American Hustle (David O. Russell)

[Izzy Black]

Well, there's just a whole lotta good-looking nothingness going on here, huh?

I'm genuinely happy for anyone that really enjoyed this, I just sincerely hope they don't go along thinking it's anything resembling a great piece of work, or more pressingly, one of the best films of this year. It's too thinly developed, broadly dramatized, frequently overly simplistic, and seemingly more comfortable in montage mode than anything that may otherwise help tether the story or any floating thematic ideas to something meaningful.

This was such a great year with so many great films that this one won't rank near the top for me, but I do think it's one of the best films of the year. It should at the very least make an honorable mention for me. And looking at Melville's list, he also seems to think it's one of the best films of the year. I think the film is substantive and I actually prefer it to Martin Scorsese's new film The Wolf of Wall Street, which I also thought was good.

I can imagine the four lead actors (not counting Renner) trusted Russell no matter what, especially since they were all met with huge acclaim and accolades for their work under his direction in his last two films, but here, their performances are presented in ways that feel like they're out of sync with their character's motives or the emotions of the plot as a whole, struggling to find the reasons for their characters to act the way they do in any particular scene. They're certainly not bad performances, just ones that feel incomplete in how they're utilized here.

As divisive as The Fighter and Silver Linings Playbook have seemingly been with people over time in terms of how Russell drastically altered his style and more overt tolerance for sentimentality through them, at least they both had defined character arcs, a discernible tone, and darkly comedic flourishes worth investing in and having strong opinions on. It's as if those criticisms of his last two films being an ill-minded, mushier direction of sorts for him were misguidedly taken to heart, leaving his attitude towards American Hustle's material to attempt to be something more morally gray and raunchy, even if ultimately it ends ups feeling so vacant, innocuous and bland. It's quite possible that those weirder traits of his oeuvre simply don't exist in his artistic system anymore, particularly for a film like this.

I felt the performances were totally in sync with the story and characters. I think these are career best performances from everyone involved.

I also see American Hustle as very much continuous with his traditional style. I see Silver Linings Playbook in that mold as well, albeit in a more commercial sense. I consider both of these films to fall within his "manic comedy" sensibilities in different ways. The Fighter is the only anomaly in his resume. It has some minor touches of his style (the family of Bale's character), but on the whole, it feels like an Oscar bait prestige flick.

[Mr. McGibblets]

So many pop-song montages.

[Qrazy]

I don't understand the point of hiring a large crowd of people and never cutting to a wide of them. The film is all mids and close-ups. It was okay. I enjoyed the performances but I didn't care much for the plot arc. I think I've decided I don't like con films in general. I can't think of any examples outside of The Sting that do anything for me. I'm not sure if I'd consider Paper Moon or The Hustler con films exactly. They deal with conning but they aren't trying to trick the audience in the same way as your standard con film (Ocean's films, House of Games, Nine Queens, etc).

[Boner M]

I think I've decided I don't like con films in general. I can't think of any examples outside of The Sting that do anything for me. I'm not sure if I'd consider Paper Moon or The Hustler con films exactly. They deal with conning but they aren't trying to trick the audience in the same way as your standard con film (Ocean's films, House of Games, Nine Queens, etc).

Agree w/ all this, although The Sting does nothing for me either.

[Qrazy]

Agree w/ all this, although The Sting does nothing for me either.

I think I just really enjoy the Newman/Redford team ups.

edit: Actually I rewatched a few scenes on youtube and it holds up fairly well.

[Izzy Black]

I don't understand the point of hiring a large crowd of people and never cutting to a wide of them. The film is all mids and close-ups. It was okay. I enjoyed the performances but I didn't care much for the plot arc. I think I've decided I don't like con films in general. I can't think of any examples outside of The Sting that do anything for me. I'm not sure if I'd consider Paper Moon or The Hustler con films exactly. They deal with conning but they aren't trying to trick the audience in the same way as your standard con film (Ocean's films, House of Games, Nine Queens, etc).

I just consider it a crime film, hence the debt to Scorsese. Obviously, it's about con artists, though.

