Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 1,595
|
Post by Nikan on Oct 21, 2023 13:25:23 GMT
Bros, early-stage Leo had our whole theatre chuckling watcha talking about. There was this one woman sitting behind us who said half a dozen times to her friends: "He's so stupid." She must've felt real validated after Brendan Fraser's diatribe. Well... I'm just waiting to see how many times this movie will show up in your year-end line up clips
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 21, 2023 13:32:18 GMT
There was this one woman sitting behind us who said half a dozen times to her friends: "He's so stupid." She must've felt real validated after Brendan Fraser's diatribe. Well... I'm just waiting to see how many times this movie will show up in your year-end line up clips I didn't hate it at all, let's be clear. There are moments where Scorsese is operating at his absolute peak visually and I think he makes some bold choices (I, for one, really liked the Prairie Home Companion-style ending, but I kinda would've liked it to open with that in a way). It's just that I found it anchored by an actor who is trying so very hard in every single enunciation and affectation that it is immediately distracting, and I didn't think the love story as portrayed made sense enough for me to think that Mollie would tolerate what was going on. Scorsese has played romances like this before to great effect; the Henry-Karen relationship in Goodfellas is fleshed out in only a few minutes but we get that she likes bad boys and they have such an immediate spark that we get swept up in it because we're also swept up in the life as Henry is. Karen is our proxy. But I just didn't get that from this movie, and it's really crucial that we at least feel like Mollie is happy enough in her life that even though her fucking family are dropping like flies around her, she is conflicted because she loves her husband so much. But the film shafts Mollie so thoroughly that we only ever really see her breaking down when she's told of another death, or sweatily wasting away in a bed after insulin injections. Mollie becomes a living prop for Ernest, and that to me is the film's gravest sin.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Oct 21, 2023 13:32:58 GMT
The film didn't have an issue making up things when it suited the narrative, such as Ernest and Byron murdered the private investigator (in real life, that guy died of a heart attack in Sarasota). Historical accuracy is one thing, but when you're making a movie that hinges on a couple where one is complicit in the murder of the other's relatives, and the other one stays throughout despite knowing that he's a snake coyote, you have to make me believe in their love. And they could've easily explored their relationship and dynamic through her eyes and have us see what we see in Ernest . . . but the thing is, at no point did I find Ernest charming at all, largely because of DiCaprio's bizarre mannerisms. When Scott Shepherd comes off as more suave than you are, there's a problem. As for the relationship between Mollie and her mother, I definitely thought they could've explored that more because it's clear she resented her daughter for marrying a white man, but that doesn't even come up as a source of friction other than Lizzie Q dismissively leaving the room when Ernest first comes to dinner with them until Lizzie later calls for Anna. That could've easily been a point where they delved into the "why" of it all, because again, Mollie's no idiot and she clearly sees that Ernest is a schmoozer angling for money, and she just relents for pretty lame game from him. BUT, I will agree in general that DiCaprio perhaps should've gone on the full charm offensive, more of like a himbo approach, instead of the nearly cretinous approach he took much of the time. Though I will slightly disagree in that I did think there were some hints of his ability to charm in there, but there definitely could've been more. That wouldn't have worked with Hale, imo. Hale gets him on the team precisely because he's an idiot (he was a nobody in the army and he's easily manipulated). He can be a charmer the way a few idiots can be, but in no way should Mollie have stuck with him that long knowing what was happening, because she knows that Ernest and Hale are behind it.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 21, 2023 13:40:24 GMT
BUT, I will agree in general that DiCaprio perhaps should've gone on the full charm offensive, more of like a himbo approach, instead of the nearly cretinous approach he took much of the time. Though I will slightly disagree in that I did think there were some hints of his ability to charm in there, but there definitely could've been more. That wouldn't have worked with Hale, imo. Hale gets him on the team precisely because he's an idiot (he was a nobody in the army and he's easily manipulated). He can be a charmer the way a few idiots can be, but in no way should Mollie have stuck with him that long knowing what was happening, because she knows that Ernest and Hale are behind it. Exactly. And it should be noted that Hale wasn't exactly the brightest bulb, either. Make it look like a suicide by shooting him in the front of the head? How about, I dunno, the side where people typically shoot themselves? Hale was just easier at clouding it with good PR. But fucking hell, man -- Ernest was such a bumbling numbfuck that I am baffled at why Hale would've let him anywhere near the operation. Yes, I get that he was blood, but still, it's a hell of a liability where Byron wasn't (as much).
