A Farce at Best

Rating: 2/10 (23 February 2007)

****SPOILER*****To any and all that take this film seriously, you are not in on the joke. At its best, The Departed is top of the line farce. At its worst, the film is a train wreck wherein all actors of quality intentionally subvert the director and the film with farcical performances that, though a delight to watch, must have been inspired by the sheer boredom of working with a lead actor embarrassingly limited in ability, DiCaprio, and a director too far gone to realize that his film was only his at its worst moments. This is not to say that this film is dreadful to watch. The performances of Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, and Alec Baldwin, were spectacular, but, then again, they almost always are. It is no trick of Scorsese that such professionals as listed made the most of savagely poor dialog. The fire they project is a necessary distraction from lines that simply don't hold up and pacing that makes little sense. Take for instance Sheen's character being thrown from the building. First, there is no reason within the logic of the film's world for his character to stay behind. He knows these people will kill him, and, obviously, if there is enough time for Leo to get away, why couldn't he follow. Second, he makes no attempt to hide in a room filled with clutter. Third, after he is killed, his character is thrown from a building in broad daylight. Let us not forget that he is a known police officer and that to be thrown from the building his murders must be inside it. So the question arises, why throw him from the building? Certainly not to speed the killers' escape, nor to ensure it. Certainly not to send a message, death in this film is the only message and how you get there is of little importance. The only logical reason is to confront Leo's character with the man's murder. This is the hand of the director and a clumsy hand it is. Such insultingly obvious moves make up the bulk of this film. If we take them as farcical, then there is a certain meta-humor to them. If they are not, and I believe this to be the case, then it is simply poor film making, and this, despite the best attempts of good actors, is a poor film. Don't believe me, take a look at the scenes between Leo and the artless Vera Farmiga, which are some of the most forced, unconvincing "love" scenes I have ever seen. True these are the two most amateurish actors in the cast, but then again with such actors we see the director at play, as he must craft every scene for them. In this case, his crafting equates to little more than depicting animal arousal, which, with Leo in the scene, is not convincing to say the least. Not convincing is, I believe the mantra of this movie, just as the cleverly placed allusion to Leo's two accents is not a convincing mask for the fact that he could not maintain a convincing southie accent for even the most highly edited of scenes. Equally unconvincing is Leo's placing of the girlhood picture of Farmiga on her wall as supposedly indicative of his utter understanding of her. It is again nothing more than the heavy handedness of a director whose loss of subtlety is equal to his rise in obsession for an actor who cannot act. That said, enjoy this film for the thoughtless, mindless fun of watching its many good actors have a good time. Do not enjoy it as a pinnacle of film making or for Leo and Farmiga. If it wins an Oscar, then you will know exactly what those awards are worth.