Author Topic: 90s US Round 5: Glengarry Glen Ross vs. Goodfellas  (Read 31680 times)

íKeith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26726
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
90s US Round 5: Glengarry Glen Ross vs. Goodfellas
« on: April 24, 2009, 01:32:50 AM »
So yeah, remember when we all more or less liked Clovis?  Or at least didn;t outright think he was an incompetent douche?  He swore... we laughed.  Lets take a trip back to Yesterday sometime around 01:51:47 PM... (queue Wanye's World sounds that skjerva will fŘcking hate)

Goodfellas vs. Glengary Glen Ross: AKA, the F**K matchup

Warning swearing ahead!

These two movies share nothing in common, with the obvious exception that they both have a f**k load of swearing in them. F**k is used as a noun, a verb, adjective, and adverb. It is used 246 times in Goodfellas for a total of 1.7 times per minute. In Glengary it is only used 128 times, for a meager 1.28 times per minute. Not to mention the many uses of bastard, s**t, c**t, a**hole, etc. So on this front it is pretty clear that Goodfellas f**cking owns Glengary.

Lets pause for a moment and really take some time to appreciate the word f**k:



Now on to our main event....


Goodfellas

If you have not seen the movie here is a spoiler filled plot summary with BUNNIES!



There is not much to say about this movie that has not been said so I decided to focus on the common misconception that the film glorifies the mob lifestyle.



"As far back as I remember I wanted to be a gangster"

The movie opens with a scene of brutal violence and the first voice over we hear is this famous line. We then hear a long dialogue about how great it is to be a goodfella.



"One day kids from the neighborhood carried my mothers groceries home. You know why? It was outta respect"

The first half of the movie does, in fact, highlight the good side of being a mobster. Of course, there is a good side. Money, woman, respect, freedom.



While the first half of the film shows the positive side of the lifestyle, the second half is a pretty clear admonition. One of the things I love is that Scorcese brings us back to the opening scene to see it play out. They bury the body, and once done, the screen turns blood red signally that the good times are over.



By the end of the movie it is pretty clear that everyone has been punished. They are either in jail or dead. The physical appearance of Ray Liotta tells us all we need to know about how great the mob lifestyle really is;

At the start....



and at the end...


Lets let the great Ebert sum it up for me...

"GoodFellas is about guilt more than anything else. But it is not a straightforward morality play, in which good is established and guilt is the appropriate reaction toward evil. No, the hero of this film feels guilty for not upholding the Mafia code - guilty of the sin of betrayal. And his punishment is banishment, into the witness protection program, where nobody has a name and the headwaiter certainly doesn't know it."

Its a movie about ugly people. Yet, consider how many great and glorious films are made about ugly subjects, while the substance of beautiful lives often make trite, glossy voids. Scorsese's film of course centers around these people, but it is his film, not theirs.
How do we sum up a film accused of amorality?

Leave the last word to Tommy: "Yahoo, ya motherf**ker!"

Glengary Glen Ross



I have seen this movie 4 or five times now and I have never really understood its acclaim. Yes there is great acting by the entire cast.

My problem is very simple: there is no movie in this movie!

Its a great play, perhaps one of the best American plays of the last decade. However, there is no cinema in this adaption. It consists almost exclusively of close-up shots of talking heads. There are only a couple sets and the only directing decision appears to have been to use very rapid cuts, which makes it feel more like a play (as if we were in the audience and rapidly shifting our focus from one actor on stage to another).

I guess my ultimate criticism would be, why see this on screen and not on stage? Did the movie part add anything? I think not.

On to the motherf**king verdict:

In some ways its not really f**king fair that I got this matchup given that Goodfellas is one of my favorite f**king films of all-f**king time! To those who would complain; f**k ya! Its a brilliant, near perfect f**king movie. Given that its competition is not even a f**king movie, I think its pretty clear that Goodfellas kicks the living s**t out of Glengary, throws it in the f**king trunk, drives it to the f**cking country, stabs it 6 more f**king times, and buries is dead f**king carcass in the woods.



For those keeping score I used f**k 17 times.

ź Last Edit: Today at 12:19:53 AM by pixote ╗

(that last part I found interesting)
« Last Edit: April 24, 2009, 01:44:34 AM by pixote »

íKeith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26726
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
90s US Round 5: Glengarry Glen Ross vs. Goodfellas
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2009, 01:39:13 AM »
So then Junior went all no you di'n't

Quote from: Junior
Economy of direction does not mean a lack of direction. I think the choice to film Glengary in such a simply manner is as good a decision as some of the choices in your beloved Goodfellas are. Perhaps I (and more importantly, the story) don't need to have super awesome camera moves and a bunch of montages to make the film that the director wanted us to see. Everything in a film is done for a reason and everything that isn't done is also not done for a reason.

Also, Goodfellas still sucks. I watched a bit of the end the other day and it just annoyed me.

