MovieChat Forums > The Untouchables (1987) Discussion > Embodies Masculinity

Embodies Masculinity

posted 12 years ago by kevn111
4 replies | jump to latest

This felt to me to be a very "male" movie, both in the intended audience and in the machinations of the movie itself. What I mean by that is that this film (fairly accurately) depicts masculinity as it is perceived by society, and, in a way that is sometimes interesting, sometimes frustrating, it shows the confusion and confliction pertaining to masculinity too. For instance- It is honorable to avoid taking lives (so Costner saves the crook), but if someone is evil, they must be stopped (throws him off building). One should obey laws, but break other ones in order to protect them (paradoxical, huh?). It takes will to control your feelings (Costner's character) but also to be fierce and decisive (Connery's character). And of course, you should save a baby instead of killing a gangster, but it's still nice to kill a gangster, so do it anyway. The tone of the movie also seemed to vary. During the raid on the bridge, it felt like something out of a Saturday morning serial, turned into a dark gangster film, then hovered around suspense, cop drama, court drama, et al. Did anyone else notice a similar trend, perhaps with additional examples? Or do you not see this, or outright disagree? Interested to hear others' thoughts on this.

[–] dyahrmarkt 12 years ago

The tone shifts in The Untouchables were maddening. The film needed to be leaner and more concise - it varied anywhere from the most violent of Scorsese's gangster imaginings to Disney-esque fluff.

re: Nitti being "evil" - the dude, on the way to the rooftop, shoots two police officers (see them rolling down the stairs). Ness still doesn't feel its necessary to shoot Nitti until he calls his friend a "stuck Irish pig". The film's paradoxes sometimes are a result of a script that is largely incoherent, and the film's many strengths are a strange byproduct of that.

Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -

[–] RainmanCT 12 years ago

Yes I'm sure the genius David Mamet is saying to himself "darn if only I was more concise I would have dropped the disney-esque fluff".

Obviously Mamet was making a point with the over-the-top squeaky clean images of the Ness family; it's up to the viewer to figure out what he's trying to say.

My theory is that even though he's the hero, Mamet is making him a bit of a buffoon, as he does with the last line of the film [which is actually a play].

[–] dyahrmarkt 12 years ago

"Obviously Mamet was making a point with the over-the-top squeaky clean images of the Ness family; it's up to the viewer to figure out what he's trying to say."

**No, *not* "obviously"! That's the whole point and the problem here. You think Mamet deliberately went for the cheese whiz in order to prove a broader point? I know Mamet can be deliberately convoluted, but he also wasn't the only one involved here. I'm sure he had a lot of sway, but this film reeks of DePalma.

Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 11 years ago

Watch some 30s gangster/crime films, The Untouchables was directly influenced & was made to resemble such earlier films.

Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel