 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.178.211.68
In Reply to: RE: Gangster role? posted by jamesgarvin on January 18, 2010 at 09:12:04
He just ran with a rough crowd."We must beware of those who burn with zeal but are not endowed with much sense." - Angelo Roncalli
Follow Ups:
The point is that while Dillinger did bad things, he did them with a smile on his face, was good natured, and he was smart enough to nurture a favorable public image. Which is why folks in the towns he stayed in did not turn him in.
You must remember that Dillinger did his work during the great depression, and many people saw banks as their enemies. So, when he stole from the banks, many people saw him as a good guy screwing those institutions that screwed the little guy. He intentionally did not steal from and kill citizens in the banks because he wanted to preserve the good grace he had from citizens.
Floyd and Nelson liked killing people, and stole from everyone in the bank - customers included.
The point, of course, is that Dillinger did not act like a gangster, though he most certainly was a gangster. If he did not act like a gangster, when why should Depp portray him as a garden variety gangster, which is apparently what you expect.
You commented that Depp is not act like a gangster in the film, curiously omitting any discussion whether Depp acted like Dillinger. Perhaps you could explain in what way did not Depp not act like Dillinger, or how did Dillinger act in such a way that Depp failed to capture. You could also explain whether Depp brought the character that appeared on the page to screen, and if so, whether that depiction is really a screenwriting issue rather than an acting issue. Do you think Depp should added nuances to a real life character that were not there in the first place in order to satisfy someone's preconceived notions of what a 20's era gangster acted like?
You actually believe the "Robin Hood" myths about a man who personally killed at least one cop, and whose murderous partners were utterly ruthless. When his pals killed indiscriminately, he stayed with them. Do you actually believe he was a teddy bear because he didn't do the killing personally? He was a psychopath...virtually by definition. Depp played Dillinger like he was a shoe saleman; none of the hair trigger threshold for violence that's necessary to become a leader over other violent criminals. For acting, Gandolfini's Soprano was much more true to type.The drug gangs in Mexico sponsor soccer teams and orphanages. You must love those guys.
"We must beware of those who burn with zeal but are not endowed with much sense." - Angelo Roncalli
Edits: 01/18/10
"You actually believe the "Robin Hood" myths about a man who personally killed at least one cop, and whose murderous partners were utterly ruthless."
You need to do some research. But you appear to have confused what I believe with reality. I never stated or even suggested that I believed the myth, only that there was a myth, perpetrated by Dillinger's demeanor. Your response admits there was a myth, which was my point, and that Depp accurately portrayed Dillinger. What you, nor anyone else has answered, is whether, one, Dillinger acted the manner which Depp depicted, and whether Depp accurately depicted Dillinger. Did the film show Dillinger shooting at people? Yes. Did it show him robbing from banks? Yes. So what was missing? Finally, please tell me.
Do you actually believe he was a teddy bear because he didn't do the killing personally?
Where did I state he was a teddy bear? I said he was a gangster. He was not a good guy. But Dillinger, by most accounts, was a likeable guy, despite the fact that he was a criminal. You've still not answered the question as to where Depp got the performance wrong, or was otherwise historically inaccurate.
"Gandolfini's Soprano was much more true to type."
Are you crazy? Gandolofini is playing a fictional character. The character IS a stereotype. Depp was playing a real life gangster. You seem to think that Depp should have changed Dillinger to fit your notion of how and what a gangster should act like. Further, how is Gandolifini's character based on reality, as opposed to Hollywood's version of reality? You really think John Wayne accurately depicted the real life cowboys in the old west?
You claim that Dillinger should have left the bad guys. You do not know your history. BFN joined Dillinger's gang. Dillinger did not like BFN's propensity for violence, and they parted ways. That does not make Dillinger a good guy, but it means that Dillinger did not agree with BFN's methods.
Now, how about telling me specifically how Depp did not capture the REAL Dillinger? Not the Dillinger that you created in your mind. Not the Dillinger you think should be molded by Hollywood characterizations.
"The drug gangs in Mexico sponsor soccer teams and orphanages. You must love those guys."
Now you just being juvenile.
