Skip to main content

Ben Affleck Turns Bootlegger


          For some time now, I’ve been fascinated by Prohibition gangsters. It might have something to do with the fact I used to get paid to play one. Nonetheless I’m still incredibly intrigued by that era, and what it brought out in people, what with the rise of organized crime. The last great prohibition gangster film was Road to Perdition which is unexpectedly a really touching story about a father and son. Ben Affleck’s Live by Night may be trying to be as good, utilizing this world to its fullest.
          The movie, based on the book by Dennis Lehane follows Joe Coughlin (Affleck) a small-time bootlegger from Boston who gets caught in the Italian-Irish gang war between bosses Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone) and Albert White (Robert Glenister) when he falls in love with White’s mistress (Sienna Miller). Eventually, it lands him in Tampa, Florida where he begins to build his own criminal empire. 
          The story of a gangster’s rise to power we’ve seen plenty of times before, but this film does it in some interesting ways. It’s episodic but in a good true-to-life way, feeling very fluent in its movement from one incident to the next. 
          This film looks great. Part of that is due to the setting which really highlights the Tampa area, the tropical atmosphere and Cuban culture. We haven’t seen many gangster films set in this part of America during this time, usually it’s New York, Chicago, or if you watch Boardwalk Empire, Atlantic City. So the environment and the kind of characters it produces are refreshing. The cinematography is excellent as well, Ben Affleck again proving to be a very strong and innovative director.
          There are a few story issues however. It’s very clear this movie’s based on a book given the pacing, particularly in the first act which is too rapid with its exposition and scene placement to develop Joe much as a character, something I have to imagine the book does better. The first act too is very disconnected from the rest of the film. It ends on a major character moment for Joe, but it doesn’t really change him or his ambitions. Even his initial plan for going to Tampa, being part of a quest of vengeance is eventually given up on and it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. 
          In fact the biggest problem may be with the character of Joe on a whole. Though played adequately by Affleck, the film is advertised with the line: “Joe once was a good man” despite us never seeing that side of him. He fought in the war and we learn that through the opening narration, but the movie makes clear he was a criminal pretty much since he came back from Europe. The inciting incident in his becoming a gangster is never delved into and so there isn’t much investment in his morality. He apparently has a problem with killing people personally but we don’t really understand why. It gives relatively little emotional weight to his character arc. Had he not been already involved in organized crime in the first act it might have worked better. But it’s a major character oversight like this that doesn’t make it as great as Road to Perdition or Boardwalk Empire where the motivations and history of the lead figures were crucial to the audience sympathizing with them. 
          The supporting cast is filled with really good talent though. In addition to Miller, the wonderfully detestable Glenister, and a surprising Girone, Chris Messina plays Joe’s right-hand man Dion while Zoe Saldana plays another love interest Graciela. For what we see of him, Brendan Gleeson is great as usual as Joe’s police chief father, Chris Cooper plays the disciplined chief of Tampa, and Elle Fanning shows some surprising capability as his daughter. Titus Welliver and Anthony Michael Hall even appear in this movie, and the whole cast works together naturally.
          The action scenes are pretty good too. As a film like this promises, we get some good shoot-outs, and though not as bloody as they could more accurately be, they are violent and impactful. As is expected, some deaths act as punctuations, others are more drawn out. And sometimes we get gangs running through a building firing small revolvers and tommy guns.
          Live by Night isn’t a fresh take on the gangster genre and suffers for the significant character problems of its protagonist, a protagonist on whom this whole story hinges. But it does offer plenty of enjoyable performances, a look at the prohibition period from an unusual vantage point, some good action and overall direction. It may not be entirely entertaining if you’re not curious about the era, and the pacing through the second act is more akin to The Godfather than a more action-heavy gangster film, but it is very well-made and though not quite the Oscar calibre it’s probably going for, I definitely had a good enough time with it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...