AMERICAN GANGSTER: A REVIEW
AMERICAN GANGSTER (2007)
Parenthetically, there have been a number of recent films that focused on the Bumpy Johnson story, such as HOODLUM (stars Laurence Fishburne) and THE COTTON CLUB (again portrayed by Laurence Fishburne).
Denzel Washington was and is a preeminent American actor. However, in considering his rendering of Frank Lucas’s character, besides the healthy amount of evidence and source material, I have the impression that he mentored off Laurence Fishburne’s rendering of Bumpy Johnson in HOODLUM. Fishburne played Bumpy as a “cerebral con” whose victories over adversaries were based more on strategy than “fire-power.” If this is so, it might be justified on the basis that Frank was Bumpy’s man. Bumpy would naturally choose someone “cut” along his own lines, rather than someone whose ways “clashed” with Bumpy’s. That Bumpy should want a “son” heir (like me!) rather than a stranger accords with all experience. Folks, it’s family business.
It is clear from the outset of this film that Frank Lucas is Bumpy’s man. The film opens in Harlem. There is a narrator whom the moviegoer recognizes as Denzel Washington, speaking respectfully of Bumpy, almost as if Bumpy were a great man. The narrator makes clear his indebtedness to Bumpy. Even clearer, the narrator begins to draw a distinction between Bumpy and himself: Bumpy was part of and subservient to a larger criminal system, but the narrator, Frank Lucas, was not going to be subservient to ANYBODY.
The film opens to this Harlem milieu, which soon hones onto Bumpy, Frank and the boys beating a Latino, who is strapped to a chair. Frank Lucas finally tosses flammable liquid onto the luckless senor and sets him on fire. It’s not nice to cross Bumpy. “Have a nice Day!” The Bumpy group strolls on off.
There are a few other incidents run off as brief vignettes of Bumpy’s rule. Frank Lucas appears to be a primary “enforcer” for Bumpy, as well as glorified “bagman.” The moviegoer meets some of the Harlem gangster world, such as Cuba Gooding, Jr.’s character, and others. They are part of a sort of Harlem feudel system inwhich Bumpy is king.
When Bumpy dies in 1968, Harlem is up for grabs. Frank feels that he has earned the crown. Others view him as Bumpy’s dog. A rumble is brewing.
Meanwhile, Frank has been quietly considering the lay of the land. He learned a lot from Bumpy and has met some key people. He’s has ambition and can act boldly, always projecting the image of a “safe,” professional Black man., even as he kills. Importantly, Frank is a family man. This is good, because he has a lot. It is also bad, for family can be an Achilles heel, as we noticed in such films as GODFATHER II.
Drugs are an important item in Harlem in the sixties–much more so than in earlier times. If Frank Lucas’ “people” want this product, why should they pay more and get less? He decides to get into this product line in a big way. He will give his people their money’s worth.
Storyline: Frank Lucas, heir to the throne of Bumpy Johnson, perceives a need for good-quality heroin in Harlem, and sets forth to deal this product straight from his contact in the Golden Triangle of Southeast Asia to his clients in the “nod” houses of Harlem. Lady luck is a lady to Frank, and he begins to make a “ton of money.” His superior product chases away the competition and his product range goes beyond Harlem. It has a street name such as “Blue Moon” or something of the kind. Unfortunately, the label and product get the attention of various police authorities. In this film rendering, the primary cop on the chase after this product’s venders is Russell Crowe’s Robin Roberts. Hence, this lengthy film is the story of the rise and fall of a significant criminal enterprise and its entrepreneur, Frank Lucas. The end favors the strong, and the strong forces in this case are the determined agents of government. There is an epilog. The accompanying music is very interesting commentary.
“Robin Roberts,” the Russell Crowe character, I understand, is a “composite” of several police officers involved in the Frank Lucas case. One wonders if they were all or mostly Jewish cops, as this film suddenly, out of the blue, brings in a federal authority (!!) using an anti-Jewish term, “Kike,” to insult the Russell Crowe character. When something extraneous and apparently inappropriate is suddenly interjected, it is fair to ask, “why?” Who (in their right mind) would suppose that the wealthiest, most powerful, most prosecutorial, and most persecutorial group in America is some sort of national victim? Yet, that seems to be the lurking pretext for the introduction of this scene into AMERICAN GANGSTER. As for Russell Crowe’s rendering of this character, he was adequate to the task. He evinced a certain “cockiness.” However, I believe that Tim Roth would have been a better choice.