You pretty much gushed about what normal guy Dillinger was. That there was no "gangster" behavior for Depp to present. You're ignoring who the man was. It's not a documentary, it a dramatic representation of a violent man. And as for Gandolfini's Tony S., you'd be surprised. I grew up with some of those guys as neighbors.
"We must beware of those who burn with zeal but are not endowed with much sense." - Angelo Roncalli
I never gushed that he was a normal man. Here are my quotes: "He was playing Dillinger. I suggest you do some research on Dillinger, because he was generally well liked, and the citizens at the time actually liked him. Watch the actual video of the scene in which Dillinger was captured, and he really did smile with his arms around the coppers. The coppers really liked Dillinger."
Whether you like it or not, or are willing to admit it or not, that video speaks volumes about Dillinger, and much of the public sentiment about him. Have you ever seen any such videos relative to Bonnie and Clyde? Baby Face Nelson? Pretty Boy Floyd? Nope. Clearly, Dillinger was different. That is not my opinion, those are simply facts.
"That there was no "gangster" behavior for Depp to present."
Read my quotes: "He was likeable because he was the one gangster..." [I called him a gangster], "The point is that while Dillinger did bad things" [Not to worry, I later fill in the blanks on those bad things], "though he most certainly was a gangster" [there is that gangster again], "the film show[s] Dillinger shooting at people? Yes. Did it show him robbing from banks? Yes. [where did I ever, ever, suggest that shooting at people and robbing banks was 'normal?'], "He was not a good guy."
You are trying very hard to put words in my mouth, and attribute meaning to statements that were clearly not intended.
So, again, I'll ask the question for at least the second time. The film shows Dillinger shooting at people and robbing banks, so what do you think Depp's performance should have included that it did not, and, at the same time, made it factually correct? I think you would have preferred Depp to make Dillinger more of a prototypical gangster in order to satisfy your notions of how a gangster should act, when every history lesson on Dillinger tells us he did not act like every other gangster.
Never thought I'd see the day when it became politically incorrect to called Dillinger a "gangster." Back to the film, Depp's portrayal was rather simple-minded and one-dimensional. No points missed and I've done my research...so there!
Frankie McErlane, now he was a gangster.
Anyway the picture was slow and boring and worse yet very inaccurate, had they told the story true it would've been a far better picture. For instance Nelson's real death was FAR more flamboyant, gutsy and interesting than his death in this terrible picture was. Would'a been alot more "cinematic" as they say.
This issue is not with Dillinger being a gangster. He was. The claim was that Depp did not act like a 'gangster.' You see, that is called conclusion, and, in and of itself, means nothing. You mean he shit like a gangster?
The issue is how did Dillinger act that made him a gangster, and what did Depp not include in his performance that stripped from Dillinger what made him a gangster?
Depp shot guns. At people. He killed people. He robbed banks. He had babes. He ran from the law. There was no sugarcoating. So, what exactly did Depp not include in his performance that he should have to make him more of a 'gangster?' Oh, yea, he did not use the Edward G. Robinson 'gangster method' acting.
Further, do you consider the actor who played Baby Face Nelson to be a superior actor to Depp? BFN was certainly depicted in the film in a completely different light Dillinger.
I might concede the point to you, but can you please explain what you mean by "This issue is not with Dillinger being a gangster. He was. The claim was that Depp did not act like a 'gangster.' You see, that is called conclusion, and, in and of itself, means nothing. You mean he shit like a gangster?"
So A is A and B is not A. That is a conclusion? Just not clear. Sorry.
I realize that Mann/Depp chose a perspective in which to portray Dillinger and you are defending that perspective--I'm guessing. For you the movie worked. It didn't for me. If their perspective had a little more complexity--say, taming the beast within to be the charming hero in public--I might have enjoyed it. They didn't, and the movie was simplistic...for me. It just lacked meaning, etc.
