Home » Articles » Film » Films Reviews »  More Mob Mentality: Gomorrah
Wednesday, February 11,2009

More Mob Mentality: Gomorrah

Coppola’s gangster trilogy exposes faults in Garrone’s ‘Gomorrah’

By Armond White
. . . . . . .

Gomorrah

Directed by Matteo Garrone

At Lincoln Plaza Cinemas and IFC Center

Running Time: 135 min.

After two-plus hours of gangster flick carnage, the Italian art movie Gomorrah ends with a surprise. An epilogue—using solemn white-on-black lettering—explains that the previous gunplay, blood-splattering and numbing Italo-disco pulsations was done for an honorable, muckraking cause. Ha!

Director Matteo Garrone pretends to expose Camorra, the vicious Neapolitan version of the Mafia that has ravaged contemporary Italian society. His title’s clever reference to Sodom and Gomorrah decadence implies biblical judgment. But Gomorrah’s five interlocking stories are told with slow, almost obscenely casual regard. Garment worker Pasquale (Salvatore Cantalupo) tries to outfox the mob; Gaetano (Vincenzo Altamura) double-crosses a gang; young thugs Sweet Pea and Pitbull (Salvatore Ruocco and Vincenzo Fabricino) embark on a mini-war against townspeople while defying veteran hoods; and teenage delivery-boy Toto (Salvatore Abruzzese) chooses dangerous role models. Garrone’s mix of local color, environmental anarchy and sensationalism is prurient; Gomorrah always heads toward awful, inevitable moments of deception and vengeance.

In the Godfather films, Coppola’s revelations of our deepest thoughts about law, order and human weakness were enthralling. That’s why the three-thousand gangster movies The Godfather inspired don’t measure up—and why Coppola’s trilogy still feels definitive. And make no mistake:The trilogy is not definitive without Michael’s repentance and penance in Part III. That sense of justice and genuine sociopolitical inquiry are missing from Garrone’s movie and its pseudo-documentary epilogue. Instead, Garrone’s art-film preening works diametrically. It is a solemn, depressive compliance with bloodlust and corruption. In other words: It’s fashionable. Though short of the standard Coppola established, Gomorrah has been a hit on the film festival circuit for the past year.

This is how it works: Festivals flaunt the latest technical and narrative fads; gatekeepers follow up through local distribution and exhibition; and the press ìdutifullyî ratifies it.The “it” is Garrone’s flamboyantly disinterested style. Since he can’t innovate a genre D.W. Griffith initiated with Musketeers of Pig Alley (1911), he embellishes it with impressive widescreen Cinemascope compositions. Gomorrah is emotionally distanced yet technically accomplished.

Garrone shows near-mastery of multiplane compositions (it’s his ninth film), utilizing all angles and strata of screen space. A two-decked wedding celebration, a statue being lowered into a tenement courtyard, the wide view of chartreuse fabrics throughout a clothing factory and the sight of trucks rolling out of a vast quarry make it feel like these stories are constantly expanding. Garrone shows the corrupt, teeming world, but he isn’t really looking at it.This insufficient, yet refined, approach resembles the failures of Steven Soderbergh’s Che and P.T. Anderson’s There Will Be Blood—two show-offy, intellectually deficient epics. Such filmmaking fulfills a contemporary film-culture process almost as decadent as the mafia itself.To be blunt: Coppola’s emotional directness is superior.

Despite the focus on grassroots criminality, Gomorrah conveys no revulsion. Its details (a waste-dump scandal that connects to the African-immigrant drug underworld then reveals the seduction of local youths) disgraces what once was Italian Neorealism’s glorious social/spiritual perception.The shift is apparent in early scenes of Sweet Pea and Pitbull emulating De Palma’s Scarface—not as cool adolescent style but sheer, nihilistic reprobation. Garrone shares their wantonness.

You could plan an alternative film festival of all the gangster-movie insights Garrone distorts: His mob story neglects the great spiritual and historical investigations of Hong Kong’s extraordinary Infernal Affairs trilogy (which Scorsese’s The Departed stunted). Gomorrah’s mix of arty realism and exploitative subject matter matches the smartass indifference of such critically hailed, dramatic rot as HBO’s The Wire. Aesthetically, Garrone pushes against slick/rough Sopranos/Wire formula, yet it still avoids the real issues until the epilogue.

