be awarded to the make-up and visual effects departments as well. With Carrey’s face being covered for a lot of the film, the make-up expert made a conscious decision to allow for his facial expressions to be visible as these are essential to Carrey’s performance. The film was unsurprisingly nominated for the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects as it mixes the cartoon set-pieces against the real world exterior perfectly.

The ‘real world’ also serves a heavy part in the film’s success. Despite seemingly being primarily aimed at children, the film carries many adult sensibilities – particularly with the element of crime and gangsters. In a word, the gangsters are the ’real-deal’; they use guns, they smoke, the pose a genuinely malicious threat. One scene, in which Dorian (Peter Greene) is held down at gunpoint with a golf tee pushed in his mouth whilst his boss whacks a golf ball off his face, wouldn’t go out of place in a Scorsese film – ‘’I’ll use your empty little skull to break-in my new nine iron’’.  However, the filmmaker’s decision to treat the antagonists in a serious manner works greatly in the film’s favour. When the vicious gangsters are combined with clowning around of Carrey it allows for huge comic potential. The threat of the gangsters is genuine and they act in an unsmiling and humourless fashion, when The Mask is pitted against them he acts in the complete opposite mind-set – feeling none of the threat whatsoever instead toying with the villains. This contrast is when the film delivers many of its laughs, the scene when Dorian and his men confront The Mask at the nightclub in particular. Conversely, one moment in which the film’s more adult nature perhaps does not work is during the scene where The Mask is making balloon animals for a bunch of street thugs, he reaches for a balloon and instead pulls out a used condom before saying ‘’sorry, wrong pocket’’. Considering the film’s primary audience of children and the humour being mostly focused on slapstick and cartoon violence, this joke seems slightly misplaced. I certainly did not understand the joke when I viewed the film many times as a kid. In fact, it was not until I watched it again recently that I noticed the risqué moment.

Verdict

The film is a childhood favourite of mine and I believe it still holds up today as a comedy classic, more precisely a Jim Carrey classic of the 90s. It established Carrey as an incredibly versatile and energetic performer with an incredible capacity to entertain. The film also superbly mixes and incorporates genres to create its own unique look. It’s setting and visual identity is inspired by 1940s film noir and when this is mixed with the superhero and cartoon elements it creates a truly joyful film.

Dirty Harry (1971)

Clint Eastwood has played many iconic characters over the course of his career but perhaps Harry Callahan sits at the very top. Callahan highlights everything that Eastwood is good at portraying – a character that possesses a quiet menace outlined by mystery. Dirty Harry is the second out of the five-film collaboration between Eastwood and director Don Siegel, and I would argue their best. Siegel manages to capture Eastwood’s subtle performance perfectly whilst raising questions about police brutality and the faded line between officer of the law and criminal.

The film’s narrative is a stream of escalation. It presents a classic game of cat and mouse with Eastwood as the predator and Andrew Robinson playing the villain of the piece, a disturbed baby-faced assassin calling himself ‘Scorpio’ but recognised only in the credits as the ‘killer’. From the first frame of the film, Scorpio jeopardies the city of San Francisco whilst playing sadistic games with the police department. Soon, a personal feud brews with Inspector Callahan, who doesn’t exactly like to follow police procedure.

The fact that Callahan is known by his peers in the force as ‘Dirty Harry’ is somewhat ironic as every time he appears on screen he looks immaculate, wearing well-tailored suits and sporting a precisely-combed haircut. Harry has a cool exterior but on the inside is fuelled by contempt and bitterness –this could also be said about the film as it has its foot firmly set in reality. It deals with the real-life crime issues of that era – most notably, the Zodiac serial killer (renamed as Scorpio in the film) who plagued northern California in the late 60s/early 70s and was never brought to justice. Harry could have been fabricated as an antidote to this – someone who is willing to break a few human-rights laws in order to eradicate the enemy and save innocent lives. Callahan is an antihero – someone who is very assured of himself and is unwilling to find sympathy for anybody else’s point of view. This aspect plays with the public’s perception of the police, a growing feeling of mistrust towards authorities due to a NYPD corruption scandal that was occurring at the time of the film’s release. Harry isn’t exactly corrupt he just doesn’t follow the rule book; his prime motive is to apprehend the lawbreakers by any means necessary (his preferred method: a 44 Magnum) and deal with the equitable consequences later. That’s why the audience root for Eastwood’s understated performance because we know at his core he has a burning desire to catch criminals and save innocent lives, and Eastwood allows us to believe that sometimes the most effective method of achieving this is to play dirty.