So A is A and B is not A. That is a conclusion? Just not clear. Sorry.Okay. Here goes. Saying that Dillinger was a 'gangster' and that Depp did not portray Dillinger like a 'gangster' implies that 'gangsters' behave certain ways and all have the same mannerisms. Dillinger most certainly was a 'gangster,' but did not have the mannerisms and behaviors of BFN, another 'gangster.' The differences between the two were clearly spelled out in the movie, and while the screenwriter took certain liberties with the facts, he or she did get the differences in their personalities and their methods right.
So, when someone says that Depp did not play Dillinger as a gangster, it means nothing. That statement would also mean that Dillinger was not a gangster, because, other than being a criminal, he did not behave as a gangster. The film clearly showed him being a criminal, and so if there is something else that makes a 'gangster' a 'gangster,' then I am curious what it is.
So, my question was simple. In what way was Depp's performance lacking in communicating the 'gangster' aspect to Dillinger.
"I realize that Mann/Depp chose a perspective in which to portray Dillinger and you are defending that perspective--I'm guessing..."
You say they chose the a perspective. Again, I ask in what way would you have preferred they approached Dillinger? Their portrayal was pretty much spot on to the real Dillinger, in that they showed him being a bad guy, but also showed that his public image was as a pretty good guy, and that his criminal methods and motivations were far different than, say, BFN. Those are facts.
I am defending their choice because it is the historically accurate choice, and I'd prefer them to portray the reality rather than fictionalize Dillinger, even if it did not comport with my preference that Dillinger be portrayed as bad across the board. So, again, I'll ask you, how should Depp have portrayed Dillinger? And should he have portrayed him that way even if it was not historically accurate?
It worked for me because I appreciate Depp's performance mirrored the real Dillinger, and I am willing to accept that Dillinger was a criminal, he was a popular criminal, as far as criminals go, and he had certain qualities that made him popular. Given that fact, I like the performance because it opens a window into what made Dillinger relatively popular. Depp could certainly have made him a son-of-a-bitch along the lines of BFN, but then what would you have learned? You would have been scratching you head wondering why this son-of-a-bitch was so popular.
Edits: 01/18/10
James,
Thanks for taking the time for your thoughtful response. I get what you are saying: I set up a rather plastic sterotype and then accused Depp of not conforming to it, thus drawing erroneous consclusions. Okay, point conceded.
In response to: "I'll ask you, how should Depp have portrayed Dillinger? And should he have portrayed him that way even if it was not historically accurate?"
I would say--as I said above--Mann/Depp's characterization of Dillinger--or probably more importantly, the script writer's--seemed simplistic to me, devoid of complexity, plastic. If they wanted to portray him as a gentleman, why not hint at some of the demons that drove him to be a criminal? Historical accuracy? Is history ever accurate? I stand by my statement above that Dillinger was a killer--cold-blooded--and the newspapers (worse then than now) made him a popular figure with the masses.
I'm glad you enjoyed the movie; I really wish that I had. Kind regards...
Tom
wasn't a cold-blooded killer because.... people liked him!
Next up, Bonnie and Clyde: misunderstood people that just happened to murder those that stood between them and a good day's work.
Where did I write any of that nonsense? I note that you failed to address the topic, to wit, whether Depp's performance accurately depicted Dillinger, and instead brought in a strawman. Was Dillinger likeable? I suggest you watch the actual footage in the police station after he was captured, and the cops put their arms around Dillinger, and his around them, all of them smiling and laughing, and then come back when you have actually taken the time to do any research with those idle hours you have available.
Edits: 01/19/10
killer by the name of Ted Bundy. Judge Cowart at Bundy's last trial, at which young Ted was sentenced to death, ""Take care of yourself, young man. I say that to you sincerely; take care of yourself, please. It is an utter tragedy for this court to see such a total waste of humanity as I've experienced in this courtroom. You're a bright young man. You'd have made a good lawyer, and I would have loved to have you practice in front of me, but you went another way, partner. Take care of yourself. I don't feel any animosity toward you. I want you to know that. Once again, take care of yourself."
Gosh, he was a lovable guy, too. A regular Joe. You'd have been proud to practice with him, just like good ol' Judge Cowart. A good film of him would show what a likable, personable fellow he was. And go out of its way (how troublesome!) to avoid all mention or portrayal of his ultra-violent, sick crimes. Heck, ol' Ted, like Dillinger, just had a few bad habits is all.
