Let’s talk about dirty cops. Like most people I know who are passionate about civil rights, nothing causes our blood to simmer like hearing stories about police and judicial misconduct. Corruption in the New York City Police Department was particularly rampant in the nineteen seventies making Sydney Lumet’s film about the one shining ray-of-light in an otherwise dark and vacuous syndicate not only resonant, but laudable for tackling this issue at the height of its infamy. This is evident in the production and in the camera work. There is a kind of grit that pervades the lens which articulates the rot of this organization and the pulse of the film speeds along like the frenzied heart of some chased animal. The story follows Frank Serpico (Al Pacino) from his graduation from the academy to his experiences as a beat cop, into his role as an investigator. We follow this idealistic youth whose outlook quickly clouds over. Somehow he manages to keep his ethics, his conscience, intact in spite of his department’s malevolence and we admire him for this and want—as he does—justice and integrity in this skewed world. Though he states a different reason in the film, I believe that Frank Serpico dresses the way he does (also wearing his hair long) not as part of his furtive role within the NYPD, but because he wants to distance himself physically from the company he works for. He is in a continual state of identity crisis and each subdivision he transfers to offers him more of the same. I believe that this is Al Pacino’s best role. His rendition of Frank Serpico is the epitome of exhaustion and paranoia. Pacino looks worn out, hunted. Most filmgoers cite the Godfather films as Pacino’s defining moment and the cast of his legacy. Personally, his work in Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) or the Merchant of Venice (2004) make strong cases for the showcasing of his talent, but the entirety of Serpico (1973) rests on his shoulders and he pulls it off. He doesn’t need to rely on mannerisms or a change-of-voice to become the character of Frank—this is somehow, miraculously, present on his flesh. Lumet’s film has been criticized by some for not delving deeply enough into the arguments it presents, but I feel that as a character study or even a late-life bildungsroman, Serpico hits all the right marks. Lumet was one of the celluloid children of the seventies. His peers included Copolla, Scorsese, Spielberg. The difference between Lumet and his ilk is that the seventies was an era of maturation for the filmmaker while his peers were still working towards refining their artistic signature. Copolla was probably THE director of this decade and rightfully so: he made four masterpieces. Unfortunately his films have never been the same since. Lumet not only made three masterpieces in the Seventies (Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon [1975], and Network [1976]), but his debut 12 Angry Men (1957) was one of the great first films from an auteur and the last film he made before his death in 2011 was the tense, intelligent Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead (2007). His career spanned into the new millennia and his genius and prowess in crafting great films—most of them similarly themed about men who are under pressure and pushing back against an overwhelming force—lasted for fifty years. This is remarkable. Serpico is testament to that talent.
ACTING *****
CAMERA ****
EDITING ****
WRITING *****
PRODUCTION *****
OVERALL: 23/25 (Great)
***********************************************************************
6/10
Serpico
Let’s talk about cops (the dirty is implied har har).
The synopsis was straightforward. Here is a film about an honest cop who finds himself surrounded by corrupt cops wherever he goes. His resistances to cop culture-superiors taking your hard earned ‘collar’, the taking of brides, the liberal use of force (i.e. excessive force)-puts him at odds with other cops. He tries to expose them and gets shot. This is the typical narrative explored in cop-stories and the film does not deviant much from the stock narrative.
Serpico is a person who grew up believing the myth that cops are magnificently moral agents whom act like perfect Kantians acting out of duty and respect for the people and rule of law. However, this myth is beaten down at every turn exposing him to the reality of a low paying job as an administrative bureaucrat with a gun. I’m not saying that the film conveys this point consciously to ridicule the police and to question the legitimacy of the police (and therefore the state), but that the events it shows lend it self to one having this interpretation.
The film shows a lot of small events that highlight different aspects of the job of the police that criticize the institution; the film does this really well. For example, the first bit of ‘action’ we see him engage in is highly enlightening or, rather, it lifts the veil of ignorance from his eyes illuminating the more realistic role he serves as a police officer. He and his partner hear a report on the police scanner and his partner says to let someone else take the call since it is on the border.
Now, if these two people were doing any other job I could understand looking the other way or not completing a task. If we can avoid work at our jobs why not avoid work given the relationship is exploitive? The problem is the cops play a complex role in society. So, both as a citizen subjected to the domination of the police, and as a possible ‘victim’ of a ‘crime’ it is imperative that cops perform their jobs and not cut corners i.e. ignore women in distress who are being violated. This is not to justify the existence of cops, but to take it for grated that they exist and to critique the role they are currently playing.
