first of all, i think that Hollywood is on a bit of a realism kick these days... not the big-budget actioners or comedies (that seem to be competing to be unfunny); i mean films like 'the sweet hereafter' and 'in the bedroom' and 'ulee's gold', (all of which i liked, but) which in some ways elude the role escapism that i believe movies are meant to fulfill. if all movies were about real people doing realistic things, why would anyone go to the movies?
that being said, hoodlum wasn't quite as good as it could have been because of the lack of realistic situations, mainly due to the whole good gangster/bad gangster conflict. i never really sympathized with bumpy johnson, but rather found myself wondering if he was *ever* going to kill someone (except in self-defense) or do anything bad at all.
look at what the crime library (http://www.crimelibrary.com) had to say about this seemingly selfless gentleman... "Bumpy was a pimp, burglar and stickup man who possessed a recalcitrant attitude. He always carried a knife and gun, neither of which he was hesitant to use. All too often Bumpy ended up in barroom clashes over the slightest of issues. He feared nobody and did not shy from confrontations. Helen Lawrenson, in her book Stranger at the Party, remarked on Bumpy's short fuse and arrogance. "He never learned, however, to curb his temper or to bow his head to any man," She wrote." really? because watching the movie, one would find that bumpy exemplified self-control and discipline. and who did he rob, other than schultz's numbers racket? they conveniently left out the pimping part too - or wait - maybe he was a benevolent pimp?
i'm not saying there should not have been a hero, but heroes can have flaws. this film has some good scenes and acting (tim roth is always on the money, and this is one of my favourite performances of his) but ultimately for me it fell a little shy of the mark. the director has abandoned what could have been (with a bit more work) a well-framed and stoic reminder of a past era, in favour of cheap Hollywood drama. was it supposed to rely on historical texts, including every detail of 1930s harlem? absolutely not. but would duke have done a service to his audience had he made the characters somewhat more true to life and responsive to their respective situations? i think he had a duty to do so.
that being said, hoodlum wasn't quite as good as it could have been because of the lack of realistic situations, mainly due to the whole good gangster/bad gangster conflict. i never really sympathized with bumpy johnson, but rather found myself wondering if he was *ever* going to kill someone (except in self-defense) or do anything bad at all.
look at what the crime library (http://www.crimelibrary.com) had to say about this seemingly selfless gentleman... "Bumpy was a pimp, burglar and stickup man who possessed a recalcitrant attitude. He always carried a knife and gun, neither of which he was hesitant to use. All too often Bumpy ended up in barroom clashes over the slightest of issues. He feared nobody and did not shy from confrontations. Helen Lawrenson, in her book Stranger at the Party, remarked on Bumpy's short fuse and arrogance. "He never learned, however, to curb his temper or to bow his head to any man," She wrote." really? because watching the movie, one would find that bumpy exemplified self-control and discipline. and who did he rob, other than schultz's numbers racket? they conveniently left out the pimping part too - or wait - maybe he was a benevolent pimp?
i'm not saying there should not have been a hero, but heroes can have flaws. this film has some good scenes and acting (tim roth is always on the money, and this is one of my favourite performances of his) but ultimately for me it fell a little shy of the mark. the director has abandoned what could have been (with a bit more work) a well-framed and stoic reminder of a past era, in favour of cheap Hollywood drama. was it supposed to rely on historical texts, including every detail of 1930s harlem? absolutely not. but would duke have done a service to his audience had he made the characters somewhat more true to life and responsive to their respective situations? i think he had a duty to do so.