American Gangster (2007)

Review: written May 2011

A Classic Period Crime Drama

Wow. After a glut of mediocre movies, how satisfying to find an intelligent, superbly shot and edited movie that works on several levels, and telling a true story to boot.

Denzel Washington plays Frank Lucas, the Harlem drug lord who started as driver and general right hand man to the previous drug King of Harlem. When his boss dies, Lucas brings a business ethic - capitalist thinking that any business school would be proud of, to the business of drugs. Rebuilding the drug trade without relying on the middle men or the Mafia, and undercutting the competition, he created a brand name - a business success story as it were. He uses a sound business model to beat the previously untoppled opposition. If he is presented as a superb businessman, we also see him as a violent man, almost a thug, when `necessary'. Make no mistake - this is not a film about action scenes, but where there is violence (and that means from the very first scene) it is stark and brutal., and not for the fainthearted.

Russell Crowe on the other hand plays a cop - and in 70's Harlem, a real oddity - he's an honest cop, a man of integrity in his job. Being an honest cop means he is the only one in a position to head up a new task force, hand picked by Crowe, to make major arrests to stem the drug flow into the city - and he sets his sights on Lucas' organisation.

What's fascinating about the movie is the comparison of the two men. In the same way `Heat' had flawed characters that refused to be stereotyped into pure good and pure bad, we equally have realistic characters here that make you uncomfortable. We admire Lucas's business acumen and honesty in his relationship, and find ourselves trying to excuse his bursts of violence. And on the other hand we admire the integrity of Crowe's cop, handing in a million bucks to do `the right thing', and ultimately confronting corruption in the cops (as exemplified in Josh Brolin's caharacter) even when it means alienating himself from his colleagues... and yet at the same time his marriage is a mess as he is a serial adulterer. We are left to question if he really is a man of integrity when he can't bring the same uprightness into his marriage. His wife feels the very pain as a victim of dishonesty of her husband at home, that he seeks so hard to stamp out at work. It's a fascinating character study that refuses to airbrush out flaws, but those very same dichotomies in the individuals make the ending so much more understandable, and indeed, plausible.

Beyond these two, there are a very few niggling problems - the wives are not well written and although important in the men's lives we never get a feel of what really makes them tick. The length may put some people off - but I watched the extended version, which was 2 hours 38 minutes, and it flew past for me.

The highlight of the movie is probably the moment, as in “Heat” when the two men meet and have their head to head. The dénouement turns out not to be a “Scarface” orgy of violence, but something quite unexpected (unless you know the story already).

This movie passed me by at the cinema for some reason, and what a shame. For this is intelligent moviemaking for adults, multi-layered fare to stimulate discussion and thought. It's not an easy watch - the violence is sudden, strong and senseless, there is nudity, sex and violence, and the characters are not cuddly white hat and dark hat ciphers. Instead we have a morally murky movie that actually tells a layered story, a story examining both character and capitalism . It's a `Heat'-like period meld of “Serpico” and a Harlem “The Godfather”, depending whose viewpoint you favour in the movie, and a welcome intelligent addition to the period crime genre.