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Oct 21, 2023 13:46:45 GMT
That wouldn't have worked with Hale, imo. Hale gets him on the team precisely because he's an idiot (he was a nobody in the army and he's easily manipulated). He can be a charmer the way a few idiots can be, but in no way should Mollie have stuck with him that long knowing what was happening, because she knows that Ernest and Hale are behind it. Exactly. And it should be noted that Hale wasn't exactly the brightest bulb, either. Make it look like a suicide by shooting him in the front of the head? How about, I dunno, the side where people typically shoot themselves? Hale was just easier at clouding it with good PR. But fucking hell, man -- Ernest was such a bumbling numbfuck that I am baffled at why Hale would've let him anywhere near the operation. Yes, I get that he was blood, but still, it's a hell of a liability where Byron wasn't (as much). Yes, Hale knew he could get away with a lot because he was powerful, but he was no mastermind.
In the end, the movie actually convinces you that Ernest has sincere feelings for Mollie and the kids, but without showing Mollie loving him back, the relationship that should make the movie fully work is flawed.
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 1,595
|
Post by Nikan on Oct 21, 2023 13:47:35 GMT
One other thing about Goodfellas that I thought about after KOtFM (because I totally thought about Karen & Henry too)... is that how goddamn proper it is that we get to see Henry's youth in Idk-how many minutes in earlier part of that film. Many of us, when trying to articulate the conclusions we get from The Irishman (which I liked) or this one, tend to say "these protagonists are selling their souls in a way"... but looking back at them, I feel DeNiro (there) and Leo here, have been these weird creatures throughout all their existence (that's how I "emotionally" remember them anyway)... but in GF, we get to see the time he had "more of a soul" the most; living it in the excitement of parking a wise guy's car.
Strange one that one. Seems more perfect with every passing year... or every time Marty can't *quite* repeat it.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Oct 21, 2023 13:52:31 GMT
Well the PI is fairly limited within the actual major influence on the story, there's a difference between changing something for ease of narrative and major plot point/character motivation. Him having a heart attack suddenly would just result with a "huh" from most of the audience even it is really what happened. Meanwhile the sort of silencing/killing by the killers was something that was going on regardless, so looping the PI story into that just makes sense narratively. Changing Mollie or Ernest more substantially though would be far bigger leaps. BUT, I will agree in general that DiCaprio perhaps should've gone on the full charm offensive, more of like a himbo approach, instead of the nearly cretinous approach he took much of the time. Though I will slightly disagree in that I did think there were some hints of his ability to charm in there, but there definitely could've been more. It's still a pretty major change when it comes to showing your protagonist straight-up murdering a man. That's the only time we see Ernest kill anyone in the film if memory serves, but even if it's a five-second scene, it shows Ernest isn't just complicit, but rather an active participant. That's the act that doesn't show him removed from the violence like he tries to be the rest of the movie. And there's no historical basis for it. Was he killed? I couldn't quite tell if he was supposed to be just be beaten up, and took it as a message to leave town, or was murdered.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 21, 2023 13:54:49 GMT
Exactly. And it should be noted that Hale wasn't exactly the brightest bulb, either. Make it look like a suicide by shooting him in the front of the head? How about, I dunno, the side where people typically shoot themselves? Hale was just easier at clouding it with good PR. But fucking hell, man -- Ernest was such a bumbling numbfuck that I am baffled at why Hale would've let him anywhere near the operation. Yes, I get that he was blood, but still, it's a hell of a liability where Byron wasn't (as much). Yes, Hale knew he could get away with a lot because he was powerful, but he was no mastermind.
