The Departed

Contrary to the raves and plaudits now making the rounds, The Departed is not a Martin Scorsese masterpiece, but of the so-called Leo Trio (The Gangs of New York and The Aviator being the first two installments of Scorsese’s Faustian deal with the studios), it is the most satisfying and truest Scorsese picture of the bunch. It’s telling that a slightly lesser Scorsese mob film, sizzling with the kind of punch and life that few contemporary films seem capable of these days, stands so distinguished against its multiplex brethren. And this probably answers Kevin’s bemusement over why so many critics have hailed The Departed as the cat’s pajamas.

the_departed-1.jpgMake no mistake: this is an intelligent and engaging two and a half hour crime caper. It delivers the goods. It’s a grand kick to see Scorsese return to film with a playful ferocity. Scorsese is very much in his element here, layering his visuals with the kind of crackling detail often overlooked by today’s emerging filmmakers. Everything from the dollops of sweat congealing on Alec Baldwin’s shirt to the lowered pistol position on Mark Wahlberg’s belt has been carefully decided upon. Scorsese makes Boston his own, opting for cool blues and greens juxtaposed against a feeling of urban decay lurking beneath the antiseptic steel of upper-class life. It’s an interesting riff on Tom Stern’s use of color in Mystic River. Only Scorsese’s long-time cinematographer Michael Ballhaus could have pulled off an homage that felt so fresh.

The great surprise is that Leo actually acts in this one. Whether this is because Scorsese has, after three films, finally figured out how to manage Leo or because Scorsese cast Bostonians Matt Damon and Mark Wahlberg in an effort to get Leo to up his game is anyone’s guess. But Leo achieves a vulnerability here that recalls the Leo of What’s Eating Gilbert Grape and The Basketball Diaries that I suspect we won’t be seeing again in some years, particularly when he’s now being asked to don an unconvincing South African dialect for the upcoming Blood Diamond.

Matt Damon is, at long last, coming into his own as an actor. Like his role in Syriana, Damon plays another charming golden boy gone horribly askew. Damon has a screen quality which suggests a 1980s-era Michael Douglas in the making: the man who you can still empathize with even when his sleazy qualities come to the surface. In Scorsese’s hands, Colin Sullivan, the seemingly spotless state police officer seduced by betrayal, still keeps his cards close to his chest. Even in the film’s finale, we don’t quite know the full level of self-betrayal that this man is contending with. Even his attempt to pet a dog is fraught with meaning.

Scorsese keeps the pace going at a steady clip. The film moves so fast that it’s easy to overlook such preposterous plot elements such as the state police refusing to pull an officer off an investigation when a major figure is killed or the troublingly inconsistent behavior of Vera Farmiga’s psychiatrist. (Farmiga is very good in her role, but her presence here seems to be more “Oh shit! We have too many guys in this film! We need a token chick!”)

I should note that I haven’t seen Infernal Affairs, the film that The Departed is based on. So I have no basis for comparison. But I’d argue that The Departed serves, in part, as Scorsese’s response to Quentin Tarantino, a grand master both saluting his followers while schooling him for his puerile indiscretions. Consider the mysterious box that Matt Damon holds at the beginning, reminiscent of the mysterious suitcase in Pulp Fiction. Or the way Martin Sheen invites Leo into his home for leftover supper in answer to the half-hearted domesticity seen in the Kill Bill movies. Consider also the nuanced cartoonish nature of The Departed‘s violence, where characters are massacred in over-the-top but absolutely fitting ways, reminiscent of Peckinpah’s artistic balance, rather than Kill Bill‘s grindhouse excess.

On this latter point, I should observe that film geeks often forget that Scorsese has an almost absurdist relationship with violence in his films, starting from his student film The Big Shave and carrying on to such grandiose heights as Bringing Out the Dead (a film which I will confess I misread on my first viewing, only to discover that movie’s almost Moliere-like approach to the “New York as hell” metaphor). From the moment that Leo deals with the “men from Providence” shortly after finishing up some pasta, I was seduced by The Departed. It is violence that triggers the cracks of the film’s two central characters, much as it reveals the class-based chasms of the world around them. (How does Damon secure a capacious apartment with a “co-signer” anyhow? I think the answer’s in that box.)

I’ve made no mention of Nicholson, but I would contend that had De Niro occupied the role of Costello, the film could have easily dwindled into camp. And while this film needed a superstar heavy, I was more interested in Leo and Damon.

The Book Standard’s Editorial Policy: Unreliable Fourth-Hand Gossip is Now “Publishing News”

Those who still believe that the Book Standard is a trustworthy beacon of journalism might wish to observe this unsigned item about O.J. Simpson getting $3.5 million for an upcoming memoir called If I Did It, which Galleycat is also questioning.