I view this as an interesting addition to the gangster genre. Denzel Washington carries the ball through the red zone. Score!
All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2007.
BEOWULF: A LONG REVIEW
BEOWULF (2007)
The heads aren’t the only areas needing improvement. When Beowulf came on the scene, I noticed that his toes were peculiarly rendered. The “great toe” is decidedly longer than the other digits and not properly shaped. All the adjacent toes are roughly the same length and have similar dimensions. Say what!? The physical Beowulf is rendered after that of a wrestling giant working at Vince McMahan’s WWF. The heroes of old were undoubtedly strong, but they probably bore the “white man’s burden” at the abdomen (and not “six-pack” abs). I’ve never seen any computer-generated animation which presents humans very convincingly. When that is overcome, truly dazzling renderings of all the classics can be presented, as well as historical epics.
Robert Zemeckis should be praised for the “camerawork” and flow of this film.
It has been so long since I read this story’s text that I cannot say with authority that the original had no mention of Christianity, but my memory says: “There was no mention of Christianity in the original, accurately-translated text.” If I’m correct, why was it mentioned in this film? Is this an anachronism? Since the filmtime is about 560 A.D., it is possible that a few missionaries were encountered, either from the Roman obedience or from the early Christian settlements in the “isles of the west” which sprang forth from the first Christian church ever established, which was at Glastonbury.
The film did not treat Christianity with respect, even when seen through heathen eyes. Is that why it was brought into the movie? If so, then it was a contemptable gesture. There is a nasty character named “Unferth,” who is sort of a meadhall chief of staff, who is the apparent “champion” of Christianity. He is frequently shown beating a crippled squire-type for trivial errors. He is dark of dress and mien. He seems to be this film’s correlative to “Scar” from The Lion King. He seems to be weak, relatively, and the least admirable of the meadhall denizens. This is an unfortunate character choice.
Not more than a couple of weeks ago, I viewed The Mist, where the depiction of a Christian was so malicious that it invited negative outcry from the audience, and at the viewing I attended, definitely received it. I’m not trying to whitewash Christianty as a citadel of righteousness, but scripts are written, plotted, and premediated, and nothing obnoxious needs to be dragged into a movie. When it is done to excite “hate-crime thoughts,” it should be condemned.
The film begins with a “camera” shot of the great meadhall built by Hrothgar the king. Moving inside, the camera catches a lively mix of people. The thanes of the king are rowdying about, flirting with shapely gals, and calling for more mead [ a bitter beerlike drink usually mixed with honey]. King Hrothgar’s attractive wife is at her throne-chair.
She is “played” by Robin Wright Penn, which is to say an animated “knockoff.” She is young, placid-faced, slightly eye-awry, and chilly. If one listens carefully to her husband, Hrothgar, one might even say “cold.” [Joan Rivers cracked a joke on tv once about a Jewish nymphomaniac: "Once a month!."] Maybe Queen Wealthow is a bit like that. At any rate she has given the king no son (nor daughter.)
This would be an unlikely turn of events, if she’s healthy. Why? Well, these people don’t have much to do besides fight, eat, drink and fornicate. They are “nobles,” doncha know? No fishing the seas, plowing the earth, or making anything useful for these “men of valor.” Those are for the peasants. [This is a feudal society.] There are gold coins, jewels, and the like to devy up. Possibly, a comely wench may go up for bids. That sort of thing.
But don’t think that these Royal Northmen were abased animals, who might well fit into any pro-ball, endzone seats anywhere in America today.
They were so aware of “glory” that any event that could be faked into an outsized event was. There were men of letters available to the king, who could turn a confused president into a “great decider.” Therefore, a Norse “hero” who stabs a wound into his own foot, could be “spin doctored” into a model for any boy named “Thor” to follow. There were also musicians to create songs that rendered the story of these heroes in melodious and memorable ballads, or sagas.