In the end, the movie actually convinces you that Ernest has sincere feelings for Mollie and the kids, but without showing Mollie loving him back, the relationship that should make the movie fully work is flawed.
I mean, does it? We don't ever really see him interact with the family in any way that I felt like he had any sort of affection for them. He straight-up ignores one of them entirely when asking Mollie after, and the other child we see him with is just batting billiard balls in a corner as someone else interacts with Ernest. I don't even know if I caught that kid's actual name beside the Cowboy nickname. And yeah, there's Anna with the whooping cough but I never saw any sort of genuine fatherly feeling ever come from Ernest, even when told she's dead. (Of course, the scene where he's told is one of the worst bits of DiCaprio's overacting.) This is the problem. The film should be by rights a domestic drama surrounded by a grand murderous overarching plot, but Scorsese and Roth really skimp on the former in favour of the latter. And it's easy to see why; the murders are interesting inherently. But that's the challenge. Make the family drama carry weight to it. And I think they failed in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Oct 21, 2023 13:55:34 GMT
BUT, I will agree in general that DiCaprio perhaps should've gone on the full charm offensive, more of like a himbo approach, instead of the nearly cretinous approach he took much of the time. Though I will slightly disagree in that I did think there were some hints of his ability to charm in there, but there definitely could've been more. That wouldn't have worked with Hale, imo. Hale gets him on the team precisely because he's an idiot (he was a nobody in the army and he's easily manipulated). He can be a charmer the way a few idiots can be, but in no way should Mollie have stuck with him that long knowing what was happening, because she knows that Ernest and Hale are behind it.Himbo is an idiot by the way. Does she? I think she's suspicious of everyone but the problem is she doesn't know anything for certain. Making it fairly logical she wouldn't leave Ernest right away at least.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 21, 2023 13:55:53 GMT
It's still a pretty major change when it comes to showing your protagonist straight-up murdering a man. That's the only time we see Ernest kill anyone in the film if memory serves, but even if it's a five-second scene, it shows Ernest isn't just complicit, but rather an active participant. That's the act that doesn't show him removed from the violence like he tries to be the rest of the movie. And there's no historical basis for it. Was he killed? I couldn't quite tell if he was supposed just be beaten up, and took it as a message to leave town, or was murdered. Even if it was intended as just a message, the film shows it juxtaposed with Barnaby's very obvious murder, so if they meant for it to be ambiguous, again, they failed.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Oct 21, 2023 14:01:08 GMT
Was he killed? I couldn't quite tell if he was supposed just be beaten up, and took it as a message to leave town, or was murdered. Even if it was intended as just a message, the film shows it juxtaposed with Barnaby's very obvious murder, so if they meant for it to be ambiguous, again, they failed. Well I thought it was ambiguous so I guess they didn't fail too much .
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 21, 2023 14:03:59 GMT
Even if it was intended as just a message, the film shows it juxtaposed with Barnaby's very obvious murder, so if they meant for it to be ambiguous, again, they failed. Well I thought it was ambiguous so I guess they didn't fail. I thought it was pretty clear they killed him, because we see him (TWICE!) straight-up go down with a bloody blow to the head, no stirring, no moaning, nothing that would indicate that he survived or that it was meant to be anything other than a murder. Yes, he could've just been knocked out, but why would they want the audience to think that if there was no message being spelled out to him to leave off the investigation? And to undercut your earlier point: there's no evidence that this ever happened, whether it be by murder or assault. So again, regardless of what they did in that scene, it was fabricated, and I don't know why it's okay to fictionalize this event but not the domestic relationship between Ernest and Mollie.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Oct 21, 2023 14:13:19 GMT
Well I thought it was ambiguous so I guess they didn't fail. I thought it was pretty clear they killed him, because we see him (TWICE!) straight-up go down with a bloody blow to the head, no stirring, no moaning, nothing that would indicate that he survived or that it was meant to be anything other than a murder. Yes, he could've just been knocked out, but why would they want the audience to think that if there was no message being spelled out to him to leave off the investigation? And to undercut your earlier point: there's no evidence that this ever happened, whether it be by murder or assault. So again, regardless of what they did in that scene, it was fabricated, and I don't know why it's okay to fictionalize this event but not the domestic relationship between Ernest and Mollie. Well Intracranial hematoma doesn't exist in movies, this is an established fact. And in cinematic language he had "beaten up guy" look, to me anyways. Because one is the whole story and the other isn't. To undercut to your earlier point, while Ernest may not have done that crime he was complicit in several others that are just as heinous. He was a murderer even if he was often the buffer of a buffer. The film used that as the first scene to show that complicity, and was a big truth that Ernest was a murderer, even if untrue in the little truth that he wasn't the perpetrator of that particular crime (which again may or may not have been murder as depicted by the film).