[Lucky]

In a movie carried by performances, Amy Adams was the clear standout for me. The plot bogged the film down, I just wanted to watch these characters interact. Loved the beginning sequence with Irvine and Sydney falling for each other, Edith and DiMaso going out, and Rosalyn and Irvine's scene where he confronts her about running her mouth. Outside of the main quartet, the film is devoid of any tension and compelling drama. I definitely wouldn't label this a con movie, no surprises were thrown at the audience. The only person who didn't see this coming was the character who got burned in the end. Way better in its parts than as a whole, but those parts are damn shiny and beautiful.

[Lucky]

And I've been on a Steely Dan kick today because of this movie.

[Qrazy]

In a movie carried by performances, Amy Adams was the clear standout for me. The plot bogged the film down, I just wanted to watch these characters interact. Loved the beginning sequence with Irvine and Sydney falling for each other, Edith and DiMaso going out, and Rosalyn and Irvine's scene where he confronts her about running her mouth. Outside of the main quartet, the film is devoid of any tension and compelling drama. I definitely wouldn't label this a con movie, no surprises were thrown at the audience. The only person who didn't see this coming was the character who got burned in the end. Way better in its parts than as a whole, but those parts are damn shiny and beautiful.

The audience is not clued in initially that that is not the mobster's banker. It wasn't hard to predict but it is still a con and a plot twist. We are shown how they pulled it off at the end of the film. How is it not a con movie? It's about con artists and ends with a con.

[Henry Gale]

In constantly seeing ads for this, I've realize that three bits I liked the most in them ‒ the shot of the car's wheel driving through the golden fog at night, Lawrence's "They look like the perfect guys to buy me a drink!" and the shot of the main five characters locked in arms on stage, all seemingly pretending to have a good time ‒ are all nowhere to be found in the final film.

I'm not saying he doesn't have the right to make the film he wants to make, but the calls to exclude stuff like that might be precisely where Russell's sensibilities diverge from my own when it comes to the potential that might've been there for something more engaging for me.

[Lucky]

The audience is not clued in initially that that is not the mobster's banker. It wasn't hard to predict but it is still a con and a plot twist. We are shown how they pulled it off at the end of the film. How is it not a con movie? It's about con artists and ends with a con.

No, we didn't know specifically how they were going to pull it off, but there were visual cues that they had it under control. During the scene at the FBI office there was no doubt in my mind it was a premature celebration. That's part of the reason the excess was humorous, it was dramatically ironic. No rug was pulled, so to speak.

[wigwam]

there were visual cues

like introducing the switcheroo character in the second scene in the movie

[Lucky]

like introducing the switcheroo character in the second scene in the movie

Watch the interaction between Adams and Bale in that scene should you ever see it again. There's a blatant moment when Bale touches her shoulder and she makes a faint crack of a smile after the money is wired. The whole scene follows Bale's previously mentioned philosophy that they'll want it harder when you deny it at first, too. I thought it was meant to be obvious to the audience what was happening.

[Qrazy]

No, we didn't know specifically how they were going to pull it off, but there were visual cues that they had it under control. During the scene at the FBI office there was no doubt in my mind it was a premature celebration. That's part of the reason the excess was humorous, it was dramatically ironic. No rug was pulled, so to speak.

That's really not the point. There are always clues. I predicted the end of Se7en and the end of House of Games at a certain point in the films. That doesn't mean that it isn't a plot twist or that you know exactly what the plot twist will be or that this isn't a con film which features a con.

[Qrazy]

Watch the interaction between Adams and Bale in that scene should you ever see it again. There's a blatant moment when Bale touches her shoulder and she makes a faint crack of a smile after the money is wired. The whole scene follows Bale's previously mentioned philosophy that they'll want it harder when you deny it at first, too. I thought it was meant to be obvious to the audience what was happening.

If it was meant to be obvious why would they then take a whole scene to explain it at the end of the film.

[Lucky]

If it was meant to be obvious why would they then take a whole scene to explain it at the end of the film.

No idea. See my previous comment how I found the film devoid of tension. Although the audience is never certain what exactly they have pulled and how until that point. They similarly laid out in detail how Edith/Sydney and Ritchie acquired the $2 million during the first half of the film.

