The Departed

Max Jacoby · November 5, 2006

And I've just seen "Infernal Affairs", which is not a great film either, but at least don't takes itself so seriously and tells the story in a very straighforward manner. Anybody knows which anamorphic lenses did they use on this one? The film was shot at wide apertures (I would say T/2-2.8 split) and there are lots of optical aberrations, much more than what I'm used to with modern anamorphics. That's why I guess they used some old optics, but I can't tell for sure as I've seen it on DVD.

Salon Film in Hong-Kong rents out Panavision lenses, but I'm not sure whether they have the latest lenses. I think it was Chris Doyle who complained that on 2046 their anamorphic lenses were quite bad.

I've just been reading a book where they mention that Taiwanese Cinema of the 70s was mostly shot anamorphic. Also some Mainland Chinese films (like 'Red Sorghum') were also shot anamorphic and I have no idea what kind of lenses they used. While it's imagineable that the Chinese got theirs from Russia, I wonder where the Taiwnese and the Honk-Kongese got theirs from. Maybe Japan, which also has a tradition of shooting anamorphic.

Gavin Greenwalt · November 5, 2006

I saw infernal affairs a few years ago and thought it was an acceptable Hong Kong thriller, however when I heard that Scorsese was going to direct a remake I got really excited.

Unfortunately I have to agree with Max I was pretty disappointed coming out. I wasn't disappointed because it was a bad film. It's better than many films released this year. The acting was great, the timing was solid, the screenplay was good, the cinematography was fine. But they didn't take the story any further than the original shallow hong kong flick.

You have a story about a character being forced to act in a very evil manner to (hopefully) save lives. The whole dichotomy of living your life as a lie for justice. Was Leonardo Dicaprio's character really any better than the rat in the police station? He sold his soul for justice. It's the classic story of questioning ends and means... but unfortunately that entire last paragraph was missing from the film! They had an amazing cast, and a top notch director who could have made that happen, but instead got lazy and made a simple, shallow, thriller. I was so disappointed by their lack of ambition that it soured the whole experience.

[Highlight for spoilers] Just because you kill your main characters doesn't make you dramatic. This is a problem the Korean cinema is facing right now. They kill off all of their main characters to make it more emotional, but in the end it's just as much a crutch as Americans persistance to keeping them alive.[/spoilers]

Brad Grimmett · November 8, 2006

It's the classic story of questioning ends and means... but unfortunately that entire last paragraph was missing from the film! They had an amazing cast, and a top notch director who could have made that happen, but instead got lazy and made a simple, shallow, thriller. I was so disappointed by their lack of ambition that it soured the whole experience.

So you wanted the message to be wrapped up neatly and fed to you? The fact that there were some questions and uncertainties at the end of the film is part of what makes it so good, in my opinion. I like to have to think about a film when it's over.

What do you mean by "lack of ambition"? What does that mean?

Gavin Greenwalt · November 8, 2006

So you wanted the message to be wrapped up neatly and fed to you? The fact that there were some questions and uncertainties at the end of the film is part of what makes it so good, in my opinion. I like to have to think about a film when it's over.
What do you mean by "lack of ambition"? What does that mean?

No not at all. I felt it wrapped up too much. It felt like the ending was just sort of a "By the way, so we don't have to deal with the story anymore we're just going to anti-deus-ex-machina the whole cast". It reminds me of Michael from "The Office" at Improv practice. "Detective Michael J Scarn Freeze! Bam!"

By lack of ambition I felt like they didn't explore the story beyond the superficial challenges the characters were under. Everybody ended up being a little too black and white, too shallow. The performances were amazing, and it is clear that they achieved what they set out to do, but I felt like they could have dug a little deeper into everyones stories, especially the main character who is commiting revolting deeds in the name of justice, but seems to come out of it relatively unfazed... except for being afraid for his life. There wasn't really that lingering question at the end: Was he really suitable to return to society? Or did he sacrifice his soul to the darkness in order to conquer it and as such be an outcast the society he protects?