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 21, 2023 14:48:05 GMT
I thought it was pretty clear they killed him, because we see him (TWICE!) straight-up go down with a bloody blow to the head, no stirring, no moaning, nothing that would indicate that he survived or that it was meant to be anything other than a murder. Yes, he could've just been knocked out, but why would they want the audience to think that if there was no message being spelled out to him to leave off the investigation? And to undercut your earlier point: there's no evidence that this ever happened, whether it be by murder or assault. So again, regardless of what they did in that scene, it was fabricated, and I don't know why it's okay to fictionalize this event but not the domestic relationship between Ernest and Mollie. Well Intracranial hematoma doesn't exist in movies, this is an established fact. And in cinematic language he had "beaten up guy" look, to me anyways. Because one is the whole story and the other isn't. To undercut to your earlier point, while Ernest may not have done that crime he was complicit in several others that are just as heinous. He was a murderer even if he was often the buffer of a buffer. The film used that as the first scene to show that complicity, and was a big truth that Ernest was a murderer, even if untrue in the little truth that he wasn't the perpetrator of that particular crime (which again may or may not have been murder as depicted by the film). I dunno -- in cinematic language, straight-up bushwhacking a guy to the point he doesn't twitch or move after, stealing his money and not leaving any sort of message feels pretty final to me. And we see it twice, the latter intercut with the Barnaby stabbing. They could've had the same effect with a gunbarrel to the back of the P.I.'s head while he was opening the door to tell him to leave off or die. But we're clearly at an impasse here, so we'll leave it on the matter of whether he survived the ambush.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 21, 2023 16:11:36 GMT
Going back to Hale's scheme for a second: what was Byron's deal? He wasn't married, was he? It's clear Anna carried some sort of torch for him (and he was the father of her unborn baby), so why wasn't Hale convincing him to marry Anna? That guaranteed the money flowed to the Hale family from two points, either through Mollie or through Anna, as long as Bill Smith was out of the picture.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Oct 21, 2023 16:22:21 GMT
Going back to Hale's scheme for a second: what was Byron's deal? He wasn't married, was he? It's clear Anna carried some sort of torch for him (and he was the father of her unborn baby), so why wasn't Hale convincing him to marry Anna? That guaranteed the money flowed to the Hale family from two points, either through Mollie or through Anna, as long as Bill Smith was out of the picture. I think the implication is that Hale didn't necessarily want to kill Byron, but he did want to kill Ernest eventually. That's why he set up as Ernest as the final pipeline directly to him, where Byron would be another diversion from that. And yes, while Byron worked for him, I think the implication is Hale wanted EVERYTHING money wise go back to him in the end without any buffers.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 21, 2023 16:28:47 GMT
Going back to Hale's scheme for a second: what was Byron's deal? He wasn't married, was he? It's clear Anna carried some sort of torch for him (and he was the father of her unborn baby), so why wasn't Hale convincing him to marry Anna? That guaranteed the money flowed to the Hale family from two points, either through Mollie or through Anna, as long as Bill Smith was out of the picture. I think the implication is that Hale didn't necessarily want to kill Byron, but he did want to kill Ernest eventually. That's why he set up as Ernest as the final pipeline directly to him, where Byron would be another diversion from that. And yes, while Byron worked for him, I think the implication is Hale wanted EVERYTHING money wise go back to him in the end without any buffers. I don't agree that Hale's initial goal was to have Ernest die. I mean, as he kept fucking up throughout the movie, I can see Hale getting annoyed with him enough to do away with him, but it just doesn't really make sense at the outset. Ernest only eventually