There are several reasons not to believe this:

1. The source is the National Enquirer, apparently a “secret source” who spoke to the Enquirer.
2. There is no publisher named for this deal. (Little, Brown was the publisher of O.J.’s last book.)
3. O.J. Simpson has already authored a book called I Want To Tell You, which appeared in 1995 and for which O.J. received a mere $1 million advance (along with $3 million more).
4. While I Want To Tell You was a No. 1 New York Times bestseller and sold half a million copies, it’s worth noting that these sales came when O.J. mania was in the air. There is nothing to suggest that anything O.J. Simpson authors eleven years later will have the same effect.

Given these circumstances, why did the Book Standard bother to report this without making a few calls to confirm the veracity of this rumor? Are they truly that lazy over there?

The Same Could Be Said of Her Novels

Danielle Steel: “For 25 years, I’ve been asked to put my name on a fragrance, and Anna Wintour made the match. I finally decided if it brings me some money, why not?”

Am I bad for thinking about Danielle Steel crawling through an urban gutter without her financial safety net? I want to see Steel confronted by cokehead editors who demand that she learn how to write. And then I want to see her forced to come to terms, like the hacks who languish in the slush pile (thank you, editors!), with the almost certain fact that she has no talent. And if, sans the stupendous sales of her shitty novels, she ends up whoring herself out in a crackhouse or marrying some affluent bozo for money, I contend that this would be a nobler service to humanity than the relentless solipsism that steers her plastic and vacuous mug through newspapers.

I’m probably a bad man for thinking these things. But then I have an issue with people who do things exclusively for commercial purposes. I’m not against commercialism completely. I realize we live in a capitalist society and there are certain (ethical) things we must do to get by. But I do take issue with folks who would rather live extravagantly than write extravagantly (and by “extravagantly,” I single out not necessarily showy prose, but those who write with great nuance). The Danielle Steels, John Grishams, Dan Browns, and Chuck Klostermans of our world so thoroughly debase the great art of writing that the great fury I feel for their pestilent contributions to American letters sometimes has me walking for miles to calm down. Only someone with a sophist sense of the world could find comfort in these authors. Only an artless savage could anticipate any of their next books.

(via Bookdwarf)

The Other Side of Neal Pollack

Marrit Ingram: “Two things struck me. One is that ‘Preschool of Rock’ seemed awfully familiar, right down to the music-lessons motif and ‘Iron Man’ references. Why, I’d written this article myself in 2004, when it was syndicated on AlterNet and noted across the Web. Stung, I blogged links to both pieces and asked readers for their impressions. A couple of people encouraged me to investigate the similarities. Another reasoned that Pollack ‘probably just never considered any literature that deals with the parents’ perspective before he himself became a parent, and now he thinks he’s inventing the wheel, or fire, so that we can all follow his light, admiring his insights.’ In either case, Pollack’s piece seemed to confirm the bad rap he got in New York Magazine, and I was less inclined to defend him if what he wants is praise for serving beer and punk at playgroup.”

Web Traffic: It’s All About the Writer’s Voice

Editor & Publisher: “Ebert took a leave in June to recovering from surgery for salivary-gland cancer, and according to Crain’s Chicago Business the site’s overall traffic was down 25% by August. RogerEbert.com, which is hosted by the Sun-Times, lost 65% of its visitors between June and August, falling from 1.1 million to 378,000.”

It seems that bloggers aren’t the only ones who can’t take vacations.

Psychotherapy or Darth Vader: You Make the Call

Theory of Everything: “As a child, Bo was skinny and awkward. The other kids picked on him, called him Bomosexual and Little Bo Creep. It made him mad. But he was too shy to express his anger. So he just burst into tears. Darth Vader was everything Bo wanted to be. Commanding, vengeful, even violent. Two years ago, he had a voice synthesizer surgically implanted into his trachea so that he could sound more like Darth Vader.”

Smells like a grand hoax, but funny stuff.

Bechdel/Thompson Update

According to Tom Spurgeon, the library trustees voted against keeping the books on shelves (at least for the time being). More in the thread over at Alison Bechdel’s blog:

At the meeting tonight of the Marshall Public Library Board of Trustees, the Board President proposed that the board appoint a committee to revise the library’s materials selection policy. That proposal passed, but with at least one “no” vote. I was sitting in the back and could not see all the hands, so I don’t know how many voted against the proposal.

Here’s the problem, as far as I am concerned: While the committee works on a new materials selection policy, the two books (”Blankets” and “Fun Home”) will be removed from circulation. They will be unavailable. There was no mention of how long the process will take.

When the Board President asked which of the Board members wanted to serve on the committee, apparently most of the hands went up, because we heard her say, “Well, I guess the whole Board could be on the committee.”

There’s nothing yet at the Marshall Democrat-News, but if I find anything specific that we can substantiate, I will report on it.

[UPDATE: A reader from Marshall notes that the books are “temporarily removed” as a materials collection policy is being drafted and that the case is at a standstill. The Marshall Democrat-News is an afternoon paper and I will update this post as more qualifying coverage comes in.]