The superficially covered it. "Will he get his identity back." But it was all a clerical drama, not a human drama. It felt about as profound as "will I get my tax return filed correctly".

I don't know, all around an exciting, excellent film, but it loses big points, because it could have been so much more. I think it was the difference between "Great film" and "Classic Film".

Brad Grimmett · November 8, 2006

OK, I see what you're getting at. I don't agree, but I understand what you're saying. I think it's tough to say, "They should have done this or that differently" when talking about a film, because the filmmaker made the film a certain way for a reason, and it's tough for me to say they were wrong. It is their film after all. Sure, some films are obviously crap and it's very easy to criticize them, but I think with a movie like The Departed this isn't the case.

At least it's worth discussing. Many films aren't worth even a moment of thought.

Ken Cangi · November 9, 2006

I just saw this film last night, and Scorsese did not disappoint. Twists, camp humor, drama, and a brilliantly executued, character-driven style have essentially insured this film's place among movie classics. I found nothing lacking in this film. The lighting, camera work, tempo, continuity, editing, and acting quality were right on the mark for this particular picture.

It is too easy to say that something should have been something else, because we all have our our visions of what a film should be, but films are an expression of the person or persons who created them, and the only way to really appreciate them is to view them without the distraction of impinging our own POV.

I have watched more than 180 big budget films this year - many of which were mediocre at best - and this film stood leagues above them all. Nicholson's facial rendition of a rat was priceless. I hope we haven't seen the last of Scorsese.

Edited November 9, 2006 by Ken Cangi

Raymond O'Neil · December 1, 2006

What the fu** is your problem?

What has my personal output to do with not liking a film? These two are completely unrelated and by your 'logic' the great majority of critics have no business writing about films, because they have never made one by themsleves. I am giving my honest opinion about a film here and the problem clearly lies with you, not me.

:) Greatest critics of art have never painted, nor made any movies, nor written fiction, but still their opinions matter. So, really, what is your problem? :)

Bernhard Zitz · December 12, 2006

I know the film had a DI but at times it looked like it was shot on a Genesis or a D20.

Same impression, some skin-tones had that plastic feeling, it's funny to see it in a movie that was shot on film. Can't say if it's the make-up or the DI. I prefer less smooth skin on male characters.

By the way, I liked the movie, specially the editing in it's rather autonom way.

Gavin Greenwalt · December 12, 2006

OK, I see what you're getting at. I don't agree, but I understand what you're saying. I think it's tough to say, "They should have done this or that differently" when talking about a film, because the filmmaker made the film a certain way for a reason, and it's tough for me to say they were wrong. It is their film after all. Sure, some films are obviously crap and it's very easy to criticize them, but I think with a movie like The Departed this isn't the case.
At least it's worth discussing. Many films aren't worth even a moment of thought.

I agree completely that's why I said I was "Disappointed". It's really a very good, well made film, I just had high hopes for how it might tackle the story, and I expected them to take it a step further than the original, instead it was nothing more than an english language remake, nothing new.

stephen defilippi · April 7, 2007

Actually, what I find tedious around here is the utter lack of criticism when it comes to even the most obviously commercial Hollywood product. I'm not saying that's what "The Departed" is, I haven't seen it yet, but the slavishness with which people (mostly the wannabees) bray on about this DP or that director gets nauseating.

Criticism is an integral part of the learning process, particularly in this field. Scorsese and Michael Ballhaus have both done great things but that doesn't mean everything they do is great. Both of them are well aware that there are people out there who know the difference.

HERE HERE!!!!!!!!

Robert Houllahan · April 7, 2007

I thought it was Scorsese's best since Goodfella's maybe I am biased because I am from Providence where "they just will not stop having the maafia" as Jack said.

I did feel that I could see the DI, probably scanned on a Spirit rather than a Northlight or Arri.. looked past it thought the performances were pretty funny, esp. if you have spent some time in Boston.

my $0.02

-Rob-