is offered to sign that life insurance proviso years after the scheme starts, when things are starting to get shoddy with him. But again, as long as the money stays in the family, and Hale has ultimate say on what happens, why plan to kill Ernest at first? It's why Hale was so pissed off when they bought the farm without his consultation, so it makes sense at that point that he's seeing Ernest as a liability, but it feels like a series of consequences that build up to Hale wanting Ernest out of the picture. And it doesn't explain the Byron issue I had. Byron doesn't have a family from what I can see. He has an affair with Anna and he rubs up on that maid to piss her off, but that's about it. And I don't understand why Hale wouldn't push Byron to make an honest woman out of Anna, have the kid in wedlock, and then rub her out. The money's still in the family, just through two pipelines instead of one. All the need to do is get Bill and Reta clipped and then the money is 100% in Hale control, and legally at that.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Oct 21, 2023 16:41:33 GMT
I think the implication is that Hale didn't necessarily want to kill Byron, but he did want to kill Ernest eventually. That's why he set up as Ernest as the final pipeline directly to him, where Byron would be another diversion from that. And yes, while Byron worked for him, I think the implication is Hale wanted EVERYTHING money wise go back to him in the end without any buffers. I don't agree that Hale's initial goal was to have Ernest die. I mean, as he kept fucking up throughout the movie, I can see Hale getting annoyed with him enough to do away with him, but it just doesn't really make sense at the outset. Ernest only eventually is offered to sign that life insurance proviso years after the scheme starts, when things are starting to get shoddy with him. But again, as long as the money stays in the family, and Hale has ultimate say on what happens, why plan to kill Ernest at first? It's why Hale was so pissed off when they bought the farm without his consultation, so it makes sense at that point that he's seeing Ernest as a liability, but it feels like a series of consequences that build up to Hale wanting Ernest out of the picture. And it doesn't explain the Byron issue I had. Byron doesn't have a family from what I can see. He has an affair with Anna and he rubs up on that maid to piss her off, but that's about it. And I don't understand why Hale wouldn't push Byron to make an honest woman out of Anna, have the kid in wedlock, and then rub her out. The money's still in the family, just through two pipelines instead of one. All the need to do is get Bill and Reta clipped and then the money is 100% in Hale control, and legally at that. My take on Hale was that he was completely amoral in his greed, and he wanted everything in his name, and no one else (including his extended family)'s by the end of it. I think the life insurance plan was his goal eventually, Ernest screwing things up just made him go to the plan even sooner. And not using Byron supports this theory. I think he saw Byron as smarter, and as someone who wouldn't have signed the life insurance plan.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 21, 2023 16:50:44 GMT
I don't agree that Hale's initial goal was to have Ernest die. I mean, as he kept fucking up throughout the movie, I can see Hale getting annoyed with him enough to do away with him, but it just doesn't really make sense at the outset. Ernest only eventually is offered to sign that life insurance proviso years after the scheme starts, when things are starting to get shoddy with him. But again, as long as the money stays in the family, and Hale has ultimate say on what happens, why plan to kill Ernest at first? It's why Hale was so pissed off when they bought the farm without his consultation, so it makes sense at that point that he's seeing Ernest as a liability, but it feels like a series of consequences that build up to Hale wanting Ernest out of the picture. And it doesn't explain the Byron issue I had. Byron doesn't have a family from what I can see. He has an affair with Anna and he rubs up on that maid to piss her off, but that's about it. And I don't understand why Hale wouldn't push Byron to make an honest woman out of Anna, have the kid in wedlock, and then rub her out. The money's still in the family, just