A wife asks her husband to come to the bedroom with her.
A few quick kisses on the lips between a married man and wife.
A kiss in background.
A rather large nude painting behind De Niro at his place in one of the scenes, near the ceiling.


Film review:Translated by www.rabudo-ru.com


After reading the book “director’s homework” translated and published by Taiwan Yuanliu, I feel that it has benefited a lot. Even if I read “selflessness with an iron face” written by David mamei, I feel completely different.

First of all, in shaping the important roles in this film, screenwriter Ma Mei does not seem to show the kind of wisdom and insight he shows in the book. After checking private wine and being ridiculed by the newspaper, the protagonist is determined to form an anti underworld team. The plot should have been highlighted, but it was handled too casually and simply. Depressed Costner wandered alone on the bridge and immediately ran into Connery, the only other righteous man in the city. What a coincidence! Although we all know that there is no lack of coincidence in genre films, the editor and director should try to avoid this flow like character appearance and plot order. Because in order to maximize the dramatic effect of the work, a carefully arranged plot order is very important. For example, if the plot is changed to Costner’s encounter with Connery as soon as he arrived at his post, and he was deeply impressed by his adherence to the principle, then his confidence was full, his action against private alcohol was frustrated, and when he was depressed and hesitated, he suddenly thought of the righteous old policeman… Does the story move relatively (even if it may still not be one of the best ways)?

The selection of Garcia, the third person of the team, was too hasty. In the shooting range, where did Connery see that the new entrant must be the right person to hate evil? Just a few lines of dialogue? Perhaps the wily man really has the ability to see talents for a moment. But the director just forgot that anything the character realized through intuition is meaningless in itself. Only when you make the audience feel it, can the storyline be explained successfully.

But what puzzles us most is the fourth member of the anti triad team. If Connery and Garcia’s preconceived star signs can barely make the audience accept them as qualified comrades in arms of the protagonist, then why can this small accountant, who has just been sent by Washington to audit accounts, wears deep glasses and is less than 1.70 meters, resolutely pick up a knife and gun and successfully guest play the role of an anti Mafia pioneer? In this regard, the director has not omitted, but did not give any explanation. It is precisely because there is little ink on the core roles and mutual relations in the first paragraph of the film, which greatly weakens the appeal of the brothers fighting side by side in the follow-up plot. So that when two of them were brutally killed one after another, the audience could not fully understand the grief shown by their teammates.

What’s more ironic is that the problems in many aspects of this classic gangster film directed by De Palma just seem to provide negative arguments for some ideas in the book.

For example, Ma Mei wrote in her book:

“If a director hurried to find a visual or aesthetic way to deal with a play at the beginning, he immediately fell into the abyss of dilemma and couldn’t extricate himself.”.

So let’s see Connery’s murder.

At first, it was about to guide the public to create suspense and tension. The director quickly changed the lens to the subjective perspective of a gang killer hidden outside Connery’s house. After observing the camera (that is, the killer) for a moment, he waited for the opportunity to sneak into the room and carefully stretched out his head to visit, but he didn’t find the assassin Connery he had just seen in the kitchen. Then it starts searching house by house.

The first puzzling thing about this approach is not the sudden addition of the subjective perspective, but the behavioral logic of the role: why should a professional killer in the era of alcohol prohibition prevalent in gangs commit murder with a knife like a repeat offender of raping and killing blondes in the 1970s and 1980s? Are you afraid of waking the neighbors and causing the police? Judging from the machine gun fire that led to Connery’s death, the killer and the director have no scruples in this regard! So is it necessary to use this mentally retarded means to lure the other party to lower their vigilance, so that the real mastermind can start smoothly? Seems to be the only far fetched explanation. But the problem was that when he looked back and saw Connery in the inner room with his back to himself, he could now take out a pistol and kill him! Well, for the time being, even if he has a habit of killing people with a knife, he doesn’t go deep into it.

But the reaction of his assassin, Connery, in this strange section is even more puzzling! The director deliberately demonstrated Connery’s rich experience and skill as a senior police officer in the joint anti gangster trade bridge between the anti gangster team and the Canadian Mounted Police earlier. He not only reminded Costner that if he wanted to shoot, he had to fight to death because the other party was “cruel”. Then, he was in a hurry to intimidate another gangster captured alive with the fake death of “killing the dead body”, forcing him to cooperate with the team obediently. But it was this veteran of the police who suddenly turned around and faced the same gangster killer, but suddenly became a retired worker who didn’t know his strong relationship – just forcing each other to leave with a gun, and even walked out of his house with self righteousness?! Of course, for the incredible brain short circuit of the first generation 007, the director is absolutely “selfless”! The old man was wildly shot by a white clad killer hiding outside the house – although he was not killed on the spot. Obviously, the reason why De Palma chose the most complicated and fancy but the most inappropriate one among many options to deal with the play stems from the deliberate pursuit of visual impact and showing off his good ability to create suspense and thriller, while basically ignoring the consistency between the overall style of the story and the characterization.

