First of all, in the important role of the film, the screenwriter Ma Mei did not seem to show what he said in the book. The kind of wisdom and insight shown. When the smuggling of bootlegging was unfavorable and was ridiculed by newspapers, the protagonist made up his mind to form his own anti-criminal team. This episode should have been focused on, but it has been dealt with too much. Casual and simple. Depressed Costner wandered alone on the bridge, and immediately met Connery, the only other justice in the city. It was a coincidence! Although we all know that there are no coincidences in the genre. Techniques are used, but the choreographer should try to avoid this kind of running account-like character appearances and plot sequence. Because the work is to maximize the dramatic effect, a well-arranged plot sequence is very important. For example, if the plot is changed to Coster As soon as Na just arrived, he came across Connery and was deeply impressed by his adherence to the principles. Then he was full of confidence and was frustrated in his action against bootlegging. When he was depressed and hesitated, he suddenly remembered the righteous old policeman... Is the story relatively vivid? Some (even though this may still not be one of the best ways)?
The selection of the third player in the squad, Garcia, was too sloppy. At the shooting range, where did Connery see this newcomer with fascinating marksmanship , He must be a suitable candidate for hatred and hatred? Just a few lines of dialogue? Maybe the scheming one really has the ability to discern talents for a moment. But the editor just forgot, anything that the character feels through intuition is meaningless in itself Yes. Only when you make the audience feel it, the storyline is said to be a success.
But it was the fourth member of the anti-criminal squad that left us most puzzled. If it is said that because of the preconceived celebrity signs of Connery and Garcia, the audience can barely accept them as the protagonist's qualified comrades-in-arms, then this man has just been sent by Washington to check the accounts, wears deep glasses, and is less than 1.70 meters. Why is this little accountant able to take up the knife and gun and successfully play the role of the black pioneer? In this regard, the director has not omitted, but has not given any explanation. It is precisely because of the perfunctory description of the core role and the portrayal of the relationship in the first part of the film that the appeal of the brothers fighting side by side in the subsequent plot is greatly weakened. As a result, when two of them were brutally murdered one after another, the audience could not fully appreciate the grief displayed by their teammates.
Ironically, this classic gangster film directed by DePalma has problems in many aspects that seem to provide negative arguments for some of the concepts in the book.
For example, Ma Mei wrote in the book:
"If a director hurriedly seeks a visual or aesthetic way to handle a scene at the beginning, then he will immediately fall into the abyss of predicament and find it difficult to extricate himself from it."
So let's take a look at the scene of Connelly being killed.
In the beginning, it was about trying to lead the crowd to create suspenseful tension. The director quickly transformed the lens into the subjective perspective of a gang killer hidden outside the window of Connery's residence. After the camera (that is, the killer) observed for a while, he waited for the opportunity to sneak into the house and carefully stretched his head to look around, but did not find Connery, the assassinated target who had just been seen in the kitchen. Then it began to search house by house.
This method of handling, first of all, is not the abrupt addition of subjective perspective, but the logic of the character's behavior: why a professional assassin in the Prohibition era where gangs are prevalent should be like raping and killing blonde habitual criminals in the 7th and 80s Like a murder with a knife? Are you afraid of waking up the neighbors and provoke the police? Judging from the machine gun shots that led to Connery's death immediately later, neither the killer nor the director had any scruples in this regard! So is it necessary to use mentally handicapped methods to trick the other party into lowering their vigilance, so that the real mastermind can start smoothly? Seems to be the only far-fetched explanation. But the problem is that when he looked back and saw Connery in the back room with his back facing him, he could now take out a pistol and kill him! Well, for the time being, even if this company has a hobby of killing people with a knife, don't go into it.
But his assassination target, Connelly, reacted even more incomprehensibly in this weird segment! Earlier, the director deliberately demonstrated Connery's rich experience and sophisticated techniques as a veteran police officer in the joint sweep of the gangster trading bridge between the anti-criminal team and the Canadian Mounted Police. He not only reminded Costner that he would kill him if he wanted to shoot, because the opponent was "cruel". Then, he was eager to be wise, and threatened another gang member who was captured alive with the fraud of "killing the dead body", forcing him to obediently cooperate with the team. But this old police fritters suddenly turned around to face the same gang killer at this moment, but suddenly turned into a retired worker with an unclear relationship. It’s not even counted, even if he was forced to leave with a gun. Stepped out of your house with pretentiousness? ! Of course, for the incredible short circuit of the brain of the first generation of 007, the director is absolutely "selfless"! The old man was shot frantically by the white-clothed killer hiding outside the house-although he was not killed on the spot. Obviously, the reason why DePalma chose the most complicated but also the most inappropriate among the many options to deal with this scene is precisely because of the deliberate pursuit of visual impact and the creation of suspense and thrillers by showing off. It’s excellent skills, but basically ignores the consistency of the overall style of the story and the characterization of the characters.