[Ezee E]

Pretty sure that nobody could say they knew was in the box of Se7en unless they knew there was a crazy ending going into it.

[Pop Trash]

In a movie carried by performances, Amy Adams was the clear standout for me.

This. Not sure why Jennifer Lawrence is getting so much attention over Adams. I guess Lawrence is America's sweetheart so people have to rub one out over anything she does lately.

The movie was OK. Entertaining, but like the rest of Russell's post Huckabees output it felt both too pandering and too impersonal. I doubt I'll remember much about it in six months.

[slqrick]

I didn't really love Cooper in this, but loved the other three, especially Adams. She definitely has the most nuanced part in the film, even if Lawrence has my favorite scene (it's been talked about ad nauseum at this point, but still). I saw this a few weeks before seeing Wolf, and I know there's been a lot of talk about this movie aping Scorsese's style, and while I tend to agree that the caper elements feel like that sometimes, the disco scene felt like it was channeling Boogie Nights more than anything Marty has done. In the end, I liked all the performances, and the fact that it didn't really feel like awards bait at the time I saw it. Now, it makes sense that the Academy's would shower it with love and the backlash to the movie will continue to grow, especially in the wake of Wolf of Wall Street. It's closer to a 3.5 than a 4 star movie, but I think this is one that will age better, especially when stacked against Bale's more serious roles.

[wigwam]

the disco scene felt like it was channeling Boogie Nights more than anything Marty has done

Boogie Nights is already so Scorsese-indebted that when something like this then borrows from that, it still feels sub-Scorsese to me

[Bosco B Thug]

David O. Russell is an ideal idealistic Hollywood studio director. He believes a good story, characters, drama, and visual allure is what makes a picture. Nothing else, like why he's telling this story about two misfits and their emotional commiseration with a "poor sap" stupid-dirty politician. He's also the pasticher of the century, tying together decades of mainstream-beloved classical directors together with whatever it is that gets Academy members watching these days.

As much about Americans wanting too much and enjoying too much as Wolf of Wall Street but without seeming to care much.

Adams is great, Lawrence's roughness used well, everyone else quite fine.

[Izzy Black]

A good story, with good characters, drama, and visual is a good enough reason in my book to tell the story. He's telling the story because, I assume, he finds it interesting. And me too.

It's also not really pastiche so much as it is homage, but in any case, it's as much his own style as it is Scorsese. And outside of Scorsese, I don't really see many references to anyone else.

[Bosco B Thug]

It's also not really pastiche so much as it is homage, but in any case, it's as much his own style as it is Scorsese. And outside of Scorsese, I don't really see many references to anyone else.

It's not really overt pastiche, but that "tying together" I mentioned, where he's representing great classical impulses from every decade (Scorsese and even some Casavettes from the 70s, 60s Lumet and Preminger, 40s Ophuls, every screwball comedy in the 30s, maybe even reaching back to Sternberg spectacle) but then filters it through the sense of pandering everyone else is mentioning. I mean, I think Russell makes really uniquely enjoyable films for this time in movies, but I think the critiques against him stand.

[Izzy Black]

What you're talking about is a genre convention. The film itself is a genre film. I don't think it's pandering because he obeys certain genre rules or conventions or that it's pastiche because his manic style can be traced back to certain stylistic influences (which, I'm not aware that they are obviously conscious influences). What he does interesting lies elsewhere, particularly in the development of his female characters and problematizing the role of protagonist/antagonist dichotomies. This contributes to the general theme of disillusionment, misplaced ambitions, and false hopes of the American dream. Aside from that, I'm not really sure which critiques of Russell you're appealing to.

[Izzy Black]

I guess what you're saying is that the critique that Russell is pandering still stands. If that's the case, I haven't seen a lot of evidence of it from critics. I can definitely see The Fighter as Oscar bait, but I think both American Hustle and Silver Linings Playbook, while more mainstream/commercial offerings, don't strike me as pandering Oscar bait. They return to his comedic/absurdist/manic style that is found in all his other films. As for the style itself, like I said, I'm not aware that it's obviously consciously derivative as opposed to just being similar to other directors.