through two pipelines instead of one. All the need to do is get Bill and Reta clipped and then the money is 100% in Hale control, and legally at that. My take on Hale was that he was completely amoral in his greed, and he wanted everything in his name, and no one else (including his extended family)'s by the end of it. I think the life insurance plan was his goal eventually, Ernest screwing things up just made him go to the plan even sooner. And not using Byron supports this theory. I think he saw Byron as smarter, and as someone who wouldn't have signed the life insurance plan. I don't know if this makes sense. Life insurance policies are not wills; it's not the same as getting access to their fortunes. Hale's scheme only makes sense if he recognizes that he has de facto control over the estates via his control of those who have de jure control. Which means that he has someone he trusts implicitly, or someone that he can manipulate, who will take his advice on where to spend that money. The money may not be in Hale's name, but it's in his control and that's even better because it doesn't immediately tie the scheme directly to him. Plus the money does all stay within his family. And as we see, Byron is a consummate yes-man and stalwart second-in-command to Hale. He's someone that Hale can trust implicitly from what we see, so Hale wouldn't have to worry about bumping him off. I would imagine Byron would've been his heir apparent of his empire, as it seems Hale only had the daughter and I doubt he would've allowed her to run it. And I don't really see why he wouldn't have had Byron involved in the same scheme from the outset, especially as the film takes explicit care to show that he and Anna have some sort of relationship. The whole time I was wondering what Byron's purpose in this whole thing was because he was shown to be much more reliable than Ernest, and having him marry Anna just fast-tracks the scheme in a legal way.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Oct 21, 2023 16:58:22 GMT
My take on Hale was that he was completely amoral in his greed, and he wanted everything in his name, and no one else (including his extended family)'s by the end of it. I think the life insurance plan was his goal eventually, Ernest screwing things up just made him go to the plan even sooner. And not using Byron supports this theory. I think he saw Byron as smarter, and as someone who wouldn't have signed the life insurance plan. I don't know if this makes sense. Life insurance policies are not wills; it's not the same as getting access to their fortunes. Hale's scheme only makes sense if he recognizes that he has de facto control over the estates via his control of those who have de jure control. Which means that he has someone he trusts implicitly, or someone that he can manipulate, who will take his advice on where to spend that money. The money may not be in Hale's name, but it's in his control and that's even better because it doesn't immediately tie the scheme directly to him. Plus the money does all stay within his family. And as we see, Byron is a consummate yes-man and stalwart second-in-command to Hale. He's someone that Hale can trust implicitly from what we see, so Hale wouldn't have to worry about bumping him off. I would imagine Byron would've been his heir apparent of his empire, as it seems Hale only had the daughter and I doubt he would've allowed her to run it. And I don't really see why he wouldn't have had Byron involved in the same scheme from the outset, especially as the film takes explicit care to show that he and Anna have some sort of relationship. The whole time I was wondering what Byron's purpose in this whole thing was because he was shown to be much more reliable than Ernest, and having him marry Anna just fast-tracks the scheme in a legal way. I'll have to re-watch the scene, but from what it sounded like it was essentially some policy to ensure that Hale got everything that Ernest would have from Mollie. On the second point though, an easy way to keep someone a stalwart second in command is to limit their ambition and potential. And perhaps if he had his own rights, maybe he decides he doesn't need Hale himself. So again it gives reason why Hale wouldn't give this particular task to Byron.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 21, 2023 17:06:54 GMT