Serpico responds to the call and he and his partner confront the three people assaulting the women; the bad guys flee and Serpico manages to catch one, but the other two get away. When he does a little bit of investigative work he manages to find the other two criminals and phones the department for back up. They tell Serpico that the case belongs to a detective who is off and that he should not worry about it. The case will be solved eventually. Again, cutting corners at a crappy job is one thing, but here are two people who unequivocally violated another person and the cops just kind of say ‘we’ll get to it’. The problem I have with the way the film is telling this story is that it follows the typical corrupt cop narrative.
Here is a cop who wants to do good and here are the bad cops who are corrupt-take bribes, use excessive force etc. The assumption is that the police’s role in society is legitimate, but there are a few bad apples. Serpico busting the two criminals on his own exemplifies this idea, however, this telling of the story like most telling of this police narrative never show the cops in their role as property protectors. The story doesn’t show cops throwing people out of their houses due to evictions or cops beating up strikers or standing in whole foods arresting people who steal to eat. If a story actually highlighted these type of interactions that cops had to deal with it would actually complicate how we think about police and the role in society. I think these examples help to demystify the role police play in our society because it rejects the good verses evil narrative.
Another example of the film skillfully pointing out problems with the police comes to life in the few scenes they show when Serpico is at the fingerprinting place. They cleverly illuminate the homophobia of cops by showing Serpico performing a ballet move as he heads towards the bathroom. A superior follows him into the bathroom believing he has discovered Serpico enganging in homosexual activity. Likewise, when he busts the man in the nice suit and the man’s reaction is perfect. He is alarmed initially because he thought Serpico was a junkie, but was relived when he discovered he was just a cop (until of course Serpico freaks out at the station).
I had an issue with the way the story was told. In the beginning of the film, we are introduced to Serpico as he is on his way to the hospital after he was shot. We are introduced to a number of characters some of which are arriving at the hospital, or talking on the phone, whom we know nothing about, but we come to know as the story goes progresses. I like this method and I think at the end of the film I found this method to be effective. However, the way the rest of the story is told is extremely choppy. First, I had no idea how much time elapsed from the beginning of the film to the end (I think I read that it chronicled 12 years or so). Second, the film introduces a number of characters without actually providing much context to understand the character or their explicit role either in dialogue or by some other method. For example, when his immediate superior (boss) tells him that there are two investigating people in his office. His boss says this in front of all the other cops in his division, whom are already suspicious of Serpico, but it is not clear who these investigative people are. I can deduce that they are above his boss or are part of an investigating branch, but this is all based on intuition or just familiarity with the typical narrative. This complaint is similar to the other two complaints: the film seems to be filled with people and scenes who/that do not add much to the plot. For example, the driving scene with Serpico singing in Italian after he spoke with his mother or the interaction with the shady kids selling puppies out of a box.
Sound and camera
I only mention sound because at certain points (mostly a couple of times in the beginning) it was so annoying or outrageous that it seriously detracted from the viewing experiences. As far as the camera work goes (a topic of which it should be obvious that I know little about), there are not many scenes that I remember for being particularly good nor bad. However, there is one scene in the beginning when Serpico is being taken to the hospital, which is shot particularly well. The camera is close up on a police officer’s face that is standing in an office. The phone rings and the phone is placed up to his left ear; you can see two cops standing at a desk to the first officer’s left.
I gave the movie a 6/10 rating because it told the story in clever ways and because I liked Serpico’s dynamic character, but it failed to deviate from the typical cop narrative and it was choppy and hard to follow.
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxxx
*********************************************************
M. I’m not sure I would agree with these other critics you mention. I think the story is good at looking at a variety of different aspects of police work with an overarching goal at exposing the corrupt components. I don’t think the approach needs to be disputed, and I agree that it is probably fine given that it is based on an autobiography. However, I’m a little torn about how to approach this. First, I think it is a significant real-life story of a pretty courageous person who went up against the culture of the police. While it is important to acknowledge that the film attempts to reflect this person’s real-life struggle, the film also conveys a message or is reflective of a perspective on the police and on their role in society. If we look at it just as a story then I found the narrative to be unoriginal or simply not that interesting (what I said was: This is the typical narrative explored in cop-stories and the film does not deviant much from the stock narrative).
I don’t think this idea is foreign to you given your statement, “this kind of thing is rampant now” so you know what I’m talking about at least to some degree. I’m not sure if there are films prior to this one that explores this exact premise, but that is not the point anyway. Even if this is the first film to explore this issue, the idea has been explored in countless stories in books. So, unless the film tells the story in a unique way, it doesn’t seem to me to be significant simply because it is the first time the story is explored in a film (if it is in fact the first time). Again, as a real story it is significant.
