CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › L.A. Confidential
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

L.A. Confidential

post #1 of 65
Thread Starter 
The only thread I found dedicated to this is inaccessible due to the forum reboot.

So the Parkway Theater in Minneapolis is showing this tonight as part of its LA Noir series, but due to my parents visiting, it's a no-go for me. So I drown my sorrows in throwing up a thread commemorating the film's greatness and ordering it on Blu-Ray.

One of the very few film adaptations that succeeds where its estimable source material falls short, the dramatic impact of the movie satisfies on a level the labyrinthine plot of the novel never reaches. The movie makes everything tighter, leaner, but not in any way lesser. While a mainstream Hollywood movie could never delve to the bleakness Ellroy is able to wallow in with his prose, the sleaze and corruption that is visible is so effectively displayed on screen that it's obvious there's even worse under the surface.

First movie I ever saw Spacey, Pearce, or Crowe, and I was banking on Pearce to be the breakaway star between the two Aussies; hindsight and Crowe's resultant career shows my preference for Exley as a character in the book tainted my perception. Crowe is absolutely electrifying, every twitch of eyelid a glimpse into the darker impulses he's trying to rein in. One of the most compelling aspects of Bud as he's written in the script and played by Crowe is that even though he's not the sharpest tool in the shed, he's just as multifaceted as the smarter playmakers like Exley and Vincennes. It would have been too easy to go the dumb brute route.

What in Curtis Hanson's filmography indicated he could have pulled this feat off? Hand That Rocks the Cradle? Just a great film in every way, its Basingerity notwithstanding. God, I wish I were watching it right now.

ETA: And David Straithairn became one of my favorite actors with his subdued turn as as the ubersmooth pimp Patchett. His performance here seems to be unfairly overlooked in discussions.
post #2 of 65
My eldest daughter is now working at a video store. Sometimes she asks me if there's a movie she should watch.."so I can recommend something good if anyone asks". I always recommend she start with L.A. Confidential. Great performances, excellent script and just a truly satisfying climax. It earns every payoff it delivers.

Spacey was the one that caught my eye the first time through (well...okay...Basinger...but you know what I mean), but on repeated viewings I came to appreciate the shadings brought by all the main actors. I'd put this one in the "modern classics" category, easy.
post #3 of 65
The screenplay is a great way of how adapatation works. Frankly, reading Ellroy can be like reading Frank Miller. It just gets out of hand at times.
post #4 of 65
Prior to knowing anything about L.A. Confidential the film, if you had come to me and asked me for a top five list of books that could not be adapted into a movie, it would have been near the top of the list.

An amazing achievement screenplay-wise, and it far outdoes the novel.
post #5 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
The screenplay is a great way of how adapatation works. Frankly, reading Ellroy can be like reading Frank Miller. It just gets out of hand at times.
I couldn't agree more. I love the guy's work, but frankly, your reading palate craves something else after the 400th page of terse sentences without subjects. I'm referring more here to American Tabloid than Confidential, although my favorite Ellroy, White Jazz, is the guiltiest offender. I love it so, regardless.

The last film shown at the LA Noir festival was Chinatown, a film that is often mentioned as the kind of movie Confidential aspires to be, successfully. Will it be esteemed in the same way Chinatown is in 20 or 30 years from now? Having only just seen Chinatown last week, I would say yes, which is all the more impressive considering the context of Polanski's oeuvre compared to Hanson's. It's interesting to think about what the films do differently and when they're on the same track. What I thought of recently is that while Gittes is a lone wolf poking holes in the corrupt system, the ensemble cast of Confidential are all working from inside the system from different angles, all of them corrupted and very culpable for the injustice that occurs.
post #6 of 65
As similar as one could see Chinatown and LA Confidential being, I think they are very different films at heart. Chinatown being so very 70s and bleak, while LA Confidential comes across as its much chipper, old-fashioned, younger brother. And as much as I love LA Confidential, I don't see it becoming anywhere near a classic as Chinatown has become.

It's probably because I'm just too close to LA Confidential while being slightly intimidated by Chinatown's reputation though. Ha, I'm buddies with LA Confidential while being bullied by Chinatown. I don't really know what I'm trying to say exactly, but LA Confidential is a film that I feel comfortable showing my less movie-savvy friends while I'd think twice about suggesting Chinatown. On that basis, I feel like it's why Chinatown will always be more respected. I know it's a silly rationalization, but it's a silly world. Just don't take this comment as a dig against LA Confidential. Because I agree with everyone above that its screenplay is an amazing feat of an adaptation.