Need I do a search in Outside for your discussions of inner city residents committing murders wherein you provide, um, explanations for their crimes? Seems you hold white criminals from the midwest to a different standard. Maybe that is Tin's version of affirmative action.
which is how was Depp's performance historically inaccurate. Rather than discuss the actual, factual footage of Dillinger and the fact that the cops obviously liked him, you bring a completely unrelated criminal.
The problem for you, Tin, is that all you see is black and white, and never gray. He was a criminal. Therefore, Dillinger must have been all bad. He was completely evil. He cannot be likeable. Case in point is the fact that you completely ignore the factual footage of him and cops laughing it up. You ignore it because it does not comport to your world view of black and white.
Rather than discussing Bonnie and Clyde and Ted Bundy, how about discussing how Depp's performance was inaccurate. I've pasted Ebert's review, and he obviously get it.
happened to kill people. He was scum.
As far as my posts exculpating murderers from slums or anywhere, go ahead. Spend your day researching. I look forward to it. You may wish to move this "outside," though, as it's not really film related at that point.
Please provide the facts how Dillinger was not an average guy, except that he killed lots of people. Genius, Dahmer was an average guy, except that he killed lots of people. THAT IS HOW HE WAS NEVER CAUGHT. The smart criminal behaves like anyone else, so they do not get caught. The nutjobs are the ones that get caught by regular folks, because they, by their actions, identify themselves. Dillinger was able to walk aroung regular folks because he acted like them. That is, when he was not robbing banks.
You bitch about Depp's performance. He did rob banks. He did kill people. That is ALL in the film. How did Dillinger act that Depp did not capture? All you keep talking about is that Depp portrayed Dillinger as a regular guy, all without providing a SINGLE example of how Dillinger acted that was NOT in the film.
In other words, you have cannot accept the fact that Dillinger was a normal guy other than his occupation. Like Ebert wrote in his review, Dillinger's job was as a bank robber, just like someone else may be a mechanic. When Dillinger was not "working," he was a regular schlepp.
Of course, you'll not provide the facts. You'd rather Depp create a fictional character to satisfy your notion that bank robbers and killers cannot have normal traits. That is your loss.
Here, he writes a letter to Henry Ford in 1934"Hello Old Pal,
Arrived here at 10:00 AM today. Would like to drop in and see you.
You have a wonderful car. Been driving it for three weeks. It's a treat
to drive one. Your slogan should be, drive a Ford and watch the other
cars fall behind you. I can make any other car take a Ford's dust!Bye-bye,
John Dillinger"Bonnie Parker wrote poetry + sent this to newspapers + was published nationwide including "The Ballad of Bonnie + Clyde" + not to be outdone, Clyde Barrow wrote a letter to Ford as well thanking him for the reliability of the Ford V-8's ( he stole )
This is the "Dillinger" I wanted to see; vicious for sure, but also a certain back-woodsy + cocky humour that's hard, even now, not to admire
Not a hint of this in "Public Enemies"
GW
Edits: 01/19/10
There wasn't a trace of 'Public Enemies' in Public Enemies. 'Public Enemies' was a book (that I read) detailing the infamous timeframe in which the outlaws Dillinger, Nelson, Floyd, the Barkers, and Bonnie & Clyde thrived in. The premise of the book that I found interesting was that these criminals lived and thrived in what was surprisingly, a very short timeframe. Although having read many books about these guys, for whatever reason, I never put together the reality that they only existed for a very short time. More interesting to counterpoint the fact that the TRUE gangsters, names like Luciano, Genovese, Bonanno, etc. flew largely under the radar in no small part, thanks to the cowboy-hick antics of the Public Enemies. I was hoping to see THIS story on the screen and was really dissapointed, as I love a good Mob movie!
That showing Dillinger had a human and humorous side is blasphemy. He was a killer, and showing him with style, wit, and humor is akin to excusing his acts. I think Ebert's review nailed it on the head. The point of the film was to show the mechanics of Dillinger, not the pathos.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