Therefore, these men of valor and reputation were sung about throughout the “whale-road.” Kids hoped to grow up to match their heroes in exploits daring and glory-bringing. The lasses dreamed of being loved by a great hero. Life began to imitate art [well, craft, at any rate]. When minds are won over to attempting great deeds, at the very least, amazing acts of carnage are likely to transpire.
This is the milieu at Hrothgar’s meadhall. This was the world of the fierce Northmen.
At the right moment, under the crescendo of full-voiced shouts for Hrothgar, the somewhat “tipsy” king makes an entrance. He is already calling for his queen to “give him a kiss.” In the words of Mr. John Riggins to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “Come on!..loosen up!” The queen wasn’t amused: “You’re drunk.” She looks at the king with chilly malice and contempt.
Anthony Hopkins “plays” Hrothgar, and gives the character his sense of drollness which elevates him, even though inebriated, above his royal wife’s distemper–and most everything else. He was a great warrior and is king. He is a good king; see how his thanes love and serve him. He’d like to have had a son with Wealthow, but, well, who knows?
King Hrothgar has a little secret. He has a son. The trouble is that his son is a dragonboy, named Grendel. It was one of those unexpected events. Grendel’s Mother, “played” by Angelina Joli, is a High Demon of the Sea, and very, very seductive. Once she has set her eye on a suitable hero, she doesn’t let up with her high-powered “alluring,” until she has her son. Then the boy goes to wreak havoc on Dad’s kingdom. [Sins of the father!--This is actually brought up in these Biblical terms.]
This is the prologue to BEOWULF.
The storyline: In a kingdom bleak yet beautiful there ruled a heroic king name Hrothgar, whose secret infidelity cursed his land with painful death & destruction. Still, with stalwart hearts Hrothgar and his ancient thanes did drink the honeyed mead in sweetest camaraderie–until grim Grendel came. Then came into his dragon-cursed land a visitor, great of valor and bold, who told his name and family to the attentive King, Hrothgar. He was Beowulf, and it was his desire to kill the demon dragon that pitilessly plundered the kingdom. With him were thanes sturdy and war-tested. Right glad was Hrothgar to have this likely hero’s hand in assistance. Let us then drink mead, and listen to the queen play a lyre and sing, asked the sea-weary visitors, for tomorrow Beowulf kills this Grendel. Now, Grendel has a hearing problem that abides not the loud wailings of the thanes. He crashes the king’s parties to destroy the “noise polluters.” In such a rage did Grendel first the mighty Beowulf encounter, as the hero slept, and there ensued a battle royal. Another night follows after the way of the Northmen, and partying riotously thanes and dames, which so disturbed Grendel that he burst upon the scene with kindness the least of his intentions. Full ready was the valiant Beowulf. With cunning honed from a hundred combats with dragons, giants, and the like, did Beowulf wound most grievously the dragonboy, Grendel, who therefrom flew with staggered steps to the sea cave of his Mother, and thereat died the wayward boy, missing a right shoulder and arm. Wept not then Beowulf, fully perceived as the great hero who had saved Hrothgar’s kingdom, and warmly were the welcoming cheers working upon his imagination, when Hrothgar, delighted to be free of the “curse,” tossed his crown to Beowulf, and with steely sword did plunge from castle balcony to the dark seashore below. “The king is dead! Long live the king!” Not now does this tale end, for fate had weaved a new cycle from the end of each one old. Beowulf had already encountered Grendel’s Mother, but unlike the words of this hero to Hrothgar, he had not killed her but had, indeed, put a new son into her shapely womb! There came then a new son to curse the kingdom of Beowulf. Beowulf the hero. Beowulf the fool. The years rolled by. His stature across the length and breath of the “whale-road” unmatched. Yet, he had aged. He seemed to produce no children. Now, he must kill the misbegotten. His last warrior road. There is a great battle excitingly depicted. The tale may end with our fallen hero. His last glorious fight triumphant, even though he,too, must lie now in the fiery dragon ship, as it slowly carries its hero-fare to Valhalla.
Watching from the shore is his old warrior companion, who is now king. His vision is attracted to a beautiful face bobbing at the surface, smiling at him, gesturing to him to come to her. We see the glazed-eyed king stepping into deeper water. What beautiful symbology! The moviegoer suspects that another ring is about to be created in the cycle of seemingly endless sin.
All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2007.