I don't know if this makes sense. Life insurance policies are not wills; it's not the same as getting access to their fortunes. Hale's scheme only makes sense if he recognizes that he has de facto control over the estates via his control of those who have de jure control. Which means that he has someone he trusts implicitly, or someone that he can manipulate, who will take his advice on where to spend that money. The money may not be in Hale's name, but it's in his control and that's even better because it doesn't immediately tie the scheme directly to him. Plus the money does all stay within his family. And as we see, Byron is a consummate yes-man and stalwart second-in-command to Hale. He's someone that Hale can trust implicitly from what we see, so Hale wouldn't have to worry about bumping him off. I would imagine Byron would've been his heir apparent of his empire, as it seems Hale only had the daughter and I doubt he would've allowed her to run it. And I don't really see why he wouldn't have had Byron involved in the same scheme from the outset, especially as the film takes explicit care to show that he and Anna have some sort of relationship. The whole time I was wondering what Byron's purpose in this whole thing was because he was shown to be much more reliable than Ernest, and having him marry Anna just fast-tracks the scheme in a legal way. I'll have to re-watch the scene, but from what it sounded like it was essentially some policy to ensure that Hale got everything that Ernest would have from Mollie. On the second point though, an easy way to keep someone a stalwart second in command is to limit their ambition and potential. And perhaps if he had his own rights, maybe he decides he doesn't need Hale himself. So again it gives reason why Hale wouldn't give this particular task to Byron. But if that happens, it legally goes to the children via Mollie's inheritance, which is the whole point of the law they're trying to circumvent. The best that could happen is Ernest signs a guardianship over to Hale in the event that he dies, but I think that would happen anyway considering Mollie (as far as I know) has no kin left, except I guess that couple that take in Anna 2.0 when she's sick, so if Ernest and Mollie die, Hale could easily just step in to raise the kids. He doesn't need him to sign any kind of document that wouldn't already be in place. It only makes sense that Hale was trying to get him to sign a life insurance policy, because we've seen him do that already with Henry (cinematic language rearing its ugly head again with repetition of theme). While it's a smart idea to limit your second's ambition, Hale is an old man. He doesn't have a son that we see ready to take the reins. And the way Byron acts in the film shows an almost slavish devotion that I don't think would be curbed by Byron marrying Anna. And if Hale wants to implicitly threaten Byron, he could force him to sign the life insurance proviso as well, just as a precaution. We see this same thing play out with Rothstein against the D'Alessio Brothers and Mickey Doyle in Boardwalk Empire (bringing the Scorsese connection), and it acts as a motivator for them not to step out of line. The thing is, the movie takes great pains to show that Byron and Anna had a thing going, but that he wasn't willing to make it official, and killed her for it. And I don't think it makes sense that Hale would allow for that. And there's ways they could show that it wouldn't work, either through infidelity or Byron maybe not being able to procreate somehow and makes him useless in that respect. But it just felt like rather than solely rely on a dumbass like Ernest, Byron could've done the same thing and gotten Hale his money in half the time. EDIT: I do want to add that at no point does the movie give us the impression Byron would flip or make a move on Hale anyway. He's dead to rights on murder accusations and doesn't roll. So applying some sort of logic to Hale not using Byron in his marriage scheme because he wants to limit his power/ambition doesn't bear out here.
|
|
havok2
Junior Member
Posts: 396
Likes: 184
|
Post by havok2 on Oct 21, 2023 17:13:03 GMT
Martin comes off from his best film just to start his new one with one of the most beautiful shots in his body of work. There's some great nerving consciousness in the middle of this when form transforms into an opposite comedown crime story. It's the anti Wolf of Wall Street.
