 
|
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 |
67.242.100.204
In Reply to: RE: You miss thepoint...and the history.... posted by jamesgarvin on January 18, 2010 at 12:56:33
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!
Follow Ups:
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 ]
