American Gangster (2007) February 21, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , trackbackDirected by: Ridley Scott
Ridley Scott has been stepping his projects of late, taking time between each large-scale production to make a smaller, more character-driven movie. First there was Hannibal, sat between the Roman opus Gladiator and the action packed Black Hawk Down. Then Matchstick Men, a charming confidence flick, which led to another historical epic in the form of Kingdom of Heaven. His last project was the rather sedate and poorly-reviewed A Good Year, which means that it must be time for another ambitiously meaty flick from the three-time Oscar nominated director. American Gangster fits the bill perfectly.
Set in 1970’s Harlem, ambitious Frank Lucas takes over the heroin importing duties after his mentor Bumpy Johnson dies. He manages to adapt the methods of current importers by cutting out the middle men and importing higher quality product at a lower cost. As a result, Frank quickly rises to top of the crime scene, despite keeping a relatively low profile. Then there’s Richie Roberts, a police officer whose previous honesty and unwillingness to take pay-offs has made him untrustworthy with his peers, but valued by department bosses. Richie uses his position to set up a narcotics task force which he uses to piece together the major dealers in Manhattan and discover Lucas’ involvement.
This is one of those films that feels like it is part of something bigger – something epic even – despite that fact that it is essentially about two people trying to do right by what they believe in. Some of this may be down to its enormous running time, edging out similarly themed gangster flick Goodfellas and even The Departed [review] for length, with a final duration just shy of 2 hours and 40 minutes. Ridley Scott is not a director averse to making long movies – his last three large-scale pictures have all broken the 140 minute mark (let’s not even discuss the marathon that is the Kingdom of Heaven Director’s Cut). But you’ve got to earn that duration, and despite comparisons to other popular lengthy crime dramas, I don’t think American Gangster quite manages to justify the overtime.
Having said that, this is not a slack film by any means. It has the benefit of momentum which helps divert your attention from exactly how long the film is, as well as two powerhouse performances from the lead actors and some interesting character touches which raise the bar as far as the dramatic interplay between work and home life. It is, of course, Frank Lucas, the drug overlord and notorious ‘bad guy’ of the piece, who has the most stable family structure. He cares and looks after his family, maybe because he feels some responsibility towards providing for those close to him – especially his mother. Detective Ritchie Roberts, on the other hand, is a morally straight, hard working man whose family life has crumbled as a result. We see him fighting with his ex-wife over custody of their son in scenes which are short and sweet, but no less affecting. This is an example of a sub-plot done right. The family background material could be considered throwaway development in an already overlong film but, instead, it works to cement the two characters in a sense of humanity.
It is also a film that lives and dies by its central performances although, luckily for him, Scott has enough industry clout to be able to call on only the best that Hollywood has to offer. The pairing of Russell Crowe (increasingly a Ridley Scott favourite) and Denzel Washington lends a huge amount of weight to this picture that would be lost without them. Crowe is suitably honest and socially disorganised as Richie Roberts, never pushing him too overboard but allowing the character to breathe naturalistically in a performance that is reminiscent of the subtlety he utilised so well in The Insider. Washington is in slightly more well-trodden territory, although he has just as important a part to play as he navigates the fine line between ruthless gangster and warm-hearted family man. He steers the role well clear of the typical cliché and produces a Frank Lucas that is complicated and interesting.
The direction is handled without fault with smooth cinematography and a slightly washed out colour palette that distinctly references other 1970’s crime thrillers, most notably The French Connection. The New York of almost 40 years ago is brought to life through faithful costuming and perfect set design which never lets you question the authenticity of the era. Finally, the script, by Gangs of New York writer Steven Zaillian, pumps greatness out of the film’s central scenes (including a speech that Lucas gives to his family which is interrupted by an extreme moment of unexpected violence), although it can slow a little during the interim periods. It’s still a self-assured story though and one which is not afraid to shy away from the reality of how a job, good or bad, can consume you even when you don’t want it to. Both Richie and Lucas live their jobs – for Lucas that’s because it is all part of the trade, but for Richie it’s because he has little else. The depiction of this restlessness is where the script really shines.
In the end, American Gangster is a very authentic and well made piece of crime drama that provides plenty of entertainment during its slightly overlong running time. I’m still not entirely sure what makes the film reach 157 minutes, but for the most part we get a back-to-form Ridley Scott behind the camera, while Washington and Crowe do the Pacino / DeNiro dance from Heat with equal aplomb. Their final meeting may not be the apocalyptic showdown that you expect, but in the relation to the story, it still has plenty of meaning. This forms a much needed success for Scott, who has taken a bit of a critical mauling on his last couple of pictures. He’s clearly not content to dwell on it though – his next film is already filming, with Russell Crowe once again taking a central role. As muses go, Crowe may seem a strange choice, but if their work together continues to produce films of this calibre, then I’m certainly not complaining.
Comments»
I agree with your assessment of this - great acting from Washington and Crowe, decent cinematography and the period setting was evoked nicely, offset a little by the, at times, slightly languid pace.
The pacing / length does indeed seem to be the primary concern for most I’ve spoken to about this film. However, it was so well put together besides that, I wouldn’t be adverse to giving the extended version (pushing the running time to a whopping 176 min) a go when it comes out on DVD.
I’m not expecting it to be better - I’m just curious to know what else there could possibly be to add to this film!
“American Gangster is very authentic…” This film does a huge disservice to African-American youth. Frank Lucas was an evil bastard, but the film makers mitigated his crimes by focusing on all the supposed crooked cops who were trying to prevent Lucas from making a living in this hard knock world. The film makers touted this movie as an being “Based on a True Story.”
At the end of the movie it states Lucas was responsible for the arrest and conviction of 3/4 of the drug agents. Only one problem, none of this is true. Drug agents in New York and New Jersey have filed a class action lawsuit for defamation. The judge and the prosecutor say the movie is fiction. Even Lucas says only about 10% of the movie is true. Just because a film maker puts the words ” Based on a True Story” on the screen, don’t assume it’s true. This heading was also used in the movie Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Thanks for your comments. In my defence, let’s put the quote in context - I’m talking about period authenticity not narrative accuracy when I call the film “authentic and well made”. In fact, I’ve made no allusions to the fact that the movie is even based on a true story, mainly because of the questions that surround that claim.
I’ve read about the lawsuits fired in the direction of this movie, but I don’t know enough about the issue to substantially comment. I will say that even if only 10% of the movie is true, the claim that it is “Based on a True Story” still holds, since the characters and situations are rooted in reality. Maybe “Inspired by a True Story” would have been a better choice?