DVD Review: “American Gangster”

What do you get when you combine mediocre leading men, a mediocre screenwriter, and a mediocre major director?  A whole heap of mediocre.

Before you get too pissed off, understand that my ambivalence concerning everyone involved in this film is not unequivocal. I’ll break it down as follows:

Russell Crowe was really good in The Insider, pretty good in L.A. Confidential, sucked as much as anyone can suck in 3:10 to Yuma…and was eh in everything else.

Denzel Washington was probably really good in Philadelphia and might have been pretty good in Malcolm X, but I’ve never actually watched either of them. In everything I’ve ever seen he’s been eh. 

Ridley Scott directed Alien, an amazing film, in 1979, Thelma and Louise, a good film, in 1991,  and Black Hawk Down, a solid film, ten years later. Everything else in the last three decades has been pretty eh.

Steven Zaillian adapted Schindler’s List, which counts for something, and I liked Gangs of New York, but that was in spite of the writing rather than because of it.  He’s eh.

American Gangster isn’t bad. It’s just eh. 

It actually moves pretty quickly for a film that’s over two-and-a-half hours long, with a narrative arc that’s mostly sensical in a way that confirms expectations at every turn. Viewers are led through a rather cliched gangster plot with a firm and comforting hand, the kind that’s more likely to offer a gentle pat than an invigorating slap.  Scott and Zaillian seem more interested in making the audience comfortable than stimulating even the slightest emotion. Sure, there are moments of extreme violence, but they’re executed with such little panache that they fail to linger in the memory or even quicken the pulse. Compare scenes in this film with similar moments of violence in No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood and you’ll see why this film was “slighted” (note quotes) come awards time. It’s just eh.

Washington and Crowe walk up to the line of competence, dangle a toe on the far side, and then take a seat, content with performances that are embarassing only in their visible lack of effort. The supporting cast is notable in size and diversity if not quality; film buffs may enjoy picking long-time character actors out of the crowd. And if anyone had any doubt that Ruby Dee’s Oscar nomination was for being old, watch the film: she’s only in it for about ten minutes and doesn’t do anything particularly interesting.

Films like this ultimately annoy me because they’re a waste of time, money, and resources. Why should A-list (I’m using that term to refer to how much they’re paid rather than their respective abilities) talent devote their energy to a film that treads such a worn path?  For the actors, I’m guessing it’s a chance to collect a paycheck, keep their faces in the public eye, and continue to develop a John Wayne-esque body of work–  one in which they play a minor variant on an existing persona rather than inhabiting a character. Sure, it’s lazy acting, but it goes a long way in garnering audience appeal and establishing a solid legacy.  For Zaillian, the film’s just another in a career-long line of bland but respectable pieces of cinema; I really couldn’t care less.

But for Scott, a director who at least once possessed a creative drive, I’m wondering if the film is really a flag of surrender.  It’s a hell of a lot easier to convince a studio to make a film like American Gangster than it is to force an innovative horror film or quasi-feminist revenge flick down executive’s throats. I know I’ll never make it in Hollywood, but I still believe it’s worth the fight.

Rating: 3 out of 5 screens