|
I gotta agree with Smudgie Buggler here - Amy Adams' incredibly weak performance really torpedoed the film. She is, theoretically, the lynchpin of the film, being the motivating factor for all the major character development. But where we absolutely needed chemistry - the scene where she and Irving meet for the first time - felt like nothing at all. That should have been the emotional core of the film, and really had to in order to give a poo poo about the narrative at all (and for the weird fight between her and Rosalyn to not feel really confusing) As it stood, you had this basically passionless relationship between Sydney and Irving. That was supposed to be what was "real" in order for the film to have any coherency, but as it stood none of the layers felt more real than any of the others. Sydney revealing her real name to DiMasso didn't feel like anything, there was no sense that this was actually a relief. Everything in the film felt fake because of it, so none of the characters' decisions really had any gravity - you were just waiting to see where the story ended up, so at the end it's like, oh, that's it? Irving could have ended up with either Rosalyn or Sydney and it didn't really seem like it mattered to anyone which he chose (regardless of what the dialogue intends to establish). The chemistry that Polito and Irving were supposed to have barely came off, as well. When the voiceover came, I asked - they were friends? Irving seemed like a popular guy! Why would he bond with this mark as opposed to all the others, and what about all of his friends that he trusts enough to run cons with? And the screaming fit that everyone has in the Polito household felt weirdly timed, like everyone was taking cues from one another, especially when his wife just started yelling for no reason. I guess they were all idiots. I can't think of a single memorable scene from this movie. It was just a series of developments that didn't seem to emotionally matter to any of the characters leading to an outcome that everyone basically accepted without much resistance or passion... also odd that the only character who actually came off as competent/clever (DeNiro) was the bad guy. At the end of the day, seven extremely corrupt public officials were arrested... is that supposed to be a more disappointing outcome than bagging one eighty year old? I'll admit this isn't a very interesting post I just made but in reality I don't even have enough feelings on the movie to create something interesting. It was just mush. Terrible chemistry, which does not work for this sort of film... Also, bam thwok, great post. Jonny Angel posted: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. By this analysis, American Hustle is making the statement that people make mistakes when they have an inaccurate understanding of a situation. No Wave fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Dec 30, 2013 |
#
¿
Dec 30, 2013 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
Jonny Angel posted:Yes I agree that this piece of art is illustrating examples of a widespread psychological phenomenon. No Wave fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:I'm astonished that people are sympathizing Rosalyn. I described her to a friend as the most easily hateable and contemptible character since, like, Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter 5 Though I did really like "I know who that is". Probably the most emotion the film actually conveyed. It was also an extremely economical way of explaining years of history between the characters. Felt like it was from a different film. No Wave fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
Bolek posted:Ah yes but have you considered the fact that Jennifer Lawrence is unsexy and that the movie is Goodfellas and I am unsure whether this David O Russell is gonna make it in this tough film racket?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2014 19:05
|
|