The Departed (Infernal Affairs remake)

[Pozer]

gt is that guy who sends his steak back three times.  the first time because it's too rare, the second time because it's over cooked,  and the third time - because by that time - he's completely lost his taste.  the food is fine, gt.  it's all in your head. 

this is why you get spit in your movies.

[tpfkabi]

first movie i've enjoyed in a while.

didn't have the usual camera moves i expect from MS.

what is the Third Man nod you're referring to?

(i actually watched that on TCM the other day)

sounded like a lot of Stones or Jagger cuts.

[cine]

what is the Third Man nod you're referring to?

the last shot at the funeral where farmiga walks passed damon and ignores him.

[Chest Rockwell]

admin edit: SPOILER ALERT

I caught that when I saw it today. Good stuff, I like when I notice allusions.

Anyway, this movie was very engaging; I had sweaty palms the entire two-and-a-half hours. Everything seemed to be at the top of their game: the writing, the photography, the performances, the editing, the sound/music. A nearly perfect stylish thriller. Moreover I found some interesting ideas to be had in it that I'm thinking about: communication without seeing or even hearing (cell phones/texting), especially that moment when Sullivan calls Costigan's phone and neither speaks but so much is still conveyed; the concept of "family," whereas both protagonists had none but found it in Costello in two very different ways (of course, Costigan's relationship with Costello is probably not meant to evoke the same feeling), and in Madolyn, and Costigan in Queenan; the sheer proclivity of headshots and bloodspatters; the idea of what a rat is...etc. Very good, in my opinion; will no doubt make it to my end of the year list.

Another question about the end: were those french bagels (croissants?) that fell out of Sullivan's bag after Dignum shot him?

[Derek]

the cops laugh too much at baldwins jokes 'i'm telling you, it sounds fake'.

It should sound fake; they're kissing ass.



GT, your posts are confusing and depressing. If you don't have anything nice to say.....

[Gold Trumpet]

if you actually watch the movie there's plenty of stuff that leads to costigans break-down under the bridge. when he's in madolyns office the scene flashes between scenes of him sitting in his dead mothers house trying to deal with all the shit he's going through. the whole scene with madolyn (in her office) is about him losing his shit. do you need a blow by blow report on his downward spiral? one thing i've learnt from being a fan of malick is that sometimes (not always true for mtv type movies) a single cut can mean more than 5 min's of exposition, malick taught me to pay attention to cuts and what they mean. so if you watch that scene in madolyns office the cuts with give you all the exposition you want, it's all there.

The scene in Madolyn's office shouldn't be the scene to introduce his problems. His story was already ongoing for long enough. The film had already identified a tone to his character. The film then changed the tone of his character completely (beginning with that scene). It should have invested more into DiCaprio's emotional history before that scene. It wouldn't have changed the film much either, just had a better base in which to tell his story. Structurally, as reflective to its genre, it would have been better crafted.

Mallick is the wrong guy to introduce into this argument. That argument can make some sense for his movies, but not this one. His films are very loose fitting and align themselves to no genre. The Departed, by everyone's admission, is a genre work. The structural problems become key because the film has to move with a tone and momentum that can get the most out of the story. When a filmmaker does use loose handling to genre works some people can rationalize they are experimenting but usually they are just not doing a very good job at all. The very best genre films in the last 30 years, from Chinatown and LA Confidential, find ways modernize their story but are still deftly handled in good structured storytelling.

another thing i disagree with GT on is the two guys outside the bar trying to identify potential cops. it isn't sharp and doesn't serve a decent point. the entire purpose of that scene is for the one line they speak as costigan walks out of the bar, they say 'you're a cop'. its meant to scare the audience cos everyone knows costello is looking for the rat and the audience doesn't want costellos crew to figure that out. it's a stupid device (if i remember correctly, taken from the original) that should have been left out.

It doesn't scare the audience. The audience already knows they are joking. The question is how serious DiCaprio takes them (he only does for a second anyways - but that was expected). The point the scene does serve is it adaquately mocks them and their insecurities. Gangsters suspicious of everyone being cops is already an established fact so the scene is actually funny because it undercuts a truth. All the other scenes that do try to be funny have no resemblance to undercutting anything. They usually are just flagrant. 

GT on scorseses violence. i'll admit some of the violence in this picture isn't as good as some of the stuff in martys other movies (think of the hammer to the hand in casino) the shoe on costigans broken arm is unconvincing. the scene where costigan grabs the hat rack and starts jabbing the guy in the face is missing something. but besides those instances, the violence in the departed was fine. and in no way could be called amatuerish, especially considering how important box office is on this picture (i assume certain things had to be toned down to get and MA15+ rating (R in america??)) i thought things like mr frenchs death were actually pretty enjoyable. (maybe we'll see an under-rated cut on dvd)

You misread me. You're looking for cool and graphic to your violence and I'm looking for realistic and meaningful. When Sam Peckinpah wrote violent characters, he wrote them by describing their insecurities and problems first. So when they were violent it was because of their problems. It made the violence meaningful. Scorsese has rarely done this type of storytelling. His best example is Raging Bull. LaMotta's insecurities drive him. I wouldn't consider any of Scorsese's films in the 90s as adherring to this philosophy either.