The film is dark both aesthetically and thematically. Its subject matter concerned with brutal violence sparked controversy upon its release, particularly with feminists who held up a banner claiming ‘Dirty Harry is a Rotten Pig’ at the 44^th Academy Awards. Apart from the themes, the film – predominantly in its chase sequences set during night – is just plain dark. Siegel made a decision to shoot these chases with very little lighting, making it difficult for the viewer to see exactly what is going on during these action sequences. But the decision works to the film’s advantage as it gives it a spontaneous, documentary-style feel. The darkness fills the screen displaying the harsh realities of the criminal underworld and creates an air of mystique – posing the question: what horrors may lurk in the shadows?

Another effective technique Siegel employs is during the climax of a chase scene set at the centre of a football stadium in which Harry is dishing out an excruciating act of torture on Scorpio. As Scorpio screams and begs for mercy, Siegel delivers a huge helicopter shot that zooms out on the two rivals until we are out of the stadium and the screen is once again filled with the blackness of the night. This shot is highly effective as it shows the harsh nature of police brutality and gives the audience a flicker of sympathy for Scorpio. The zoom-out shows his horrendous screams of pain are heard by no one – this further conveys how the people and the city are blind to police brutality.

Although Eastwood is the star of film, you would be wrong to assume that he gives the outstanding performance. He shares this with Andrew Robinson who gives an insanely unsettling performance as Scorpio. Like the antithesis of Harry’s reputation and appearance, Scorpio possesses a youthful, innocent face that makes him all the more sinister and diabolical when he commits his acts of atrocity – Siegel has mentioned that this was a deliberate ploy in the casting process. Neither Eastwood or Robinson were first choice for their roles but both performances create an equal balance and fit together perfectly to highlight that Callahan and Scorpio are really two sides of the same coin. They are both ruthless killers who are disheartened by the city and society they are a part of. Where the two differ is their psyche; Scorpio is claiming to be motivated by money but is clearly more interested in attention, whereas attention seems like Callahan’s idea of a nightmare. His pent-up rage for scum and his ‘dirty’ reputation, we find out, is driven by the death of his wife. Subsequently, he becomes increasingly disillusioned and frustrated with the law and legal procedures that seem to get in his way.

Verdict

I disagree with the notion that the film’s moral stance is fascist and I wouldn’t call Dirty Harry a ‘rotten pig’. Instead, I believe the film poses a question to the audience – asking is there any room for sympathy and courtesy when dealing with viscous psychopaths? Maybe sometimes the word of the law isn’t good enough and a cop like Dirty Harry is needed to deliver true justice. The film has had a detrimental influence on the crime genre since its release – not just in cinema but on TV as well – and was deservedly a critical and commercial success.

Scarface (1983)

Scarface was critically panned throughout the period of its theatrical release. The critics viewed it as a sexualised gangster movie that was unnecessarily ultra-violent with an obscene amount of expletives. There is no denying that the film delivers on that description but as time passed, all of those factors worked in the film’s favour as it gained a cult following and subsequent critical praise. It now lies near the top of table in the crime and gangster genre, rightly so in my opinion.

It is classed as a remake of the 1932 film of the same name but in reality it is more of a reimagining or a reboot for the 80s age. Directed by Brian De Palma, the film follows one man – Tony Montana (Al Pacino) – a refugee who jumps off the boat from his native Cuba and lands in Miami, Florida. Tony’s transition into the Miami crime world is pretty swift as he shoots up the ladder of the cocaine business with his best friend Manny beside him.

The opening credit sequence is shot documentary style, showing the collection of refugees squashed together on their boat journey from Cuba to America. An introductive text preludes this, explaining that Fidel Castro (the Cuban president) set free many of the criminals that were residing in his jails and shipped them off to America along with the refugees. This is all factual information and proves to be a vital asset for the film as it grounds it in reality. De Palma’s decision to shoot the credit sequence in this unstylish true-life fashion sets up Tony’s story as one that is completely in realms of possibility; it reflects the genuine social and political landscape of 80s Miami. De Palma doesn’t set up Tony as a one-in-a-million immigrant super-gangster – he is just one out of the 25,000 criminals from Cuba who arrived in America determined to acquire money and respect.

