American Wanksta

The Writers Guild of America went on strike on Monday, but from watching "American Gangster," one could certainly be forgiven for thinking that the movie's scribe Steven Zaillian took a head start. Now, whenever I see "Based on a true story," it usually causes warning lights to flash in my brain, not because I'm opposed to seeing historical events depicted in fictional films, but because they are usually done in such a melodramatic, cliche, and highly exaggerated fashion that it is distracting. Paradoxically, I often have a more difficult time suspending my disbelief when I see those words than I do when I see something that as obviously fictional as a near-naked, gold-skinned, reptillian Angelina Jolie rising out of a cave pond and asking the fat dude from the Departed to impregnate her. But that's me, and I have a warped mind.

Regardless, I'm going to go ahead and say there's not alot to love about Ridley Scott's latest testosterone celebration, not even performances by crowd favorites Denzel Washington and Russel Crowe.

Believe me, I wanted to like it. I don't take any pleasure in berating the work of any of the people involved in this effort. The elder Scott is a helluva better director than his brother- I love "Blade Runner," "Black Hawk Down," and even "Gladiator." Washington usually deserves all the credit he gets, and in fact, probably more, at least for his earlier, understated performances in "Glory" and "Crimson Tide." Crowe I've always pitied, because I feel like he is a damn fine, if crude leading man, especially when playing a heavy. His performance is perhaps the one pleasantly surprising aspect in the entire film, as it is simultaneously more restrained and relaxed than any of his previous work. But even this isn't enough to save the film.

Denzel's withdrawn, aloof, borderline depressed portrayal of Frank Lucas isn't very captivating, and certainly doesn't deserve to be placed on the same pedestal as such beloved onscreen mobsters as Tony Montaya, Tony Soprano, Micheal Corleone or even Robert De Niro's somewhat kitschy Al Capone from "The Untouchables."

Whether or not Lucas was very charismatic in real life, Washington does the man a disservice by failing to create a character that can cultivate any sort of significant emotional response from the audience, positive or negative. I didn't feel any sympathy or admiration for Lucas, but I didn't hate him either. Even the brutally violent first scene (the most "gangster" part of the movie) isn't despicable enough to turn Lucas into a deplorable monster who we want to see taken by the man, Crowe's Richie Roberts. The cinematography was cool for a few key scenes (mostly Crow busting shit up), but largely mirrored Denzel's performance; bland, uninspired and utterly unmemorable.

Perhaps the greatest offense, though, to me, was the confusing depiction of sexual activity. We get to see Lucas's attractive Puerto Rican bride in a corset for about one second while she's showing off a coat she got him (a scene included in TV Spots), meanwhile Russel Crowe humps the stuffing out of his young attorney. I get the fact that Lucas was different from most stereotypical organized crime figures, that he was much more scrupulous, principled and formal, so he wasn't about to be having any wild orgies, but for the love of god, we can't see the man getting intimate with his wife? And trust me, despite my own highly cheuvanistic tendencies, I think such a scene would have humanized Lucas much more, and made him easier to sympathize, if not identify, with.

So was anything about the movie good? Well sure, there were some things that were pretty awesome- anytime Lucas's temper exploded in murderous rage, Crowe's performance, an attention to historical detail- like the inclusion of the Ali-Frazier II boxing match, and the popular new gadget of the era, the microwave. I also admired the fact that there was at least some realistic, pronounced racial conflict. Overall though, as my friend John shrewdly remarked to me the other night, "American Gangster is the definition of mediocrity."

It's a shame too, because I definitely believe the movie had all the potential ingredients needed to make a masterpiece, but that they were just sloppily and dispassionately put together.
I watched "Blow" a few days after "Gangster," and I realized that although, predictably, the two "based on a true story" films were very similar, Blow was a much better, more emotionally charged film that stuck with me for longer than a few hours after I watched it. Frankly, it's an emotional rollercoaster- the first half a glorious rise to power and the second a tragic fall into absolute ruin. Although the plot of "Gangster" is structurally quite similar, what's lacking is any adjectives. Lucas rises and falls, but instead of being compelling, it appears routine. Perhaps that is the most American aspect of the whole film, that even a saga as as raw and real as Lucas's can be condensed, sanitized and made to fit a particular commercially viable model. Fuck that shit though- at least the picture "inspired" Jay-Z to throw down a pretty good new album, which you should pick up and listen to instead of watching this.

In Sum: Seriously overrated. "The definition of mediocrity." Thomas Edison (depicted) was more of an American gangster than anyone in this movie.