I’m not sure what you mean by your comment about wanting a movie play to my specific philosophy-feels more like a jab than anything. Are you taking issue with my interpretation of the story or are you trying to say something else?
In my critique of the story above, I’m essentially arguing that the story is not original and I didn’t find the story itself all that compelling. I then suggest that it would be more interesting and would break from the typical ‘good cop vs corrupt cop’ narrative if it actually explored other aspects of police work. I mention guarding property, which can mean throwing people out into the street via eviction, but I also mentioned beating striking workers or ‘guarding’ wholefoods, which would be something, Serpico may have done as a beat cop.
A few things: for you the idea of a movie having an innovative or pioneering plot for its time, but then getting re-hashed might be a bad thing, but for me it's not. I've seen mob movie cliches before I saw their predecessors and innovators--like the Godfather or Goodfellas - but did this hamper my experience even though these premises had become worn? No. This is just some place that I guess we differ. Secondly, you do bring your philosophy to the table. Read your past reviews. Read what I said above - I said there's technically nothing wrong with this as long as you're weighing the movie's other merits equally. I couldn't tell from your rating and the time you spent discussing items that reflect your philosophy above what mattered to you about this movie more. What do I mean by your philosophy? I mean your 'cops as property protectors' paragraph. Is this a correct labeling? Yes, it can be - but most of the film-going public view cops as 'enforcers of the law' which can coincide, of course, with protection of the status quo, property, etc. This isn't what the film is about though. It's about a personal experience of someone who doesn't have these views and whose audience doesn't have these views. Serpico tells a true story - it might only be a synecdoche but this is the burden of the filmmaker. I don't think this was Lumet's point. It would be like us criticizing No Country for Old Men for not showing the lives of Latin American citizens whose lives have been wrecked by the drug trade and the horrors and travesties there. This is what I see when I read your comments. Obviously text alone can misrepresent things. I understand now that more of what you don't like about the film is because you found this movie cliche. That's fine, and you did mention this before, but you spent more time on the other. There's no 'jab' here. I'm making an observation.
First, I’m totally fine with a movie using the same tried and trite theme, acting, and style, but that doesn’t mean I cannot criticize it or make fun of it. For example, I love cheesy action movies. I liked the newest 007 films because they were fun, but also because the new Bond is perfect great actor for the role. That being said, when I have talked about it I also mention that it is a cheesy action movie with its typical flaws. If I were to seriously review the film, I would point out things like the plot was super thin or that the political commentary was just a veil used to tie together a weak story. Or, like Serpico, it follows a typical narrative and takes certain things like the state, the police, secret service and other things like this for granted as good and legitimate, but at the same time is providing commentary and critiquing cops. However, as I argued above, I don’t think it critiques it enough.
Perhaps another example of this would be the Departed. If I remember correctly, the plot is somewhat similar to Serpico, but I thought the way the film was done and some of the unexpected twists made the film really enjoyable-even though it is similar in nature to this film it told the story in a way that I really liked. It is fine for a story to be used again and again, but that doesn’t mean that it cannot be criticized for falling into the same holes as their predecessors. I don’t remember having the same critique of the Departed as I did for Serpico, but also I don’t think the Departed is trying to have a critique like Serpico does-as you mention it is autobiographical.
What do you mean by this: “Secondly, you do bring your philosophy to the table” and what is this responding to? I mean I would agree, but I don't recall making a statement to the contrary and further I would argue that you, like everyone else, brings their philosophy to the table. So, I don't understand the significance of this statement nor do I understand its origin.
I’ve thought a lot about how to criticizes a story for what it shows and what it doesn’t show and I think, to some extent it doesn’t make sense to critique a film for something that is out of its scope. I see your point and agree, however, there are times when it is appropriate to critique a film for leaving out something, or for how it reflects a certain perspective that is problematic. So, going back to 007 I like the film because it is fun, but I would critique it for propagating a perspective that justifies foreign European/American intervention into other countries or for perpetuating the narrative of the white-European as a hero-savior archetype. Sure, this is not what the film is about. It is about a good guy who saves the world, but in the way it tells a story it reflects certain attitudes and says that they are ok or justified or normal. We can see this in the use of torture on television shows after 9/11. Prior to 9/11 torture was always something the evil foreign, terrorist, enemy used against the righteous good guys, but following 9/11 torture was put in a light that was positive. It was an unsavory tactic that the good guys had to use in order to save a mass amount of people.
I don’t think I am unfair with my analysis of the story and I do not see or agree with your statement about No Country. When I watched/read No Country the thought of how the people have been affected by the drug trade didn’t really cross my mind. Except for when Sugar kills random people and the Wife of Moss. So, if we take them as representative of ‘innocent’ people then the story did include them. I’m willing to discuss this idea further, but maybe you could explain it differently with another example.