The pathetic story of little Toto’s corruption (a tale of youth coercion that Notorious recently falsified) suggests that Camorra’s impact is not alien to American experience.Yet, there is no point in falling for Gomorrah when there’s more substance and vitality in the crime sagas Shotgun Stories and What Doesn’t Kill You, the heartfelt Boston gang movie that vanished too quickly. Even a film like Damon Dash’s State Property, where the thick faces and bodies of hip-hop hoodrats resemble Garrone’s beefy Neapolitan goons, offers more instructive portraits of urban ethnicity and social decay. Drained of energy and vigor, Gomorrah confuses gangster fantasy for art.

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Posted at 11/23/2009 
 
awful awful review, one of the best and most thought provoking films i've seen ths year, mr white doesn't know what he's taking about

 

Posted at 11/02/2009 
 
It's based on a book that talks about these facts of reality in the Campania region. If it is a book based on facts derived from newspapers, the movie should be like that. Emotional distance and nihilistic views are part of the equation to interpreting this reality. It is a great movie not because it advertises the Camorra but rather because it displays the actual ruthlessness of it. You don't need explain revulsion because a person with a stable intellect will be revulsed. The reviewer has never stepped outside of his own reality to actually experience or understand the forces in the movie. I strongly suggest that the reviewer go through a course in criminal psychology and sociology before he ever watches a movie based on criminal organizations. Criminal organizations are never glamorous.

 

Posted at 11/17/2009 
Armond White= totally.insane. Yep.

 

Posted at 05/13/2009 
 
ok Mr Armond White, you clearly have no business reviewing films. the article reads like a teenager's attempt at 'trolling'. trashing one of the best films of 2007 (a very good year for films) and the most acclaimed tv show of the last 25 years in such an infantile fashion can only be to attract undeserved attention. I wouldn't be surprised if you next dismiss Kubrick and Tarkovsky as talentless hacks and declare the wayans brothers geniuses.

 

Posted at 05/08/2009 
 
I am an admirer of Coppola and his Godfather saga, but I do not agree with this critic judgment. It' s only that Mr White has not understood what this movie means, which is in part understandable since he is not a Neapolitan and does not know first hand the reality this movie depicts. Myself, I am a Neapolitan so I appreciate what the movie wants to say: the movie says "this is not the old mafia or camorra, this is not the morale world of godfather, where some basic human values were shared and respected. This is now an urban jungle where any contact with human values beyond ruthlessness and greed have been irremediably lost. We have gone too far". I have myself lived day by day this descent into wildness, this dissolution of moral ties and this degradetion of our society, so the movie is an honest and quite accurate portrait of our reality. We have gone too far. You Americans too might have a sense of what going to far is when thinking of Wall Street and the subprime crisis, although the blood flowing in the street is perhpas more sanitized and dignified. Raffaele from Naples

 

Posted at 03/02/2009 
 
Wow, I can't believe any professional reviewer can be so consistently wrong and sophomoric in his expressions and interpretations of film. It's like reading a snooty junior high newspaper film review by a kid who looks up a few "big" words in a dictionary to try to sound intelligent, while utterly missing some of the most important themes and narratives of film and art. The moralizing with terms like "prurient", "obscene", "decadent", etc to criticize the film for what it portrays -- with your typical small-minded notions that depiction equates to endorsement, of course only in films with which you have some moral/political/ideological disagreement -- is a recurring theme in your reviews. That you seem almost chronically unable to grasp the actual themes and narratives of films and art, that you appear almost obligated to utterly miss points and to misunderstand intent, and that you are woefully incapable of getting small details and facts about the films and their stories correct, is shocking. You write the most uninformed, inaccurate, unintelligent, self-important reviews that I have ever read. Someone needs to fire you from this job, and then you need to get a job that doesn't involve trying to watch or understand or explain films or art.

 

Posted at 03/04/2009 
I totally agree, this is the worst film review I have ever seen hands down, the author comes across as a totally clueless hack.

 

 
 


  • Tue
    24
  • Wed
    25
  • Thu
    26
  • Fri
    27
  • Sat
    28
  • Sun
    29
  • Mon
    30

Search in Events

Sign up for the NYPress
e-newsletter for weekly updates
and exciting event info:





Join us on Facebook Follow Us
on Twitter








 User Profile (click to open)



New_York_300_60.gif

 
 
Close
Close