*** Official "ROAD TO PERDITION" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Rain]

I understand that Mendes' secondary characters, particularly in American Beauty, are all broad strokes, emphasizing only the single trait that most defines their horrid existences. But I'd thought that this was merely Mendes' way of transforming them into ciphers for his simple-minded cultural criticism, but after "Perdition" I wonder whether he's ever met a real woman, much less whether he's capable of portraying one as a full-blooded human being.

And after such a comment, I have to wonder if you have actually seen the whole of Mendes' films.
So now you are criticising Mendes for casting Leigh in a small role. Would the film as a whole have been better had he casted an unknown in the part? Sorry but this type of empty "criticism" is meaningless.
I also disagree with you about character development in the two films in question. I walked away from both American Beauty and Road to Perdition with the feeling that I had a good understanding of the characters and what made them tick.
In the case of Leigh's character, she was sufficiently defined for the limited scope of her role in the overall story. Perhaps it wasn't the most challenging or flamboyant performance she's ever given, but it really didn't need to be.
It is starting to sound very much like you have some sort of personal bias against Sam Mendes. Your criticisms seem to be becoming more and more baseless as this thread progresses. I'm reminded of the critic (whoever the heck it was) that commented that the film was "too brown."

 

[Quentin]

I'll throw down...
The film is heavily flawed.
First problem: It starts FAR too late. You're an hour into the film before it really gets going. I'll almost forgive this in a better film that USES that time for some SERIOUS setup. This film doesn't.
Second: The film (and, by association, Mendes) does not know what it's about or from whose perspective the story comes. Is it a story of lost innocence told from the POV of the kid? If it is, then it cheats the end (he doesn't lose innocence), and too much of the story is told from Hanks point of view...which brings us to the other possible POV of the story - it could also be a story about honor/loyalty/revenge as are the graphic novel and "Lone Wolf and Cub" (upon which Perdition is based). To be such a film, it must be from Hanks' POV...but, too much of the film is from the kids POV. So, perspective is a BIG problem here.
Third: The end is a cheat no matter how we look at it. AND, it's a schmaltzy, trying-to-do-everything, convoluted, contrived, BAD ending. It's too "happy" for one thing. If it were a tale of lost innocence, then the kid should have shot Jude and Hanks should have wept about that loss as he died. If it were a tale of honor/loyalty/revenge, Hanks should have died in the hotel when he kills Newman's son. Heck, he went in EXPECTING to die...and he should have. A samurai without a master (once Newman is dead) WANTS to die. For Gods sake, someone re-watch "Ghost Dog" or re-read "Lone Wolf and Cub".
Fourth: It's pretentious. From "silent" big moments with the final gunshots edited in at the end to catholic iconagraphy that leads nowhere.
Fifth: All of Hanks murders occuring off-screen or with balletic music/choreography and Law's murders all very much in your face. AND Law has bad teeth, bad hair, and eventually scars. Gosh, who is the bad guy do you think? Speaking of which...if this film is done properly, Hanks should have been a much more lethal, cold blooded killer and STILL cared about his son. As he is portrayed, he is too soft, too muted, and not nearly dark enough...perhaps Hanks didn't want to go that far? The only reason to cast Hanks in the first place (other than B.O.) is because audiences LOVE him...so, you could make his character an "angel of death" and still get sympathy. But, this film has none of that.
Sixth: Plot holes in abundance. People find each other without any work at all, the "farmer family" asks no questions, Law kills a cop then gets mutilated at the scene of a murder, but he is free to conveniently appear in the final scene.
Seventh: It is extremely derivative of "American Beauty". From the same blood sprays to a character obsessed with death and photography to the music.
Basically, the film never has the BALLS to be what it should have been (again, watch "Ghost Dog"). But, it IS ambitious...the concept of what is more important, blood or loyalty is a grand one. And, the performances are mostly exceptional. AND, Conrad Hall deserves the Oscar.
But, it ultimately fails and ends up as a footnote...a trifle...an OK movie.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

And for those of you, including myself, who weren't exactly bowled over by the content of this film, there is still another gangster film coming later this year, this time from Martin Scorsese - Gangs From New York.
The extended preview that was shown at Cannes in May blew away most of the festival attendees. We'll see. I sure hope that one delivers.
~Edwin

 

[Sarah Temple]

i liked it a lot actually. and i thought it was better than american beauty. contrary to popular belief, i dont think that american beauty is amazing and beautiful and creative. in fact, i find it dull. at first, i was magnetically attracted to american beauty because it depicted a suburbia much like mine with hidden truths and high school drama. but with every viewing, i find it less and less appealing. but, road to perdition is a film i could watch over and over again. i dont think the characters needed further development, because the only true important ones are michael and michael really. the only problem i had with the movie was that much like american beauty it beats the point of the movie into your head a little too much. but i liked it. and i thought tom hanks did an amazing job. i wouldnt say it was his BEST, but i forgot i was watching tom hanks... thats for sure.

 

[Ruth_F]

oops...never mind,i figured it out....rf

 

[Ruth_F]

SPOILER DISCUSSION....

One question, (Spoiler!) what does Mike buy when he does away with the Rooneys? Does he supposedly get the rest of the Chicago mob off his back or just retribution since John would not turn from his son, Connor (I assumed that Nitty was speaking with Sullivan on the phone in his last scene)? Was Nitty late in reeling in Jude Law's character?

He buys retribution...and safety for his son. What I didn't get was why did rooney say, I'm glad it was you? Nitty probably never intended to call him off, because either now this leaves him on top...or this is payback for taking the money. Or Jude wants his own revenge.

 

[Ruth_F]

Road To Perdition is not a plot driven film and as such comments about its predictability is puzzling. It is supposed to be predictable. The opening shots set the tone for the entire film and gives away its ending.

exactly...just caught the tail end of sam mendes talking about the opening scene were he indicates the opening scene is intended to let you know where this movie is headed.