Some may say that it is more of an Al Pacino film than a De Palma one. I would agree with this to an extent as it is undoubtedly Pacino’s explosive performance that makes the film such a success. He is the film’s sole focus and is at the centre of every scene throughout an epic 170 minute story. This means a first-rate performance is required from a big actor, without so the film simply would not work. We establish this reliance on Pacino during the first dialogue scene when Tony is interrogated by US Feds. Tony is seated and the camera stays on his reactions as he is questioned; the Feds are stood up with their faces not in the frame. De Palma is making it clear to the audience that Tony Montana is going to carry us throughout the whole film.

Tony’s character and personality on a base level is very unappealing. He’s a thug, a liar and a murderer willing to do anything to get what he wants – someone many people would not want to spend 170 minutes with. But Pacino allows us to sympathise and identify with Tony, as he is a  person who has come from a poor background, his country having treated him harshly and unfairly, and he now wants to make a better life for himself – like Tony says ‘‘I want what’s coming to me…the world and everything in it’’. We have huge admiration for the sheer determination and menace of Tony and that’s the true brilliance of Pacino’s performance.

The film’s visual dynamic is also essential to its success. Miami, other than Tony, may be the biggest character in the film. The screen is filled with sunshine, palm trees and bright colours that mark the fashion of that era. During the daytime, the colours that are most prevalent are light blues, whites and creams that present Miami as a laid-back, sun-soaked paradise. But when it switches to night, the darkness of the nightclubs is mixed with neon pinks and blues, this along with the quintessential 80s soundtrack give the film a truly cool aesthetic. It displays the nightlife as surreally vibrant whilst having a sinister edge, the kind of place where the cocaine trade would thrive.

But you would be wrong to assume that the direction and cinematography’s main aim is to present Miami as the ultimate party utopia. Imagery is important to what De Palma is trying to convey to the audience. A first example would be close to the beginning of the film; the scene begins with a shot of a billboard that shows the Miami horizon in all its glory. The billboard is a painting and the camera pans out and down until we see Tony and Manny sweating their asses off in a tiny sandwich restaurant named ‘el paraiso’. A second instance is just after the halfway point of the film where Tony furiously confronts his boss Frank Lopez and a corrupt detective. The scene is set in Lopez’s office with one of the walls covered with a huge artwork of palm trees against a sunset. In both cases the beautiful imagery greatly differs from the reality of the situation. The set design of the billboard and artwork illustrate what the Miami culture is supposed to represent but De Palma shows the antithesis of this with the criminal values of the characters and the violence they unload on each other. It shows Miami as perhaps what it really was in the 80s: a fake or lost paradise that had been overrun by cocaine and crime.

Many people disregard the film as they believe it glorifies the extreme culture of drugs and violence; they see it as a celebration rather than a satire. I’m unsure I’d call it a satire as I believe it to be more of an epic representation of the immigration crime wave of that decade, a heightened but nevertheless true representation of that period in Miami.  The film is a thrilling tale about greed, violence and the American dream, and it will always be stapled to the 80s decade. De Palma does a fantastic job of directing Oliver Stone’s ambitious script but the film’s biggest quality is the talent of Al Pacino. Like the tagline for the poster says, He was Tony Montana. The world will remember him by another name…

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

Martin Scorsese’s twenty-third feature cements the director’s status as still one of the most exciting and challenging visionaries presently working in Hollywood. On paper, a three hour film about a stockbroker working in 1980s Wall Street doesn’t quite seem worth sitting through, but with Scorsese at the helm he ensures it’s a ferocious three hour wild ride of a movie that hardly gives its audience a moments rest. It’s filled with drama, drugs, profanity, sex, violence, nudity and maybe the film’s most important factor – laughter.

