Misguided Marketing Murders 'American Gangster'

Rating: 6/10 (15 October 2007)

The Oscar buzz surrounding the highly anticipated Ridley Scott movie American Gangster is ostensibly doing the production plenty of favors. Rarely is a movie slated to be released in November the beneficiary of such publicity and fanfare.
Universal Pictures and Imagine Entertainment will likely be pleased with the opening weekend returns if the preceding publicity translates to box office performance.
Unfortunately, the word of mouth that is likely to spread subsequent to opening weekend will not be as favorable as the hype will have you believeand that's not necessarily a failure on the part of the movie, but more a function of misdirected marketing by the producing companies involved.
By now all of us have had the opportunity to see the movie trailer for American Gangster, one that is very specific in its depiction of what to expect come November 2.
Despite what the movie trailer suggests, American Gangster is NOT a violent, "action" movie. It has some flurries of violent hyperactivity, but the OTHER 2 hours of non-action make a stronger argument for characterization as anything BUT an "action" movie. In fact, the movie has less violence overall than any movie with "Gangster" in its title should be allowed to have.
The violence and action are reasonable expectations too. Drugs, mafia, guns and the depiction of murder all line the trailer of a movie with "Gangster" in the title. One would think that's an invitation for classic, violent "gangster" cinema.
But trust Mo'Kellythis is NOT an action movie and in many ways completely divorced from the "gangster" genre. If you attend this movie expecting something akin to Casino, Goodfellas, or any of the cookie-cutter urban dramas, you'll be thoroughly disappointed.
But it's not necessarily your faultor the movie's for that matter. You're being misled.
This cinematic story of Frank Lucas tells of a cerebral criminal mastermind. Lucas is portrayed in this film as exceptionally reasoned, measured and intellectually resourceful in a way that is more powerful than any gun wielded by his nemeses.
The movie American Gangster is true in that sense to its introspective protagonist. It is more descriptive of the internal conflict between Lucas' Christian/family values upbringing and his desire to live the American Dream. Accordingly, Scott spends over 2.5 hours in his attempt to give his viewers a glimpse more into the "mastermind" as opposed to "criminal" portion of the "criminal mastermind" equation.
Unfortunately, the trailer suggests the exact oppositeand that could (and likely will be) disastrous.
Specifically, the storyline is loosely based on the life and criminal career of a Harlem heroin kingpin who rose and fell concurrently to American involvement in Vietnam.
For those who know their New York drug kingpin cinema history, the movie New Jack City (1991) was a thinly veiled reference to the criminal exploits of another Harlem drug lord and Lucas contemporary; Leroy "Nicky" Barnes.
The American Gangster parallels to New Jack City are inescapable given their shared elements in a historical and cinematic sense. (New Jack City was a fictitious account of the emergence of crack, whereas Barnes and Lucas were responsible for the influx of high-grade heroin) When moviegoers finally sit down for American Gangster, they've most likely seen New Jack City. Although NJC is set in a period later than American Gangster; since it borrows its storyline from the heroin drug trade of the 60s, there will be elements in American Gangster that will reek eerily familiar if not seem "copied" from NJC. Without a thorough understanding of the historical contexts of both movies, American Gangster will in many ways be wrongly construed as a "copy" of NJC. In actuality, AG is more accurate and honest in its depiction of the drug trade than its wholly fictitious counterpart of yesteryear.
But back to the Oscar hype Academy Award winners Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe do well in their respective roles, yet given the fact that both have a slew of films with truly stellar performances in which to compare American Gangster; it makes you wonder where the buzz originates.
Denzel Washington's portrayal of Frank Lucas is not as engaging as his Malcolm X, not as incredible as his Reuben "Hurricane" Carter or even as evil as the corrupt detective Alonzo in Training Day. We know when we see the "best" of Denzel Washington and it is readily identifiable.
This is simply not it...through no fault of his own. He's an actor who's made a career of "cerebral characters." A "cerebral gangster" simply does not provide the platform for Washington to show the range and depth we already know he's capable of displaying. "Frank Lucas" is a "Denzel," we're all intimately familiar with and thus less than "Oscar-worthy." Denzel has raised the bar far higher in other performances and this fact can't be ignored in any truthful commentary about his latest effort.
As for Russell Crowe, copy and paste the previous paragraph and substitute Crowe's information accordingly. After seeing Crowe at his best in The Insider and A Beautiful Mind, it's a bit disingenuous to argue that his portrayal of Detective Richie Roberts is worthy of comparison or similar acclaim. Again, it's not dismissing Crowe's contribution, but this role simply did not require any heavy liftingheavy lifting we know Crowe's capable of handling.
In the end, American Gangster does not measure up to the hype. The blame should go more to the Universal Pictures marketing department and less to director Ridley Scott. People turning out will presumably expect to see lots of violence and action surrounding the life of a high-powered drug lord. Instead, they will find they've spent their money on a biopic of an introspective family man with flashes of the aforementioned.
American Gangster is neither a great movie nor a bad one. It's just "a movie." Combine this with a misdirected marketing campaign and you have the classic recipe for movie-buyer-remorse.