It occurred to me Tuesday night why having constructive film arguments with you can be so frustrating.. I feel that when you dive right into a review, you don't always put your best foot forward. In your rebuttals, you tend to articulate your persective better than your initial review. Example: in your first review, you allude to being dissatisfied with police practices that the movie could have shown to present a more complicated/true-to-life picture. I tell you in my rebuttal: hey, this is what other critics have pointed out - that the movie doesn't thoroughly explore all the issues it raises. You respond that this isn't the issue. Do you see how this can look confusing to someone else? This is only part of it. I would actually agree with your assessment on an 007 film - maybe this is something we could get to the heart of face-to-face sometime. I don't want to have to connect the dots either for something like No Country for Old Men. What is the backstory to the truck full of drugs and a briefcase of money being found in the West Texas wilderness? What questions does this set-up raise about Mexican-American relations, the drug trade, the casualties that likely ensued leading to this set-up and their repercussions..? Should we weigh these things when talking about a straight forward thriller or just enjoy it? In any case, I still feel that as a biopic Serpico was impressive for its time and impresses me still, especially Pacino's acting.
I don’t know why you find having a film conversation with me frustrating. First, you must know by now, as I have openly stated, that I focus more on the story. I like analyzing the story being told, how it is being told, and if the filming makes that telling of the story interesting or bad then I comment on it. I’m not film-ography literate, yet. So, the things you look for in a film are not exactly what I look for, but I do try to pay attention to the mechanics of the film. Regardless, this should not be frustrating because it is . From your responses, it seems like you are taking my viewpoint personally or as some attack against you. For example, you mention how I want the film to play into my philosophy and then, again, you say I do bring my philosophy to the table. This is something that I would not dispute, but I would say that everyone does that anyways. So this seems more like you pointing your finger at me, rather than finding fault with the arguments I’ve presented. If my arguments are bad, then it is fine to point them out-I wouldn’t take it personally.
I’m not sure about your ‘best foot forward’ point, because in my initial review I make it clear that the narrative is very typical in its representation of cops and the classic telling of a story i.e. good vs. evil. I didn’t say, I suppose like other critics have, that it didn’t treat the issues with enough depth. I thought the issues they did touch on were good and the way they covered them were clever-as I mentioned. Again, I don’t see why you would be frustrated even if the point were not entirely clear in my initial review. The initial review is of the whole film and it is difficult to give each issue enough time and to know when the issue has been made clear enough or what issues you two will want to discuss. That is what further questions are for, to make points that may have been unclear, clearer. I do not see how this is frustrating.
I’m not sure about your ‘best foot forward’ point, because in my initial review I make it clear that the narrative is very typical in its representation of cops and the classic telling of a story i.e. good vs. evil. I didn’t say, I suppose like other critics have, that it didn’t treat the issues with enough depth. I thought the issues they did touch on were good and the way they covered them were clever-as I mentioned. Again, I don’t see why you would be frustrated even if the point were not entirely clear in my initial review. The initial review is of the whole film and it is difficult to give each issue enough time and to know when the issue has been made clear enough or what issues you two will want to discuss. That is what further questions are for, to make points that may have been unclear, clearer. I do not see how this is frustrating.
With No Country, you are trying to make a point, but I don’t feel like you support it. It is not a matter of doing the work for me or ‘connecting the dots’. I do not think you support your argument or show how the two films and the critique are similar. As I mention, I don’t see the similarities; I didn’t think that the film presented the drug trade in a typical way or in a way that made me critical of them leaving out how the trade affected the Latin American people. If the movie had made some thinly veiled or weak political statements (like they do in 007 or the most recent Die Hard) I would be critical of them and point out the problems (the new Die Hard uses the cliché cold-war Russian terrorist plot with the CIA ‘good’ guys). The difference between 007, and Serpico/No Country is that they are supposed to be taken seriously and be reviewed seriously. It is a false dichotomy to suggest that we either critique it in your way or enjoy it. I enjoyed reviewing Serpico, perhaps more than watching it, but I don’t think reviewing or being critical of a film takes the fun out of it. If I wanted to review 007-films that I found to be super fun-I would be just as critical and have just as much fun.
