Back in December last year, shortly after watching "The Wolf of Wall Street" with a friend, I got into a thought-provoking conversation with him over dinner. Both of us were fresh off separate viewings of "American Hustle" and we couldn't help but compare notes about what we felt about the two movies; particularly with respect to their treatments and cinematic styles. My pal was clear in his choice when it comes to the two flicks. From a complete cinema experience stand-point, 'Hustle' took the cake for him. He felt it'd managed to drive a point home while 'Wolf' was a bit loose-ended; a feeling left without closure. Now, being a staunch Scorsese fan, I'd have expected myself to defend 'Wolf' against all odds, however, somehow, I couldn't. Rather, I was left questioning myself as to why that sense of closure was indeed missing with 'Wolf' and was rather totally present with 'Hustle' despite both of them, in my book, having been exceptionally written, and containing distinctive flavors their respective directors could only give them, with some brilliant performances by their casts.
Now, keen observers and Scorsese fanatics (yours truly included) would notice the fact that David O.Russell has been infusing a hint or two of the classic Scorsese filmmaking cues into his flicks, albeit with his own distinctive touch. Fast and restless camera movements, heavy dialogue with multiple characters speaking simultaneously, et al. These were quite evident with David's last outing, "Silver Linings Playbook" and they had their fair share in 'Hustle' too! What all of this brings to the table are deeply probing character studies. Heedless to the scenario the flick is set in, (boxing in 'The Fighter'; romance between mentally instable people in 'Silver Linings'; 70s style crime setting in 'Hustle'), the audience is thrust into the world of the people shown in the flick - not the mere gravity of the situation they're in, but the effect it has on their emotions and reactions. This is innately a powerful way to get the viewers love the characters and begin to care for them; which eventually leads on to that sense of closure when the flick takes these characters to a happy ending. This is exactly where the differential factor between 'Hustle' and 'Wolf' lies; and I could discern it only after watching yet another flick devoid of a sense of closure for the aforementioned friend (and to an extent, me too) despite general reverence; '12 Years a Slave'; The factor? - adapted screenplays.
Come to think of it, all three aforementioned flicks have screenplays adapted from previous real life incidents expressed in books (in the case of 'Hustle', a much reported scam from yesteryears). Yet each flick is treated in a different shade. 'Hustle' is a script tailored to be a flick that falls into the 'heist' regime, originally to be directed by Ben Affleck, before David got on board. The characters are caricatures of their real life counterparts, with several idiosynchracies thrown and boy, are the cast adept at portraying them! One can not miss the evidence that the flick has the conventional 'three-act' structure, comprising 'scenario establishment'-'conflict escalation'-'resolution' in chronological order. It does have randomization of the events thrown in, with the supremely hilarious segment starting with Chris Bale meticulously arranging his coiffure leading onto past plot narration and then on to further events. Sensational scenes are abound, including the segment involving the meet with the mafia group from Miami (De Niro sneaks in a stylish part there) and the 'treat-to-watch' kiss scene between Amy and Jennifer. However, all that adds upto the third act, the much needed conclusion that drives characters to an ending, its condition notwithstanding. I'm guessing this is what brings that sense of closure to someone in the audience who's spent about 120 minutes empathizing with those on the screen.
However, when it comes to 'Wolf' and '12 years', the essence of developing the screenplay was always about fulfilling the compulsion to tell a story that someone read somewhere and found a sense of connection in. With 'Wolf', it was DeCaprio's persistent urge to get a story so deeply rooted in Caligula-esque decadence be filmed (by Scorsese, no less) and with '12 years', McQueen finds his voice in filming a 19th century novel about slavery. Both flicks stay true to their sources, with episodes largely derived from respective books. Although it is not pretty evident in 'Wolf', what with Scorsese employing his mastered techniques, there's a sense of first-person narrative effect in how the screenplay is paced and established. As if, the protagonist was narrating the entire thing over to you on a cold evening while seated by the fireplace, and while doing that, he is taking liberty in just mere accountance of the events that happened, whilst throwing special emphasis on certain events that had the deepest impact and invoked the strongest emotions out of him. In '12 years', the part on how he's captured is done away with in a montage of scenes, while the part where Lupita's character is tortured is recounted in intricate detail. The same effect is present in 'Wolf' where much of the profanity with the prostitutes is shot in montages but the one where DeCaprio struggles and crawls to his Lambo is exploited with great interest.
What this shows is how these two flicks are so fixated on telling the story true to how it might have happened in the real world, regardless of the effect the audience might carry over. They're content with letting the audiences carry a sense of discomfort away from the flick and then mull over it. (And most flicks usually contain that as their very essence). Often, what happens outside the theatre seldom has closures, there's always a moment of angst, a moment of redemption, but life as it is, goes on. Jordan Belfort is still out there, largely unpunished, and continuing to inspire people to be greedy. Solomon Northup could never bring his captors to stand on trial. Life; is like that.