|
|
Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 4,372
|
Post by Archie on Oct 21, 2023 17:16:44 GMT
Sorry, but all the lukewarm takes can piss off. I'll have more thoughts later but this was absolutely staggering.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Oct 21, 2023 17:22:53 GMT
I'll have to re-watch the scene, but from what it sounded like it was essentially some policy to ensure that Hale got everything that Ernest would have from Mollie. On the second point though, an easy way to keep someone a stalwart second in command is to limit their ambition and potential. And perhaps if he had his own rights, maybe he decides he doesn't need Hale himself. So again it gives reason why Hale wouldn't give this particular task to Byron. But if that happens, it legally goes to the children via Mollie's inheritance, which is the whole point of the law they're trying to circumvent. The best that could happen is Ernest signs a guardianship over to Hale in the event that he dies, but I think that would happen anyway considering Mollie (as far as I know) has no kin left, except I guess that couple that take in Anna 2.0 when she's sick, so if Ernest and Mollie die, Hale could easily just step in to raise the kids. He doesn't need him to sign any kind of document that wouldn't already be in place. It only makes sense that Hale was trying to get him to sign a life insurance policy, because we've seen him do that already with Henry (cinematic language rearing its ugly head again with repetition of theme). While it's a smart idea to limit your second's ambition, Hale is an old man. He doesn't have a son that we see ready to take the reins. And the way Byron acts in the film shows an almost slavish devotion that I don't think would be curbed by Byron marrying Anna. And if Hale wants to implicitly threaten Byron, he could force him to sign the life insurance proviso as well, just as a precaution. We see this same thing play out with Rothstein against the D'Alessio Brothers and Mickey Doyle in Boardwalk Empire (bringing the Scorsese connection), and it acts as a motivator for them not to step out of line. The thing is, the movie takes great pains to show that Byron and Anna had a thing going, but that he wasn't willing to make it official, and killed her for it. And I don't think it makes sense that Hale would allow for that. And there's ways they could show that it wouldn't work, either through infidelity or Byron maybe not being able to procreate somehow and makes him useless in that respect. But it just felt like rather than solely rely on a dumbass like Ernest, Byron could've done the same thing and gotten Hale his money in half the time. EDIT: I do want to add that at no point does the movie give us the impression Byron would flip or make a move on Hale anyway. He's dead to rights on murder accusations and doesn't roll. So applying some sort of logic to Hale not using Byron in his marriage scheme because he wants to limit his power/ambition doesn't bear out here. Well for an additional explanation, Anna was a loose cannon (with a literal loose cannon) so perhaps neither Hale nor Byron wanted to take the risk, therefore eliminate her off the table early. Although I'll also say I don't think Hale was concerned about a family empire a la Tywin Lannister, I think he just literally wanted all the money. Although I will say this is obfuscated a bit due to De Niro being much older than Hale was at that time.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 21, 2023 17:27:11 GMT
One other thing about Goodfellas that I thought about after KOtFM (because I totally thought about Karen & Henry too)... is that how goddamn proper it is that we get to see Henry's youth in Idk-how many minutes in earlier part of that film. Many of us, when trying to articulate the conclusions we get from The Irishman (which I liked) or this one, tend to say "these protagonists are selling their souls in a way"... but looking back at them, I feel DeNiro (there) and Leo here, have been these weird creatures throughout all their existence (that's how I "emotionally" remember them anyway)... but in GF, we get to see the time he had "more of a soul" the most; living it in the excitement of parking a wise guy's car. Strange one that one. Seems more perfect with every passing year... or every time Marty can't *quite* repeat it. Goodfellas really does feel so singular with Scorsese because it feels like the apotheosis of everything he's ever wanted to say and it exhibits the full peak of his powers in every arena, and I agree that there's a very real sense of emotional and spiritual stakes at hand with Henry and Karen's descent into the life. You feel the weight of damnation there, because you are caught up in the spectacle of it all and you realize that you, as the viewer, would be charmed into it as well. That's what makes the back half of the movie so impactful; at some point the music stops, and you're left running away from helicopters. But in this movie, we just don't get that. We don't need it from Ernest (a braindead chump from start to finish; he tells us flat-out he loooooooves money and that is the extent of his motivation in any arena) or from Hale (because his malice needs no explanation), but we absolutely need it from Mollie, because not only is she the most essential character in the piece, she's the one who has the real moral conflict, which the movie largely sidesteps. We need to see why she would be happy with the life she's made with Ernest, but we don't. We only just see her miserable about her family dying, or suffering from diabetes/insulin poisoning. But Scorsese and Co. just don't bother to explore it with her, instead giving us repetitive scenes of Ernest's constant check-ins with Hale. There is a way for Scorsese to have had his cake and eat it, too. The more I think about it, the more that The Last Duel comes to mind. That was a film that perfectly balanced opposing viewpoints on the same events extremely well. And considering Scorsese's penchant for showing the same scene multiple times throughout the movie, he should've gone harder towards that. We needed an equal perspective from Mollie.
|
|