I can assure you: not taking it personally, not finger pointing. I'm a busy man (you might not be able to tell by how much time we've spent on this particular post), so I don't necessarily have the time, nor want to lay out in depth the synecdoche 'arguments' with No Country besides showing you the bullet points. With that book, and with that film the statements I made above are things that some critics have pointed to. I don't agree with them either, but it seemed like something you were doing with this movie so I thought I'd show the overlap here. Obviously you're free to view/enjoy a movie any way you want--but if one of us finds your reasoning weak (and I did point out individual things you said that I have a problem with, disregarding the philosophy line), we can only say it so many ways. We will disagree with each other on certain movies--but how would I argue with you finding the film choppy and hard to follow when I saw it as a pretty straight picture? I don't know if this would get us anywhere either. I'm just trying to rationalize these things with what is essentially a D rating that you gave this movie that you also wrote you enjoyed. I may have disagreed with you in past reviews, but this one more than any other just confused me. However, each rebuttal that you write does give me further insight into your thinking.. So, that's good. Assuming Scott eventually posts on this thing and we move on, what are we watching next?
******************************************************************************
The first time that I saw Serpico (1973) I didn’t have any
idea what I was watching. It was simply on TV one Saturday afternoon and I
caught it. At the time I didn’t realize that it was based on true events. I
didn’t know that it was a classic film that had won awards for best score, or
that Sidney Lumet was recognized by both the BAFTAs and the Directors Guild of
America, or that the film was nominated for the Golden Globe for Best Motion
Picture – Drama, or that Al Pachino, one of the all-time film greats, had won
his first Golden Globe award for Best Actor for his performance. To be honest
at the time I only knew Pachino through the Godfather and I don’t particularly
remember recognizing him.
Despite my ignorance of the films importance in history I
still greatly enjoyed it, mainly I think because it was just so dog gone 70’s,
the cars, the wardrobe, the dialogue. That and because Serpico was just such a
cool guy. Here’s this cop that looks like the biggest bum, just a dirty, hairy
hippy, yet he’s got the girl, he’s got the brains, he’s got the guts, and he’s
the only one on the force that’s honest. He seems to go against all stereotypes
and come out the hero prevailing over not only corrupt cops and political
figures, but himself as well.
Eventually I was working my way through Netflix watching the
greats, the must see before you die lists. My wife and I were headed for
vacation to a beach in Delaware for a week and I packed up a few films from
Netflix and the library to give us something to do when we weren’t frolicking
through the sand. Serpico was one of these. I probably made it thirty minutes
into the film before proclaiming, “Hey I’ve seen this before!” That was a good
vacation for movies, I believe I saw Rachel Getting Married and Taxi Driver as
well on that trip.
The values I search for in film has matured since my first
viewing so many years ago, but it still stands strong. I no longer love it just
because it’s, “so dog gone 70’s,” or because Pachino is such a cool guy. Now I
love it because of how gritty it is and because I truly think it’s Pachino’s
finest performance.
-Scott-
******************************************************************************
So far Mick of the six films that we have reviewed, you only
reviewed five of them. Of those five you claimed that four of them were cliché.
I agreed with you that the love interest in Pariah was predictable but your use
of the “cliché” argument is overused and unmerited. What film cliché’s does
Serpico follow? All those crime dramas where a police detective dresses like a
hippy, is unable to separate his work as a police officer and his romantic
relationships and testifies against cops taking bribes from organized crime
kingpins. Yeah… there are so many films like that??? I can name absolutely none
other than this one.
When I think of cliché cop films I think of Lethal Weapon
and Die Hard, but not Serpico, we must have different definitions for the word cliché.
Mike is right, your review is difficult to understand, and
seems to contradict itself. You say you dislike something about the film but
then immediately claim you like it. Take for instance the way the film begins
with Serpico in the hospital. You first say you, “had an issue with,” it and
then go on to say that you, “like this method,” and think, “this method to be
effective.” You say that the film, “skillfully” points out problems with the
police yet later claim it doesn’t do enough, and that it’s unoriginal how it
does it.
You say it’s a, “typical narrative,” yet say that it’s
choppy and difficult to understand.
I understand that plot weighs heavier for you than cinematography,
editing, or acting, but when you say you want to start noticing those things,
or you are asking Mike and I what we look for and how we rate things and then
you still continue to rate solely on plot and say you didn’t notice the
mechanics its kind of a slap in the face.
If we reviewed Jurassic Park and the Godfather I would have
to admit that the Godfather was a better film, had better acting and camera
work, and I would give it a better rating, even though I enjoy Jurassic Park
much more.
Most of your arguments against Serpico are based not on what
is there but what isn’t there, suggesting that scenes of house evictions and
cops beating up strikers be included. This is off base, the film is based on a
biography written about a real cop who only worked in uniform for a short
period of time in the early 1960’s before moving on to fingerprinting and then
narcotics, its extremely unlikely that the things you suggest were ever a part
of Frank Serpico’s beat. Adding these scenes would be an extreme case of
artistic manipulation to impose an ideology that is not true to the subject
matter. Using the above example, suggesting that the film would be better with
more of a variety of police injustice would be like me claiming that the
Godfather would be a better film if there were dinosaurs in it. Serpico is not
meant to be a comprehensive look at police corruption, the subject of Serpico
is Frank Serpico, and his very specific work uncovering NYPD officers taking
bribes in the early 1960’s.