Based on the true life story of Jordan Belfort, taken from his 2008 book, the film follows Jordan (Leonardo DiCaprio) from his first day on Wall Street as a wannabe millionaire to his days of manipulating the market and executing a penny stock scam to become a Wall Street superman. Throughout his rise to power, we are with Jordan as he meets new friends, business partners and enemies. The most prevalent being his right hand man Donnie Azoff, played effortlessly by Jonah Hill. We also get a substantial insight into Jordan’s extremely hedonistic lifestyle – which is where most of the film’s comedy is derived from. His lifestyle and riches may be the film’s greatest appeal to the mainstream audience but it would be wrong to assume that Scorsese’s purpose for making the film was to celebrate a man who’s only goal in life was to achieve wealth in any way possible without giving a second’s thought or an ounce of respect to the the law he was breaking or the innocent people he was degrading. There is a lot more to the film than just the surprisingly survivable nature in which Jordan consumes drugs or the endless ways in which Jordan chooses to flaunt his obscene amount of money – doing so without feeling a flicker of morality enter his brain.

The story of the film feels perfectly suited to Scorsese as it is centred on an antihero protagonist’s journey through the world of organised crime, a topic which he has dealt with many times before, most notably with Goodfellas and Casino. It could be viewed, as Scorsese briefly mentioned in an interview, as a companion piece to those films because it relies on the audience sympathising with the antihero as they are taken through the drama of their rise and inevitable fall. However, when put next to the protagonists of Scorsese’s other films, such as Jake LaMotta and Travis Bickle, Jordan Belfort maybe the most dislikeable of the entire group. This may make it difficult for some of the audience to find a shred of sympathy for the character and as a result they may find the lead character, and the whole culture of Wall Street stockbrokers, intolerable. If this is the case, then it is likely to be a very unenjoyable 180 minutes for the viewer. On the other hand, if you, like me, find at least initial likeability in DiCaprio’s character and the excessiveness of the Wall Street culture through the consistent humour of the film, then you’ll find it a pleasure to spend your time in the company of these morally revolting men and the three hours will race by, leaving your cheeks hurting from laughter.

This marks Scorsese and DiCaprio’s fifth collaboration together and it proves the partnership to be as fresh and successful as ever. DiCaprio, like always, gives a fantastic performance showing passion, depth and versatility. In some ways, the role could be viewed as a departure for him due its comedic nature. But DiCaprio adapts superbly to the comic elements. The highlight revolving around a slapstick set-piece in which Jordan tries to enter and drive his Lamborghini whilst severely inebriated by Quaaludes. DiCaprio also excels when delivering Jordan’s rip-roaring monologues – these are the scenes in which his character gives passionate speeches to energise his stockbroker workforce. DiCaprio performs these speeches phenomenally; significant credit also has to go to Terence Winter’s script but DiCaprio treads the line between the monologues being furiously eloquent whilst simultaneously seeming unrehearsed perfectly. I’m not sure any other actor in the world could do a better job.

Scorsese arranged together a faultless ensemble cast. DiCaprio is the main focus and star of the film but the supporting cast come close to stealing the show. Firstly, Jordan’s goofy-looking sidekick Donnie (Jonah Hill) is a consistent source of laughs whilst remaining believable and serving as an important and essential figure in the plot. The conflicting chemistry between Donnie and Jon Bernthal’s character Brad (a muscly drug dealer) also highlights the genius decisions in the casting process. Matthew McConaughey proves he can do no wrong at the moment when he gives a brief but memorable appearance at the beginning of the film as Wall Street big-shot Mark Hanna. His role is vital as he inspires Jordan and introduces him, as well as the audience, into the ways of the Wall Street man. McConaughey effectively does this whilst concurrently being hilarious. Finally, there isn’t much room for a female voice in this movie – appropriately so as it accurately portraying the nature of Wall Street – but Margot Robbie gives a noteworthy performance as Jordan’s wife Naomi, in the end proving to be character to take the moral high ground.

Continuing with the theme of morality, some may see the film to have an obscure or twisted moral message. The film allows Jordan to narrate his own story, giving him the opportunity to justify the decisions he makes to the audience. The film also doesn’t hold back, it shows the mass drug consumption and explicit fornication in all its glory. But I find it perfectly justifiable for Scorsese to take this approach; the intention being to hold a mirror to the audience, showing us the kind of culture that Jordan Belfort and the rich corrupt world represent. The kind of culture that, at the end of the day, is celebrated instead of being properly despised.

Verdict

Considering Scorsese is 71, it is truly remarkable that he has made a hilariously cutting-edge film for a young audience. Without a doubt his funniest film along with one of DiCaprio’s finest performances. The film provides heavily in laughs alongside a important social commentary. My favourite film of 2013.