A Scorsese Return To Form?!

Rating: 4/10 (28 October 2006)

The praise this film has received is undeniable, but it is for quite obvious reasons. How hard is it to make a poorly received film with a pseudo Ocean's 11 style cast? A veritable who's who of Hollywood in future establishment star's like Mark Walhberg, Leonardo Di Caprio, Matt Damon with the establishment proper in Jack Nicholson and Martin Sheen as the Daddy's of good and evil. Throw in the excellent plot of somebody else's film (Internal Affairs), and a director who has an untouchable reputation. In Hollywood terms, its a no-brainer, a sure fire success story, unimpeachable in form and content. For a director of Scorsese's reputation though, this film is an indictment.
I have to hope there are others like myself who can see through this rouse. This film is vacuous, bloated and overblown. It's a rehash of somebody's else's film and even a rehash of Scorsese's own films. It's the best Internal Affairs since Internal Affairs, and his best Scorsese crime drama since every other Scorsese crime drama. This man has built a reputation on a handful of genuinely subversive, ground breaking, and thought provoking films - but when will it be recognised he has simply run out of ideas, as nothing could be more certain when looking at this film.
Scorsese has lost his way, and he knows it (as evidenced by his move to make his own indie flick). People are reluctant to knock him down and hold him to account because they are in love with the sensation that his reputation invokes. He is probably the last man who brings credibility to mainstream Hollywood  but he is ultimately subverted by it. It would seem to me that a vote against him is a vote against a last strand of credibility in this type of feature making  If Scorsese can't help us then who can? It has to be clear that the best work that he has done in the last 10 years have been his own documentary output. His history of the blues, cinema and his Bob Dylan work, are exemplary. But his feature fictions are bloated, messy affairs.
For The Departed, it's shown in a few clear ways, one being musical choice. How many times in one career can he use the iconic but ultimately invasive Gimme Shelter by the Rolling Stones? Moreover, how many times in one film? In one scene alone in The Departed, he plays the song twice, restarting it to use the intrigue of Keith Richards tone setting guitar play. It's as jarring as it is juvenile. The song itself features over three times in the film. Yet, this is only one example of his corrupted sense of film-making style. I can appreciate his attempt to incorporate new ideas into his films, but his attempt to use Wes Anderson's pace setting Spanish Guitar plucking falls on its face, setting a comedic tone in places where there shouldn't be one. Another reference to Anderson is used in his full screen photo flashback device, which is quickly followed in the same scene, by his own more traditional in-scene photo pick up. The result is messy. Scorsese's sense of style is subverted by his inability to go any one way. Sloppiness also features in that Scorsese staple of the continuity error. I can appreciate this lack of attention to detail were it some art house reflection on the nature of reality, but this is mainstream Hollywood and says more about his editorial and film-making laziness than any overarching thematic concern. See Leo without cigarette in hand in one instant, and blowing smoke circles the next. You need only go to the goof's pages on this site for more. For inability to follow his convictions, see a jarring POV shot of Matt Damon in a waiting room looking down at his shoes, held for 1 second. It is a brave attempt to capture a moment between moments in a character's life, but an idea that cannot be pursued in half measures. As for overblown performance and a suggestion of a director losing control, look only as far as Jack Nicholson's fly eating.
An integral part of a director's reputation must always be what he brings to the table as a filmmaker. The reason this film has succeeded has nothing to do with his ability in that regard, in so far as it carried by somebody else's plot and the Hollywood powerhouse casting and acting. When looking at this film it must be asked what did Scorsese actually bring to this project? Is this a man resting on his laurels or an active master of his craft pushing the boundaries of his expression and creativity? His use of violence at this stage of his career is merely exploitative, rather than questioning. His supposed exploration of modern masculinity has never been more stale. For a man of Scorsese's undeniable ability and vision, this is nothing short of a shameful piece of work. Clearly, he is as jaded as the mainstream American cinema which nurtures him. I look forward to his next project because at the very least that can be judged as a real Scorsese picture, a greater measure of the man; and those who praised him for this will hopefully realise their folly as I am quite sure that even he himself would balk at the suggestion that this film was exemplary of his ability.