Serpico is a classic film that has won many awards and is
considered one of Al Pachino’s greatest performances. You gave it 60%. Alice Doesn’t
Live Here Anymore is a classic that won Ellen Burstyn an Academy Award for Best
Actress, you gave it a 50%. Your ratings aren’t fair if you are considering the
criteria that Mike and I use.
-Scott-
******************************************************************************
Alight. Mike, your comment about
time is just silly ->(I'm a busy man (you might not be able to tell by how
much time we've spent on this particular post), so I don't necessarily have the
time, nor want to lay out in depth the synecdoche 'arguments' with No
Country besides showing you the bullet points.) I’m sure everyone is busy. If
you recall I mentioned how I wanted to do a film reviews maybe every three
weeks or so and you insisted that we do two film reviews a month. If you don’t
have so much time, why did you insist on this before? Similarly, we define the
boundaries and we set the times for when we will review the next film. We could
just delay the next film if we have a good conversation going. This means you
have plenty of time to actually make an argument instead of just ridiculing
mine with bullet points that do not make a clear point that I understand (maybe
you should put your best foot forward). I don’t think there is overlap and I
don’t think you show how there could be overlap.
I am fine with you guys
disagreeing with me, and I am also fine with you picking my review apart. But
first you both should actually read
my review and if you are going to critique it then actually layout arguments
that counter mine. You both seem to be fond of just skimming my text.
Scott you say: “Most of your
arguments against Serpico are based not on what is there but what isn’t there,
suggesting that scenes of house evictions and cops beating up strikers be
included”. Where do I say that “scenes of house evictions and cops beating up
strikers be included”? Where I mention those things, those things are
inconsequential. The point of the paragraph is to argue that Serpico does not
show those things, or show similar tasks which police officers routinely carry
out that would actually problematize the role of police in society and the good
vs. evil story liine. The overall critique that I was laying out was to suggest
that Serpico perpetuates a narrative about the role of police in society in
which the institution is good, but there are some corrupt cops that need to be
disciplined. Serpico is not the first story to tell this story.
So Scott when you say: “What film
cliché’s does Serpico follow? All those crime dramas where a police detective
dresses like a hippy, is unable to separate his work as a police officer and
his romantic relationships and testifies against cops taking bribes from
organized crime kingpins. Yeah… there are so many films like that??? I can name
absolutely none other than this one.” Not only is it funny because you are
clearly trying to be rude, but it shows that you didn’t comprehend what I was
saying, or just simply assumed you knew what point I was making and went with
your own interpretation of my review. I didn’t say that every cop story has a
police detective that dresses like a hippy etc I was saying the overall story
follows a trope followed by cop stories. Certainly, the police detective as a
hippy is unique and it is not a point I was addressing. But, to draw an
analogy, if we look at Die Hard, what cop film can you think of with that exact
plot and that exact character? In your words, “Yeah… there are so many films
like that??? I can name absolutely none other than this one.” But what we can
think of is an overall story line that Die Hard and Lethal Weapon follow, which
I suggested, Serpico also follows although it is somewhat different.
Scott your comments about me
contradicting myself do not make sense at all. As you said, I do claim that I
dislike something about the film. What I claim to dislike is the way that the
story is told. So, I begin by describing how the story is told and I begin with
something that I liked about how the story was told. However, the film is not
completely successful in employing this method throughout the film. I say: “I
like this method and I think at the end of the film I found this method to be
effective. However, the way the rest of the story is told is extremely choppy.”
So, it is a qualified criticism. I think the method was effective at parts, but
not throughout. Likewise, what you point out that I thought the film was
‘skillful’ at pointing out certain problems, but that it doesn’t go far enough
and that it does emulate other story lines I’ve seen before-there is no
contradiction there. The film did a good job at highlighting certain aspects of
police culture that is fucked up, but it did not go as far as critiquing the
institution of policing which I think is necessary or what have made the story
step out side of the typical cop trope. Similarly, I can think that the
narrative is ‘typical’, but also think the way it is told is choppy because
they do not, for example, indicate how much time has passed.
Scott, I really do not understand
your slap in the face comment. How is my review a slap in the face? I critiqued
the film, I didn’t critique you and you didn’t make the film. I just don’t
understand what you are saying here.