Mistakes are not over. After Connery was shot and fell to the ground, the logic of space-time change in the film appeared obvious mistakes again. The scene in which De Niro, the gangster who deliberately intervened, listened to the Italian opera may be used to set off the tragic atmosphere when the hero died. But the problem is, here, Connery, who was seriously injured and covered in blood, just climbed from the door to the corridor. Over there, the white culprit who had just shot and strafed had entered the theater box and wanted to return the war to the tearful boss moved by the tenor. Does his house happen to be next to the theater?

Some people may say that as an audience, it’s too tired to watch movies like this. If you don’t go too far to investigate the logical negligence of some stories, it will be more fun. I disagree with this view. Of course, the audience can understand that the director introduced some obvious personal style techniques into some narrative paragraphs of the film. But the problem is that whether the introduction is reasonable or not is restricted by many factors, such as the overall style of the film, the atmosphere of the story, the actor’s performance mode and so on. For example, the famous airplane chase in the wilderness in North by Northwest also has an obvious mark of Hitchcock’s personal style. The authenticity of the play can hardly stand scrutiny. Even Hitchcock himself is outspoken. This way of killing is somewhat unreasonable. However, because the realism of the film background is deliberately weakened, and the director integrates the comedy style according to grant’s own temperament to relieve the tense atmosphere, the audience will eventually be unconsciously brought into the corresponding non realistic viewing psychological mode. Therefore, they do not care about the logical authenticity of a certain plot, but prefer to experience all kinds of tension, suspense and wonderful ideas brought by the film with great interest. But that’s obviously not the case with selflessness. It is built on a clear and realistic background: the American metropolis in the era of prohibition. The plot, role setting, and actor performance are also developing according to the serious and even cruel realistic style. The audience’s viewing psychology at this time naturally needs to understand the plot and characters with realistic logical thinking. In this case, if the director suddenly and inexplicably introduces a plot of murder with a knife from a subjective perspective, it will not only obviously destroy the overall style of the film, but also enlarge the negative effects brought by the logical defects of the plot.

What is more regrettable is that the above mentioned is only part of the film’s many problems.

The editing level of this film is not flattering. At the beginning of each paragraph, Parma likes to roll forward with crane’s vision. It seems to show the fluency of the story. However, in sharp contrast, the splicing between paragraphs is very stiff. Often, the emotional feeling of the previous paragraph is not fully explained before switching to the next scene. This problem is particularly evident in the transition between the gathering of the Costners and the main plot of anti Mafia. The only editing that doesn’t appear stiff in the film is very inappropriate. Here, the last paragraph shows the anti triad team and the Canadian Mounted Police standing on the ridge to discuss cooperation in anti smuggling. Then a welding switch, four team members appeared in a wooden house. But where is this cabin? The audience didn’t know, because the director didn’t clearly explain this time-space change. Although the actual plot is: immediately after the last paragraph, it shows that they went down the mountain and ambushed in a wooden house by the bridge. However, with the splicing method of fusion, we will not feel this in any case, and it is more like that the team has completed the anti smuggling task and is on vacation in the countryside.

Secondly, the story narrative echo is not enough. Or follow the above-mentioned US Canada Border crackdown on gangs. The director seems to want to use the Canadian Mounted Police’s reckless early raid to create suspense, so that the audience will have some anxiety and concern about the dangerous situation that Costner and other four people may face immediately. The idea is really good. But the problem is that when they rode to the bridge to join the battle, the process of suppressing bandits was handled very smoothly. Not only were the Canadian Mounted Police almost unharmed by the gang’s submachine gun, but also when the short accountant ran out of bullets, the gun in the bandit’s hand suddenly jammed almost comically Therefore, as the audience, we don’t understand: what is the purpose of the plot given by you earlier about the poor tactical cooperation between the US and Canadian police?.

The design of the climax of the film ending not only has insufficient impact, but also is difficult to be convincing. When the bullets ran out, the fleeing white killer was struggling downstairs along the rope, and Costner, who chased to the side of the building, had a fierce contradiction in his heart when he was ready to shoot and kill the culprit who killed his close comrades in arms. Finally, reason defeated the impulse of revenge, and he didn’t pull the trigger. The opponent’s weakness seems to be seen by the killer. He climbed up again without fear. Only here, there is no problem. However, after climbing up, he had to sneer at his opponent with a gun in his hand, and it was difficult to understand that he pointed at the most painful part of the other party. Is it a test of the protagonist’s endurance and principle? The question is, why test it? What good would it do him if he failed? Did he have to force the other party to shoot, and he felt comfortable dying?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here