The error is not over yet. After Connery was shot and fell to the ground, the logic of the film's time and space changes once again showed obvious flaws. The scene of the deliberately interspersed gangster De Niro listening to the Italian opera may be used to set off the tragic atmosphere of the hero's sacrifice. But the problem is that here, Connery, who was seriously wounded and covered in blood, was only time to climb from the door to the corridor. Over there, the white-clothed culprit who had just shot has entered the theater box and wanted to be moved by the tenor's tears. The well-eyed boss reported the situation. Did his house happen to be next to the theater?
Some people may say that, as an audience, watching a movie like this is too tiring. If you don’t over-investigate the logical negligence of certain story lines, it will be a lot more fun. I disagree with this view. The audience can certainly understand that the director introduced some obvious personal style techniques into certain narrative passages of the film. But the problem is that whether this introduction is reasonable or not is restricted by many factors such as the overall style of the film, the atmosphere of the story, and the performance mode of the actors. For example: "North by Northwest"'s famous plane hunting in the wilderness also bears the obvious brand of Hitchcock's personal style. The authenticity of this scene is hard to bear scrutiny. Even Hitchcock himself bluntly said that this method of killing is somewhat unreasonable. However, because the realism of the film's background was intentionally weakened, and the director incorporated a comedy style based on Grant's temperament to relieve the tension, the audience was eventually unconsciously led into a corresponding non-realistic movie-viewing mental model. Therefore, they do not care about the logical authenticity of a certain plot, but are more willing to experience the tension and suspense and whimsy brought about by the film with great interest. This is obviously not the case in "Iron Face Selflessness". It itself is built on a clear and realistic background: American metropolises in the Prohibition era. The plot, role setting, and actor performance are all developing in a serious and even cruel realistic style. The audience's psychology of watching the movie at this time, it is natural to use realistic and logical thinking to understand the plot and characters they see. 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 will inevitably magnify the negative effects brought about by the logical flaws of the plot.
What is even more regrettable is that what is mentioned above is only part of the film’s many problems.
The editing level of the film is not flattering. At the beginning of each paragraph, Palma liked to use Crane's perspective to advance. It seems that I want to express the fluency of storytelling. But in stark contrast, the editing between paragraphs is very blunt. It is often that the emotional feelings of the previous paragraph have not been fully explained before switching to the next scene. This problem is particularly evident in the transition between the Kostner family's gathering and the main plot of anti-criminal. And the only editing of the film that is not blunt, but it is used very inappropriately. Here, the last paragraph shows that the Anti-Black Squad and the Canadian Mounted Police are standing on top of the mountain, discussing cooperation in anti-smuggling. Then a welding switch, four team members appeared in a wooden house. But where is this wooden house? The audience does not know, because the director has not clearly explained this time and space change. Although the actual plot is: Immediately after the last paragraph, it shows that they went down the mountain and made an ambush in a wooden house by the bridge. But with the traditional meaning of the splicing method of fusion, we will not feel this in any way, and it is more like the team has completed the anti-smuggling task and is on vacation in the country.
Secondly, the narrative of the story is not responding enough. It's still a scene of sweeping gangsters on the border between the United States and Canada as mentioned above. The director seems to want to use the Canadian Mounted Police's reckless early raid to create suspense, so that the audience will have a certain worry and concern about the dangerous situation that Costner and the other four 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 the bandits was handled very smoothly. Not only were the Canadian Mounted Police almost unscathed by the gang's submachine gun, but also when the short accountant drew out the bullet, the gun in the gangster's hand suddenly jammed almost comically! …So, as the audience, we don’t understand: So what is the goal of the incomplete tactical cooperation between the US and Canadian police that you passed on earlier? .
The design of the movie's ending climax is not only not enough impact, but also unconvincing. After the bullets were shot out, the white-clothed assassin fleeing in panic was struggling to climb downstairs along the rope, and Costner, who was chasing down the stairs, was about to shoot and kill the culprit of this close comrade, he was in a fierce conflict. In the end, reason defeated the impulse for revenge, and he did not pull the trigger. And this weakness of the opponent seems to have been insight into the killer. He climbed up again confidently. Only here, there is no problem. However, after this person climbed up, he still had to ridicule the opponent with the gun in his hand, and it was incomprehensible to point directly to the opponent's most painful point. Is it testing the protagonist's patience and principle? The question is why do you want to test it? If he fails, what good is it for him? Does he have to force the other person to shoot, so he feels comfortable dead?
View more about The Untouchables reviews