Scott you say the film is about
Serpico only: “Serpico is Frank Serpico, and his very specific work uncovering
NYPD officers taking bribes in the early 1960’s.” In my opinion, I think this
is actually insulting to the film. I think the film is much more than that
because it does highlight a lot of the fucked up cultural aspects of police
work. But your comment about dinosaurs is just asinine. I get you are trying to
say that the things I suggest the story is lacking is inappropriate because
that is not the subject of the story, but I respectfully disagree and I think
that is fine. I think it is totally fine for you guys to totally disagree with
my reviews, but actually read my review, address it and stop being rude. I’ve
always treated you guys with respect and it is very disheartening for you to
not take me seriously.
Also, I didn’t say that all the
films we have reviewed were cliché. I liked Rashomon, and I didn’t think
Pariah, or Batman was wholly cliché I though parts of it were. There is a
difference.
I'm for moving on at this point unless everyone feels too jaded to start over with a new post. As 'rude' as you feel we've been, I never called one of your statements stupid or un-intelligent (definition of asinine) and I think it's a cop out and condescending to say that we never actually read your reviews. We were confused by your arguments, not by your perception. I'd like to hope that most people who are in a situation where 2/3rds of those in attendance don't feel that someone is executing their message properly that this person would think 'wow, maybe I missed something,' or 'how I can phrase this
differently/better?'
To be clear, I was trying to be
rude with my last comment, but that was only to point out and to emulate how
you two have been rude. If you think my comments before were rude, first, I’d
like to hear why. I think that I kept to addressing your comments and sought
clarification and was honest in this process. It was only with Scotts comment
that I felt the need to responds in kind.
I would be totally fine if you two
found fault in my review and made arguments to counter to them. As I’ve done,
each comment that you made I tried to point out how I disagreed with them and I
referred back to my original review. The problem I have is with is more to do
with how you guys are addressing my review and me, rather than what you find
lacking in my review. For example, I posted my review and then Mike, you
commented on it. I defended my review and asked for some clarity on particular
points like about No Country, then you said Oh, you’re a busy man and cannot
layout all the specifics of your argument. This amounts to ‘take my word for it
your wrong’. The other arguments you did make, I attempted to counter and I
asked you for clarification. If the end result is that we just have to agree to
disagree well that’s fine. We do not have to be swayed by each other’s
arguments, but you guys don’t have to be rude to me or treat my position less
seriously.
Similarly, look at Scott’s second
comment. What purpose is the first paragraph supposed to serve? First, it is
rude and second, it totally ignores what I say about the film in terms of what
I thought were typical. If Scott had said something like, ‘mick, I do not think
it is typical because Serpico is atypical. What typical crime drama uses a
hippy detective?”-that would be more honest, less rude, and more genuine.
Instead you just disagree with me and are rude about it, expressing your view
in a way that is condescending, seeking no clarification, or even entertaining
the idea of a discussion. (“Yeah… there are so many films like that??? I can
name absolutely none other than this one.”)
And Scott, your comment: “I
understand that plot weighs heavier for you than cinematography, editing, or
acting, but when you say you want to start noticing those things, or you are
asking Mike and I what we look for and how we rate things and then you still
continue to rate solely on plot and say you didn’t notice the mechanics its
kind of a slap in the face.”
Like I said, I’m not sure what you
mean about the slap in the face, but I do understand that you and Mike are
looking at Cinematography, editing and acting more; I assume you are also
looking at plot, too. I am trying to pay attention to that stuff and to talk
about it, but it is difficult and hard for me to notice, as I’ve said before.
It is like trying to speak a new language for me.
To be constructive, you could ask
me questions like, ‘oh hey mick, what did you think of Al’s acting’ to which I
would say since I thought this though I didn’t say it in the way you wanted me
to-“I thought his acting was great. I thought the character was written
dynamically and that Al really brought out the interesting, aspects of the
character”. What I actually said in my original review was: “I liked Serpico’s
dynamic character” this I could have made it clearer, but Scott you didn’t ask.
On this same point, Scott your
review says almost nothing, and says almost nothing that fits into your
criteria. You say that it is good, “because of how gritty it is and because I
truly think it’s Pachino’s finest performance.” That is about the only thing
you say of substance. Your second comment has more force and seems more
genuine-perhaps mike will tell you to put your best foot forward, too.
In your review you say: “He seems
to go against all stereotypes and come out the hero prevailing over not only
corrupt cops and political figures, but himself as well.” I like how you
clarify it in your second comment (not the rudeness but what you say about
Serpico) that a hippy detective is not typical. I would agree, but then say
that I found the overall narrative, not the particular character, typical.