íKeith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26726
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
90s US Round 5: Glengarry Glen Ross vs. Goodfellas
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2009, 01:40:41 AM »
and Thor thought that was just a riot

Quote from: Thor
:D I love that you keep going back to these mobster movies.

"Just when I though I was out... they pull me back in..."
« Last Edit: April 24, 2009, 01:45:35 AM by pixote »

íKeith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26726
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
90s US Round 5: Glengarry Glen Ross vs. Goodfellas
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2009, 01:42:09 AM »
imma stop being pithy now since its almost 3AM

Quote from: Clovis8
Quote from: Junior
Everything in a film is done for a reason and everything that isn't done is also not done for a reason.



Please elaborate? I find it very hard to imagine an argument that there is some type of directorial genius going on. They basically filmed the play using the minimum of sets. In this case its worse than a movie like Doubt where an argument can be made that the sets add alot to the mood (large church etc). GGGR just has a generic office and bar set that add nothing to the story.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2009, 01:45:24 AM by _Keith_ »

íKeith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26726
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
90s US Round 5: Glengarry Glen Ross vs. Goodfellas
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2009, 01:43:33 AM »
Quote from: me
If I remember the story correctly Jr's eyes were opened by a freshman year professor on the road to Damascus and he now cannot fathom anything getting into a film without the explicit intent of the auteur behind it.

íKeith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26726
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
90s US Round 5: Glengarry Glen Ross vs. Goodfellas
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2009, 01:44:28 AM »
Quote from: FLYmeatwad
I haven't watched either one of these films, and while I do love Martin and would love to check out his older work, aside from Raging Bull, Goodfellas is one of the ones I'm least excited for. Conversely, I really want to watch Glengarry.

íKeith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26726
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
90s US Round 5: Glengarry Glen Ross vs. Goodfellas
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2009, 01:46:33 AM »
Quote from: Junior
Quote from: me
If I remember the story correctly Jr's eyes were opened by a freshman year professor on the road to Damascus and he now cannot fathom anything getting into a film without the explicit intent of the auteur behind it.

Close. Well, kinda. The last part is kinda wonky. I usually don't care much about what a director was trying to do unless it's really awesome and somebody else doesn't "get it" or, more accurately, I suppose, "see it my way". My statement that everything in a film is done for a reason still stands, though. The fact that there isn't much fanciness going on in GGR doesn't make it a poorly made film. It makes it a simple film which isn't a bad thing. There is enough going on with the dialog and character interactions to make the film more than worthy without awesome camera moves or splashy special effects.

íKeith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26726
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
90s US Round 5: Glengarry Glen Ross vs. Goodfellas
« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2009, 01:48:03 AM »
Quote from: jagsfans
Quote from: Clovis8
I guess my ultimate criticism would be, why see this on screen and not on stage? Did the movie part add anything? I think not.


Because not everyone lives in a city decent enough to have great actors performing this quality of work.  Great acting is what makes this a great movie. Although I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.  I voted GGR past JFK, but if this were my decision I'd go Goodfellas as well.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2009, 01:52:04 AM by pixote »

íKeith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26726
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
90s US Round 5: Glengarry Glen Ross vs. Goodfellas
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2009, 01:50:15 AM »
Quote from: me
Quote from: Junior
Everything in a film is done for a reason and everything that isn't done is also not done for a reason.
Quote from: Clovis8
Please elaborate? I find it very hard to imagine an argument that there is some type of directorial genius going on.
Quote from: me
If I remember the story correctly Jr's eyes were opened by a freshman year professor on the road to Damascus and he now cannot fathom anything getting into a film without the explicit intent of the auteur behind it.
Quote from: Junior
Close. Well, kinda. The last part is kinda wonky. I usually don't care much about what a director was trying to do unless it's really awesome and somebody else doesn't "get it" or, more accurately, I suppose, "see it my way". My statement that everything in a film is done for a reason still stands, though. The fact that there isn't much fanciness going on in GGR doesn't make it a poorly made film. It makes it a simple film which isn't a bad thing. There is enough going on with the dialog and character interactions to make the film more than worthy without awesome camera moves or splashy special effects.
What about when a boom mic creeps in?


íKeith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26726
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
90s US Round 5: Glengarry Glen Ross vs. Goodfellas
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2009, 01:51:40 AM »
Quote from: Clovis8
Perhaps I need to elaborate my point a little more. Let me preface this by saying I have seen GGGR on stage two times and loved it and I have seen the movie 4 times and agree it is filled with great performances.

However, great art must be additive.

I am judging GGGR as a movie and as a movie it is average at best. The move from stage to screen added nothing at all and is therefore pointless from an artistic standpoint. If there was any effort to make the film cinematic then I could judge it as a movie.

Imagine I applied for funding from the national arts foundation to recreate the Mona Lisa. My proposal is to paint the exact same picture but instead using oil on poplar panel I am going to recreate it as oil on canvas. Would this be an artistic advance?