 

[Vickie_M]

I wonder whether he's ever met a real woman

Considering that he's dating Kate Winslet, I would say the answer to that is, yes.

 

[Tino]

I interpreted the scene where Rooney said "I'm glad it was you" as meaning that Rooney knew that eventualy his life would end with him being killed and he was glad to be killed by someone he loved.

 

[Vickie_M]

Quentin, it seems to me as if you wanted to see a completely different movie, rather than accepting this film as what it was. I disagree with every single one of your points.

Basically, the film never has the BALLS to be what it should have been (again, watch "Ghost Dog"). But, it IS ambitious...the concept of what is more important, blood or loyalty is a grand one. And, the performances are mostly exceptional. AND, Conrad Hall deserves the Oscar.

Well, I think it did have Balls aplenty, was what it should have been, and agree heartily with you about the performances and Conrad Hall. (And about how good Ghost Dog is)

 

[Rich Malloy]

Where is this personal hostility towards Sam Mendes coming from?

You got it, Edwin - it's the misogyny thing (perceived anyway), at least in part. But that's more to do with portrayals in "American Beauty" than "Perdition" - in "Perdition", the only major female role strikes me as an afterthought, at most, a necessary plot point upon which the vigilantism turns. She's certainly no more fleshed out than any of Charles Bronson's beloved relatives. In fact, maybe less so. I do seem to recall identifying more with the victims in "Death Wish". And then, of course, there's a great big whiff of hypocrisy to "Perdition", with all that carefully established, delicious revenge culminating in tacked-on anti-violence moralizing, blah blah... (rolls eyes in annoyingly dismissive manner)

Since you mention LaBute, I hope you've heard me criticize him for much the same, though LaBute's a great deal more ecunemical in his derision. Maybe more of a misanthropy thing on his part.

Edit: But there's another aspect, too. You'd certainly be right to say that I'm holding Mendes (and LaBute) to a higher standard than, say, the makers of "Eight Legged Freaks" or "Mr. Deeds" (Sandler version). But is this unfair? I don't think so. I don't believe Mendes would have it any other way.

 

[Michael Reuben]

but after "Perdition" I wonder whether he's ever met a real woman, much less whether he's capable of portraying one as a full-blooded human being.

I'd suggest taking in a broader sample of Mendes' directorial efforts before making such sweeping statements. I've seen only two of the dozens of theatrical productions he's mounted: Cabaret (the production that prompted Spielberg to give him American Beauty) and The Blue Room. Both plays featured numerous female characters -- in the case of The Blue Room, five different parts to be played by the same actress -- and I can assure you that the portrayals were as "full-blooded" as the material would allow. In fact, Natasha Richardson's Sally Bowles won the Tony that year; she brought a depth and vulnerability to the part that made Liza Minnelli's movie version look tame.
M.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

You beat me to it Michael. He has also worked with Judi Dench in the critically acclaimed The Cherry Orchard. And of course, The Blue Room featured no other than Nicole Kidman.

~Edwin

 

[Richard Kim]

I would agree that Jenifer Jason Leigh's role is rather limited. However in regards to American Beauty, I disagree with the one dimensionality of the female roles. Annette Bening is not just a "shrill harpie" making Kevin Spacey miserable. She's just as much a victim of the expectations of American middle class suburbia as he is. Notice the scene where she tries to sell the house. It speaks volumes about her character. I also thought Allison Janney did a great job witht he limited dialogue she had.

As for Road to Perdition, it's the best film of the year so far, as far as I'm concerned. Much better than Minority Report.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Better yet, why not discuss the movies in question? After all, I'd never try to defend "What Planet Are You From?" by reaching all the way back to "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?". But I'll accept your plaudits for Mendes' theatrical work, and presume it to be brilliant - that's all I can do, after all, as I haven't seen his productions - but I have seen his movies!
And I certainly have criticisms of the female roles in Mendes' movies, most notably Annette Benning's in American Beauty (though J. J. Leigh is no more than a prop in Perdition). I'm supposed to presume a whole human being because she bursts into tears after failing to sell a house? That's not particularly humanizing. Dylan put as much flesh on just such a person in a single phrase: "Her profession is her religion; her sin is her lifelessness".
Pulling back from the details and looking at the big pictures, I still say it’s fairly lightweight material with a very big budget to make everything else in the film look good. And it shows. It’s pretty to look at but not much to ponder upon at its core. When you peel away its production values, there is a certain emptiness at its heart that is revealed.
What a minute... Edwin said that. Edwin do you still agree with your own words? I do.
And does no one sense the same hypocrisy I do? The delectable revenge of the Death Wish derived plot followed by tacked-on anti-violence sanctimony? Am I the only who thought that completely disingenuous?

 

[Rain]

I interpreted the scene where Rooney said "I'm glad it was you" as meaning that Rooney knew that eventualy his life would end with him being killed and he was glad to be killed by someone he loved.

I had a different interpretation. When Rooney realizes that Sullivan is going to kill him, he knows that his son is going to be doomed as he will no longer be protected. Rooney knew that either Sullivan or his son would ultimately be killed. During the film it is made clear that Rooney realizes that Sullivan is more of a son to him than his real son is. When he is about to be shot and says "I'm glad it was you," he's referring to the fact that Sullivan is the "son" who will survive.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

What a minute... Edwin said that. Edwin do you still agree with your own words? I do.

Of course!
~Edwin

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Have I confused you yet?
~Edwin

 

[Patrick Sun]

Ah...review by confusion!

 

[Michael Reuben]

Better yet, why not discuss the movies in question?

Good advice. I hope you take it.

M.