I can understand you guys not
agreeing with my review or you both finding fault with my perspective, but I disagree
and that is fine. I do not think your positions are convincing and I’ve said
why. I do not think it is necessary for any of us to cede anything especially
if we are not persuaded by each other’s arguments. I think it is fine for you
to be frustrated-I was frustrated during parts of the conversation too-, but
you do not have to be rude to me because of your frustration.
This is the bottom line for me: I
absolutely do not care if you completely disagree with me and if we argued long
into oblivion and got nowhere. However, I do care about how that conversation
is carried out meaning I demand the same respect that I give. I think that I
have stuck to this up until this comment and the one just prior, but that was
in response to Scott’s second comment that is clearly offensive and was meant
to be instructive of how you two have been addressing me. I apologize for this,
but I felt personally attacked and I wanted it to be addressed.
______
Mike to address your new comment that you changed: some of my other friends have
read my review and they and I talked about it and they didn’t have the same
perspective of you two. That is not to say that I couldn’t make it clearer,
which I attempted to do in the comments after my review, but I could equally
say maybe there is something wrong with you two since others have read it and
understood it properly. I do not have a problem with you two finding fault or
you two both being against me, what I have a problem with is how you two have
addressed me.
Did you read Scotts second
comment? How is that first paragraph anything but rude and unproductive? I did
use the term asinine, but why don’t you address Scotts paragraph where he
talked about Dinosaurs. I see the point of the paragraph is to suggest that I
criticize the film unfairly for stuff that was not there, but you and I already
discussed that. Your example of No Country was at least somewhat remotely relevant.
The use of the dinosaur is not and is meant to be insulting not productive, so
I treated in kind.
I think we're all getting to a point of frustration with each other and this feeds comments like Scott's, yours, mine. It looks like he was trying to use these examples in a macrocosm model but maybe you should talk to him about this more directly.
I also had friends look at our conversations and these people also didn't understand some of how you structured certain arguments. It doesn't look like we're going to break any ground here so let's agree to disagree. I do appreciate your efforts to clarify things. As I said before - you and I have agreed or disagreed on movies on this thing in the past. While this has been true, I've never felt as confused as I have with the review that you posted here. I already stated my reasons for this, but to reiterate something - generally a D rating is seen as very bad, one step above a fail. You know this; I'm not trying to condescend. But since you liked quite a bit about Serpico but also had some issues with it, this rating didn't seem just to me and I couldn't tell initially what aspects of the film you were weighing more.
With something like us asking you about, say, a performance or a filming technique to try to focus your attention on a different aspect of a film (you mention us asking you about Pacino earlier), I've done that. I did that with the Dark Knight Rises review. I asked you about Hathaway's performance and her playing against type but you didn't address or notice this. For me then, I might think, 'if Mick didn't answer me before with something like this, will he this time?'
I had a super busy work week last week. Very stressful. My saying I didn't have time to lay out synecdoche arguments with No Country for Old Men might have been brash because of this and I'm sorry if I skirted something that could have been helpful. Here was my thought process regarding this: me mentioning this in fragments reflected how I spoke about this movie and this critical perception with friends in the past when it has come up. They connected the dots then and we had a discussion on it and I was hoping for you to do the same. I guess I feel like I had written other things in that response that I was hoping for you to respond to and not everything there was addressed. If we end up reviewing No Country for Old Men, I'll lay this out in full, as much as I know about it.
Unfortunately, I think our differences
in opinion or at least what we look for in film is too great for me to continue
this blog. Despite this, I hope there are no ill feelings between us. If either of you want to speak to me outside this context to address any issues that is totally fine, encouraged, and welcomed.
**********************************************************************I don't think our differences or what we look for in film is so drastic that we can't have a discussion about film on here. You and I agreed almost entirely on Pariah, we both thought the ending of the Dark Knight Rises was a cop out, and we liked alot of the same scenes in Alice Doesn't Live Here, it's not that we don't see the same things, its that the importance on these things is weighed differently, as they are with Mike and I also. But if you wish to not continue that is your decision. In the same way I don't wish to continue without you. The three of us doing this together was the point, I have no desire to continue if you don't as well.
You guys have been hashing this out with very long comments, I kept mine short I don't think the long paragraphs trying to sway each other is productive, I pointed out some things and moved on. I am sorry that you found my rebuttal rude, it was meant to be comical, a little sarcastic and sure the Jurassic Park analogy was an extreme (again meant to be partly comical yet prove a point) but they weren't meant to be hurtful or rude. You are entitled to your opinion on these films as much as Mike and I are. It did seem like your rating of 60% was low considering your review, as did the 50% rating for Alice. It also seemed like you weighed things far heavier on plot or genre than what Mike and I do and that is mainly what we were trying to express, and try to help you understand why our reviews were in such contrast to yours.
No comments:
Post a Comment