Jump to content

Let's talk gangster flicks


Slapnut

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members
In relation to my Wire post, I was thinking about the one La Goosh didn't mention. If I knew where the spoiler tags were, I'd type it out, but I don't.

 

(spoiler)(/spoiler)

 

Just use the square brackets instead of the round ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's dissertation time for me, and what better way to spend 4000 words (hardly a dissertation, I know) than chatting about gangster films.

 

Basically, the topic (for which I haven't exactly got a word for word question yet) is about why we tend to "support" (for lack of a better word) gangsters in films TV, even after watching them commit acts of violence.

 

For example, did anybody want to see Tony Soprano get put in the slammer? Did anybody want to see Michael Corleone get whacked? I didn't, and I want to know what you think. Do you think that gangsters are glorified in films? If so, why do you think they are? If you don't, why do you think people want them to succeed? Do you even want them to succeed or do you watch with the hope that the good guys will win?

 

Hopefully this will generate a decent discussion. I have no idea how I'm going to write 4000 words on it yet, but I've got a month so I've got time.

 

 

As many have touched on, I think its the 'Robin Hood' nature of the gangsters, that makes them appealing. Whilst they dont necessarily give to the poor like Robin Hood, there seems to be much made about common bonds and communities that are built up around them and what they do, each with their own set of rules that appear to be above the law. People by into this because, largely the 'good' gangsters have a moral code, which isnt too massively dissimilar to the norms of society, it just happens that it is not legal, so it gives it an edge that would spark peoples interest in it.

 

Looking at Goodfellas, Ray Liotta's character is an 'every man' so to speak, yes he does unspeakable things, but he is made to be a warm character and as such some one that a viewing audience can relate to or least have an interest in. Making him a double hard nasty bastard like Al Capone Robert De Niro, in the Untouchables, doesnt endear the audience to the character. Although both are gangsters, one is humanised whilst the other is demonised to make a good/bad distinction even though both are above the law.

 

In the terms of Ray Liotta's character this humanisation is brought home by him becoming a turncoat and having a moment which suggests that he isnt as evil, and that the viewers can have some sympathy with and engage with. Robert De Niro has none of these redeeming features and as such, the audience is forced into seeing him as a bad guy.

 

Other sympathetic characters in Gangster movies would include, John Dillinger in Public Enemies, Michael Sullivan in The Road To Perdition, Tom Reagan in Miller's Crossing. They are all, evil in terms of breaking the law and robbing and killing people, but they are all humanised. Some like, Sullivan have their past wiped out by a single act of redemption, which results in their death, whilst others such as Reagan in Miller's Crossing, have their salvation, through righting wrongs within an already skewed community. Although what he does is wrong, its the lesser of the evil's and morally there is some justification to the way he acts, hence the ability to have some sympathy with the character.

 

 

What I find interesting is how that differs from cowboy films. The cowboy represents that same "man apart" role, but often is shown having a higher moral code than "the law" and often escapes at the end. I guess cowboy films speak more to the American spirit of freedom than the American desire for law and order.

 

 

The Cowboy link is interesting, as in some cases there are similar situations to gangster films, it's just in a different time. Cowboy's are fundamentally good people despite what they are doing being wrong in most cases if the audience is to warm to them, its not just about having a higher morality, there has to be something like a shot at redemption or a good deed or something that can humanise them. The misfits of Young Guns are the bad guys, or were the bad guys but are treated as good guys because they are looking for redemption at the beginning in order to better themselves away from the life of Hustling or whatever. Its only events with the murder of their mentor, that they have to cross the boundaries in order to set things straight. Even with in the narrative because of the actions of Jack Palance, the group are demonised in the film's world, but still remain good to the audience because they have a reason as to why they are acting like they do, despite being out side of the law.

 

Billy The Kid, in this shows up the difference about people needing to be fundamentally good, very much the tweener, his paranoia and random acts, dont make him out as a particularly sympathetic or likeable character, but because he is with the others, his actions are accepted, though may not be implicitly liked by the viewing audience.

 

Going back to Gangster Films, Last Man Standing, meshes these two genres very well. Essentially a Western based on, Yojimbo, about Ronin/Samurai. It is set around Gangsters and Gang War's during prohibition. The main premise is that all the main protagonists are bad, as in the wrong side of the law, bad. Bruce Willis's character is bad, but with a heart ( see his treatment of the women in the film) which makes him better than those in the two gangs despite his actions through out the film. His redemption comes because, despite all the violence, he manages to rid the town of both gangs and helps the women to escape to better lives ( as per Loki's higher morality). He becomes warm to the audience because despite all the ultra violence there is something human about him which helps to engage the audience and help people support him over the other bad characters who are completely morally bankrupt. Bruce doesnt get away scot- free and the ending is ambigious as if he makes it to Mexico or bleeds to death from the gunshot wounds that he has received. This is because despite being good, he is still essentially a bad man, and the crime doesnt pay mantra must be up held to maintain societal norms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...