[Derek]

The scene in Madolyn's office shouldn't be the scene to introduce his problems.

It was a necessary scene. All we knew before that is that he was a pissed off individual from a messed up family. He recognizes she's messed too and can make a connection. She is the only person who he lets inside, which informs his character from that point on.

[Derek]

 
You misread me. You're looking for cool and graphic to your violence and I'm looking for realistic and meaningful. When Sam Peckinpah wrote violent characters, he wrote them by describing their insecurities and problems first. So when they were violent it was because of their problems. It made the violence meaningful. Scorsese has rarely done this type of storytelling. His best example is Raging Bull. LaMotta's insecurities drive him. I wouldn't consider any of Scorsese's films in the 90s as adherring to this philosophy either.

Violence is violence. Doesn't have to be MEANINGFUL. That violence doesn't make sense is often more powerful than some carefully contrived motivation behind it.

Get a new playbook.

[Gold Trumpet]

 
You misread me. You're looking for cool and graphic to your violence and I'm looking for realistic and meaningful. When Sam Peckinpah wrote violent characters, he wrote them by describing their insecurities and problems first. So when they were violent it was because of their problems. It made the violence meaningful. Scorsese has rarely done this type of storytelling. His best example is Raging Bull. LaMotta's insecurities drive him. I wouldn't consider any of Scorsese's films in the 90s as adherring to this philosophy either.

Violence is violence. Doesn't have to be MEANINGFUL. That violence doesn't make sense is often more powerful than some carefully contrived motivation behind it.

In the application of The Departed, you're mostly right. My original comment was about Martin Scorsese in general and his lack of ambition to take on serious violent films. The Departed and Casino don't give weight to the idea he is a master of violence. They are just entertainment and retain little identity of what he accomplished in Raging Bull and The Last Temptation of Christ. Even Taxi Driver follows in the vein of those two films. His career from 1990 on has seen him accept a standard Hollywood identity only.

You're first comment is just off. It has nothing to do with what I said.

[Derek]

My first comment wasn't off. You contradicted yourself within two sentences. In one, you say DiCapro's story has gone on long enough and then you come back with the statement there hasn't be enough time with him to invest emotionally until that point.

[Gold Trumpet]

My first comment wasn't off. You contradicted yourself within two sentences. In one, you say DiCapro's story has gone on long enough and then you come back with the statement there hasn't be enough time with him to invest emotionally until that point.

Haha, I guess you didn't.

OK, spending time with a character does not gurantee emotional attachment. Giving the character an emotional base does. Did the scene with the pyschriatrist introduce his emotional trauma? Yes. Was it too late in his story? Yes. I know those two answers conflict, but c'mon, its not hard.

[A Matter Of Chance]

*ADMIN EDIT FOR SPOILERS*


I've been wading through this thread, and I just want to point out something that's been overlooked. The degree of involvement we have with either of the two main 'rats' is totally debatable - but it's also completely eclipsed by the empathy we have for Captain Queenan when he dies. I, personally, think that's what holds the film together. The 'where's the rat?' routine can only last for so long, and once Queenan falls off that building, the audience's desire for revenge should drive the film to a close. I don't know about you guys, but I've seen this twice, and both times when Scorsese cuts to Martin Sheen falling off the building, everybody gasped and I heard 'oh my gods' all around.

[Derek]

My first comment wasn't off. You contradicted yourself within two sentences. In one, you say DiCapro's story has gone on long enough and then you come back with the statement there hasn't be enough time with him to invest emotionally until that point.

Haha, I guess you didn't.

OK, spending time with a character does not gurantee emotional attachment. Giving the character an emotional base does. Did the scene with the pyschriatrist introduce his emotional trauma? Yes. Was it too late in his story? Yes. I know those two answers conflict, but c'mon, its not hard.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'd disagree. It showed his trauma after he'd been a mole for a while and started to crack. You need time for that to happen.

[Gold Trumpet]

My first comment wasn't off. You contradicted yourself within two sentences. In one, you say DiCapro's story has gone on long enough and then you come back with the statement there hasn't be enough time with him to invest emotionally until that point.

Haha, I guess you didn't.

OK, spending time with a character does not gurantee emotional attachment. Giving the character an emotional base does. Did the scene with the pyschriatrist introduce his emotional trauma? Yes. Was it too late in his story? Yes. I know those two answers conflict, but c'mon, its not hard.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'd disagree. It showed his trauma after he'd been a mole for a while and started to crack. You need time for that to happen.

There should have been development instead of just a revelation.

[Derek]

My first comment wasn't off. You contradicted yourself within two sentences. In one, you say DiCapro's story has gone on long enough and then you come back with the statement there hasn't be enough time with him to invest emotionally until that point.

Haha, I guess you didn't.

OK, spending time with a character does not gurantee emotional attachment. Giving the character an emotional base does. Did the scene with the pyschriatrist introduce his emotional trauma? Yes. Was it too late in his story? Yes. I know those two answers conflict, but c'mon, its not hard.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'd disagree. It showed his trauma after he'd been a mole for a while and started to crack. You need time for that to happen.

There should have been development instead of just a revelation.

F*** that, good movie!