Wow, I can't believe the hostility. Someone tries to make a point with arguments, they might be questionable, but it's not as if he insulted the fans. Yet all he gets as replies are smileys and sarcasms. How about just answering his points or politely agreeing to disagree?
First of all, it is NOT obvious that the film is a comedy, as a matter of fact, the tone of the story goes all over the map and you can't really figure out whether it tries to be a lighthearted con-tale or some multilayered character study. If it's a comedy in the sense that we shouldn't take it seriously, well, that doesn't say much about the film. But it could have been both funny and serious, this is not the hardest stunt a film can achieve, especially with a good script, but David O'Russell goes in too many directions for the film's own good. In the end, too many scenes, too many improvisations, too many jump cuts and cheap turns and twists, made the experience of watching the film extremely disorienting.
Speaking for myself, just when I started to get emotionally hooked to Amy Adams' Sydney (and her chemistry with Christian Bale's Rosenfeld), there had to be the character played by Jennifer Lawrence popping up and getting increasingly 'important' in the plot. And this sassy bitch, obviously meant as a comic relief, would even get on Freud's nerves. As if it wasn't messy enough, you've got someone who's obviously not part of the solution, and keeps on nagging and shouting.. well, if that's supposed to be funny, just give me drama. And don't get me started on the "Live and Let Die" part.
I know the music is an inevitable element when you make a period piece, and on that level, O'Russel has a pretty good taste in music, but music feels like noises superposed to other noises, not just a background. Now, it is obvious that this is a wannabe Goodfellas and Casino, but it turns a rather banal scheme into something of labyrinthine complexity, just to milk the acting of the four stars and justify the awards nominations. I'm pretty sure that each of these characters were interesting on their own, but in terms of effects, they all cancel each other, we can't individually root for them, since they all spend their time acting like jerks, trying to outsmart each other and win the 'quirkiest character' contest. If you make a film about swindlers, a minimum of likability is vital, otherwise, to the degree that you'll start to understand what's going on, you won't really care for the outcome.
It's not about having likable characters as morally right but providing enough perspective on their lives so you ca genuinely care for them. And this is why Goodfellas or The Sting are still acclaimed masterpieces, first, these films are easier to follow without being "less complex" than American Hustle. But more than that, you have a clear view on Henry Hill's backstory and you see why Hooker wants to get Lonnegan. In American Hustle, we have to assume that Irvin and Sidney had no other options in their lives, and that Rosalyn was actually smarter than her husband, the film asks us to take many things for granted, which could have been possible if the editing wasn't so deliberately chaotic. It's a pity because some parts were nothing short of cinematic brilliance. I, for one thing, loved the friendship subplot between Carmine (Renner) and Bale, culminating with that funny 'oven' scene. And it's very revealing that the only one who didn't get any award buzz was Renner, the one who played a straight and realistic character.
It's like acting was elevated to some carnival level. All the others were just dressed as if they were invited to a 70's themed party and spent their time shouting and overacting, Amy Adams being the constant subject to an obvious fetichist cameraman while baby-faced Lawrence was forcing herself to convince us she was some mature thirty-something woman. And I know many directors have their darlings, but it was too distracting to see the same actors again playing again for the same director no matter how chameleonic or versatile they are, it is distracting. Renner was the good thing about the film, so was Bale to a certain extent, and the last twenty minutes were good but not as emotionally rewarding as they should have been if the rest of the film matched that quality. Maybe there's something to blame on the directing, editing, or storytelling, or maybe I'm an idiot like the OP, who didn't get the film.
But there was a similar film directed the same year, a co-nominee named "The Wolf of Wall Street", it was a wannabe "Goodfellas" too, but as Hitchcock would say, self-plagiarizing is style. And there's another thing that gives the edge to "Wolf", it focused on one main character, and two supporting ones, and Leo was the pillar, the film could get over the top, it never lost its focus. O'Russell wanted to pull a Scorsese style-wise, but it's like he was intoxicated by the exuberance of his characters and the flashiness of the 70's setting. That he convinced the world this was a masterpiece is perhaps more fascinating than the titular hustle.
Darth Vader is scary and I The Godfather
reply
share