|
Amy Smart is not in this movie guys. You know who is in this movie though? Jeremy Renner. He was incredible in this. I loved all the use of visual technique to try and box audience expectation of him into the same "corrupt politician with mob ties" category that DiMaso reduces him to. There's a wonderfully clever little shot when Polito and Rosenfeld are at the diner and they head over to Polito's car. The vague talk about a gift, the shot from the interior of the trunk, Rosenfeld's bewildered experession, these are all familiar-to-the-point-of-cliche signifiers of ominous mafia times. Polito's "gift" is probably some guy he beat and tied up in his trunk! Nope, it's a science oven. The thematic thread running through this film about needing to present yourself and understand yourself as someone different from who you are (or were) is an obvious one, it's not really even subtext. But I love the companion theme, not quite as brazenly stated, about how boxing others into these too-small categories is just as much a survival mechanism. See: the undertone's of Rosalyn's new relationship at the end, DiMaso's attempts to guess the ending to Thorsen's ice fishing story. Or, hell, the whole point behind the Rembrandt forgery allegory.
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:00 |
|
|
Yo Darksol your post is great and brings up a lot of interesting points but right now I'm kinda just giggling at the violence done to spoiler tags in it. Okay done with that now. I absolutely agree that the idea of self-change and re-invention is one that the movie examines and plays with a lot, but I'm a little more conservative in my estimate of how much character change actually takes place. I feel like Russell is highlighting the limit of re-invention and the possibilities brought on by self-acceptance. DiMaso is the guy who's most in denial out of anybody. Let's run the checklist: Refuses to acknowledge his own fiancee, is shocked to learn that Sydney is American despite claiming to have checked her records thoroughly, refuses to let Thorsen finish his story multiple times and instead tries to force his own endings onto it, believes it unquestioningly when the supposed lawyer for these ultra-cagey mobsters tells him "We can commit all of these exact crimes for you" without having frisked him. How does that turn out for him? Sure, Rosenfeld and Sydney go legit at the end, but it's also predicated on abandoning all the affectations that their con artist lives revolved around. This is particularly noticeable with Sydney, who at one point is curling her hair into those tiny ringlets just like DiMaso, but soon enough pulls back from the excesses of self-deception that they signify. (She literally equates said ringlets to her own identity fraud) I also disagree to some extent about Polito. His last scene with Rosenfeld is indeed incredibly violent, but I don't look at it as some indication of him having sunk to the depths of the mobsters. To me, he's what he always was: a crude, volatile, often ignorant guy who nonetheless does have his heart in a really good place. The guy's breaking down in tears as he's beating Rosenfeld down. He's still this figure who's practically a kid, who's lashing out right now because of how drat unfair it is that New Jersey won't get saved the way he wanted it to. Of course, the darker side of the coin of the "self-acceptance" theme is the idea that the status quo is a lot more immutable than we'd like. You can try and reinvent yourself, sure, but it's going to be within the bounds set by those in power. Hence Rosenfeld's speech to DiMaso that nobody who's actually dangerously crooked actually got punished at all here. The only ones that got busted were those who stuck their necks out to try and make a change for New Jersey, whereas the ones who were involved in a darker and more self-interested way were canny enough to shield themselves from accountability. A fair bit of this film's thematic content feels like a less vitriolic, less bitterly critical companion to Pain & Gain, both of which deal with the idea of American self-improvement mythologies as dangerous and toxic (American Hustle has much less contempt for those who buy into these myths, however), and both of which suggest that in a world this deluded and poisoned and rigged, your best bet for happiness is honest, mutual love.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
Gladly! "This Rembrandt over here. People come from all over the world to see this. It's a fake. People believe what they wanna believe. Cause the guy who made this was so good that it's real to everybody. Now who's the master? The painter? Or the forger?" That's Rosenfeld's speech about the painting, or at least an approximation of it. (I transcribed it it from this teaser and don't recall how much got elided from the actual film) The idea is that people want to see a Rembrandt here, they expect to see a Rembrandt here. It's a prestigious art gallery, Rembrandt is a prestigious painter, this painting looks very much like a well-known Rembrandt, so it's the painting in question. People project their expectations and demands onto the object, regardless of what it actually is. This is the core of the boxing-in theme, the idea that people will see what they want to see in others and act accordingly, to the detriment of those they box in or themselves. So: Rembrandt the painter is somebody comfortable in his own skin, who has his own creative output and presents it to the world. He's not playing any games, he's just an incredibly talented guy whose paintings were well-received. The forger is somebody who picks up on the need of the observer to have their observations conform to their expectations, and thrives on it. Rosenfeld suggests that the forger the "real master" because he operates with a deeper understanding of human nature. Presenting your true self, that's an unnecessary risk, because God knows how people are going to react to your true self. Presenting yourself as Rembrandt, that's the smart play. Everyone loves Rembrandt. We already know that. DiMaso is the character that most actively does this boxing-in, though Rosalyn deserves an honorable mention when she talks about her new boyfriend as being so sweet and dedicated, willfully ignoring the fact that he's an obvious mobster and obviously partially using her to get information on the true nature of the Sheikh's proposal. But DiMaso's the motherlode. He wants to hear the ending of Thorsen's story badly enough that he keeps asking him about it, but not badly enough that he ever lets him finish it, because DiMaso feels confident enough to extrapolate the ending and moral after a few details. He wants to put Polito in the box of "dangerous, scheming, corrupt official" (and so does the camera, at points! See my first post in this thread, talking about the trunk shot) so he focuses on Polito as a big get even as our perspective increasingly aligns with Rosenfeld's, that Polito is largely a sympathetic and idealistic victim in all of this. And then there's his ultimate fate, wherein his insistence on seeing the "mob lawyer" as exactly that, his insistence on believing something too good to be true, is what causes him to overreach hugely and get zero credit for the operation. This is Rosenfeld taking the role of the forger in the allegory: he knows what DiMaso wants to believe, he gives it to DiMaso, and he profits off it. DiMaso projects his beliefs and expectations onto everything, regardless of what it actually is. To the detriment of those he boxes in (Polito) and himself.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 06:29
|
|
|
I'm generally predisposed to happy, sentimental endings, so take this with a grain of salt, but I was a fan of how it ended. There's something brave about people like Irving and Sydney, who are both so drat frightened of themselves throughout the movie, being brave enough to try being somewhat sincere. Sure, there's a lot of danger to their old lifestyle, wrong side of the law, etc., but there's also the comforting safety of knowing that you're passing your work off as a Rembrandt and everyone loves Rembrandt. Here's the big risk they take at the end: are their authentic selves even a tiny fraction as interesting as Rembrandt's? The movie doesn't tell us either way. But that's the risk they take when they decline the familiar route of posturing, deception, and self-deception. When they decline the American Hustle (2013, dir. David O. Russell), so to speak.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 07:08
|
|
|
bam thwok posted:I should've just gone to see Saving Mr. Banks. My new goal in this thread is to post correct opinions repeatedly and force you to make enough posts that you run out of currently-in-theaters films to do this with. Once you've exhausted all current wide releases to see instead, you will be forced to admit you are wrong about American Hustle.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:00 |
|
|
Yes I agree that this piece of art is illustrating examples of a widespread psychological phenomenon.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2013 03:29
|
|