There are a number of films (The Godfather, Scarface, et al.) that seem to glamorize the criminal underworld. Gomorra is not one of those films. It is unflinchingly faithful to the sordid reality that ensnares the lives of so many people trapped in the web of the Camorra (an Italian crime syndicate originating in the region of Campania). The film, as noted, is based on a reality. Cinematic-wise, however, a film can deviate from reality. Realistic films still hold on to some veneer of style in order to interest us. The opposite is true for documentaries, were the cinematography tries to be as faithful to reality as possible. This film treads a fine line between the two. It's precisely this that repelled me when I was watching it. Allow me to explain why I go against most people in saying this is not a great film.
The movie focuses on five different stories, all of them tainted by the crime surrounding them. Don Ciro (Gianfelice Imparato), an accountant who distributes money to the families of imprisoned gang members, wants to escape his job and move to a safer location. Toto (Nicoló Manta), a grocery boy, wants in on the action. Pasquale (Salvatore Cantalupe) is an haute couture tailor looking to make an extra buck by training Chinese garment workers how to counterfeit the real deal. Marco (Marco Macor) and Ciro (Ciro Petrone) are two teenage wannabe gangsters that dream of the life shown in movies like The Godfather and (their favorite) Scarface. On the other side of the coin, Roberto (Carmine Paternoster) and his boss Franco (Toni Servillo) are illegally disposing of waste in unused quarries. The common denominator to all these stories is more than their involvement with the crime around them. It's that they're, all of them, victims in some way or another. Neither them nor the local ganglords we see are really enjoying the glitz and glamour crime promised. They're all victims, in one way or another, of an uncaring system.
The film is quite skillful in depicting the bleak reality of the crime-soaked lives it explores. It uses unadorned camerawork and photography, nearly documentary-level in style. Though, objectively, I can see the point to this, it just isn't my taste. Even in realistic films the world is heightened, even if it's just in the visual style of the film. You look out your window and the world doesn't look exactly like in the movies. The closest we come to that is a documentary. This film walks the line between the two approaches, but I would've much preferred it choose a side and stick with it. I realize the film's fiction is a lure to get the audience to pay attention to the reality it wants to shine a light on. In the end, though, I just feel duped. It was the ending notes that did it in for me. If the film was content with depicting reality as it is and nothing more, why would it try to push us in such a moralistic, after-school special way?
I like fantasy (think The Godfather) and history (think Excellent Cadavers) in different ways, which is not to say I prefer either one over the other. History (hopefully) offers us a way to overcome our mistakes, while fantasy offers us a welcome escape from these mistakes. I would've much rather the film choose a side in these polar opposites in the film spectrum, rather than sit in the middle. I understand the power of film as a tool to comment on the state of society, but I don't want that to be used as an excuse for a film being mediocre in other areas.
Le verdict: **
The movie focuses on five different stories, all of them tainted by the crime surrounding them. Don Ciro (Gianfelice Imparato), an accountant who distributes money to the families of imprisoned gang members, wants to escape his job and move to a safer location. Toto (Nicoló Manta), a grocery boy, wants in on the action. Pasquale (Salvatore Cantalupe) is an haute couture tailor looking to make an extra buck by training Chinese garment workers how to counterfeit the real deal. Marco (Marco Macor) and Ciro (Ciro Petrone) are two teenage wannabe gangsters that dream of the life shown in movies like The Godfather and (their favorite) Scarface. On the other side of the coin, Roberto (Carmine Paternoster) and his boss Franco (Toni Servillo) are illegally disposing of waste in unused quarries. The common denominator to all these stories is more than their involvement with the crime around them. It's that they're, all of them, victims in some way or another. Neither them nor the local ganglords we see are really enjoying the glitz and glamour crime promised. They're all victims, in one way or another, of an uncaring system.
The film is quite skillful in depicting the bleak reality of the crime-soaked lives it explores. It uses unadorned camerawork and photography, nearly documentary-level in style. Though, objectively, I can see the point to this, it just isn't my taste. Even in realistic films the world is heightened, even if it's just in the visual style of the film. You look out your window and the world doesn't look exactly like in the movies. The closest we come to that is a documentary. This film walks the line between the two approaches, but I would've much preferred it choose a side and stick with it. I realize the film's fiction is a lure to get the audience to pay attention to the reality it wants to shine a light on. In the end, though, I just feel duped. It was the ending notes that did it in for me. If the film was content with depicting reality as it is and nothing more, why would it try to push us in such a moralistic, after-school special way?
I like fantasy (think The Godfather) and history (think Excellent Cadavers) in different ways, which is not to say I prefer either one over the other. History (hopefully) offers us a way to overcome our mistakes, while fantasy offers us a welcome escape from these mistakes. I would've much rather the film choose a side in these polar opposites in the film spectrum, rather than sit in the middle. I understand the power of film as a tool to comment on the state of society, but I don't want that to be used as an excuse for a film being mediocre in other areas.
Le verdict: **
I couldn't even get through 20 minutes of this film, so the fact that you made it all the way through is commendable. I was so confused by who everyone was and what on earth was going on that I couldn't even stay interested or focused. I suppose I should see this movie sometime (I've had it for 7 months at least), but something always sounds better whenever I'm in the mood for a movie.
ReplyDeleteTell me about it; I almost fell asleep halfway through it. I understand why anything else would sound better. In fact, my two star score (averaged from two and a half stars being objective and one star being what I personally thought of it) might be a bit generous with it. I wouldn't recommend this, period. If you want to tell the truth, make a documentary and be done with it. But if you want to make a story, at least make it an interesting one, right?
ReplyDeleteP.S. Hey, new banner on Rants of a Diva. Yay!
Thanks for noticing! Do you like it? I'm guessing that 90% of the people who read my blog won't know who any of them are, but I like them and that's all that matters.
ReplyDeleteI do, but I think I like the old one better. Though, come to think of it, that may only be because it featured Leighton (goddess!). Though Sterling Knight is looking mighty pretty on this new one...maybe a change of heart is in order. Plus, this one looks more cohesive, somehow. Probably most people won't recognize them, but I'd stick to my guns (a la Amy Sherman-Palladino) and let them figure it out by themselves.
ReplyDelete