I would kill to be able to see this film in theaters. I missed my opportunity in 97.
post #7 of 65
Yeah I have to say, I love the living shit out of LA Confidential, but between "she's my sister, she's my daughter" and "forget it Jake, it's Chinatown" Polanskis masterwork has it dead to rights.

Maybe I just respond more to the incredibly downbeat 1970's-ness of it as opposed to LA's (almost ridiculous) tacked-on happy ending (I mean I know Bud was an ox, but how many bullets holes can one guy survive?), but Chinatown will ALWAYS be held in higher esteem in my opinion.

I enjoy LA more in some ways because it came out in 'my' era, but Chinatown is undoubtly the better classic of the two.
post #8 of 65
Rain Dog put it so much better than I did. And with less words!

About the tacked-on happy ending, I believe it was that way in the book (not that it's any kind of excuse). It's not entirely clear from the movie, but Bud can barely move and is incapable of speech. I also rationalize that ending by remembering that even after all that struggle, Ed Exely chooses to keep the corrupt system going without punishment. The ending comes across happy, but it's kinda subversive without being in your face about it.
post #9 of 65
My memory must be shot (this is news?) because I always remembered Bud dying at the end of the novel...
post #10 of 65
No Bud is alive in the novel. Same like the film.
Exley even gives Veronica a bundle of Dudley's stolen cash as a gift as well.
post #11 of 65
It's really not a happy ending if you think about it. Most of the major characters are dead, Exley has lost his soul and killed a man in cold blood in the process, and even though Bud and Lynn get out alive, there's no indication that they'll make it work* (As much as I love the nuanced self-loathing Crowe uses when playing Bud, there's no real moment where he's like 'oh, ok, Imma gonna stop hitting people now.'). You could argue that it's a Hollywood ending, sure, but after the last two hours, you need to have a little bit of hope. And the two characters who needed to make it out the most make it out together.

The ending to the novel is bleak, like much of Ellroy, but when you look at all the attempts that have been made to adapt his work, L.A. Confidential is the one that gets it right from frame one.

Also, this movie has passed the 10 year hold-up date. It's a classic now. And I'd probably put it on equal footing with Chinatown (another one of my all-time favorites), but I do agree it maybe needs another decade or so to see. And I should probably watch my DVD of Chinatown now, too.

*I keep hoping that Crowe and Hanson's rumored collaboration on a pseudo-sequel about an older Bud White will come to fruition, but I also don't want to see my all time favorite film tarnished even a little by a bad follow-up. But I love that character so much.
post #12 of 65
I'll have to disagree with the Bud/Veronica bit.

It's pretty clear ven in the book that they love each other. Even despite Lynn's affair with Exley (which she did to help Bud). Their relationship seems pretty solid to me.
post #13 of 65
Yeah, but Bud was an abused child, one of the themes of the movie is the sins of the fathers being visited on the sons (both literally and metaphorically), etc. There's no guarantee that Bud's anger and violence won't follow them to Arizona. The movie takes the side that it won't, but you could argue that it's still up in the air.
post #14 of 65
Bud is my favourite character in the book.

He starts off as this not too bright thug. But shows some real heroic qualities (Protects women, fights abusers) and actually starts to show more confidence in his abilities as the story continues.

Exley's father is supposed to be some kind of Walt Disney parallel is he?
post #15 of 65
Exley's father is in cahoots with the Disney-like character in the book. That whole subplot was one of the more disturbing ones in the book. Also, fake Jack Webb is a pedophile in the novel, which, lols.
post #16 of 65
Thread Starter 
Good points on the LA/Chinatown comparisons. LA Confidential will always hold a special place in my heart, but when thinking of some of the shot compositions, the Dunaway breakdown, that plot twist, Chinatown probably swims in a bigger pond.


That aside, am I alone in thinking Basinger didn't do anything special in her performance? Even as a consolation nod in the wake of the Titanic juggernaut, she is just such a glaringly weak link amongst all the incredible performances. (I've never been a Basinger fan, and I acknowledge my bias.) In some great movies, the lesser players are elevated by the stellar work of their costars, but here the work of Pearce, Spacey, and Crowe make Basinger look like she's completely unprepared to play in their league.

Am I wrong?
post #17 of 65
I thought Basinger was fine. Not much when compared to Crowe or Pierce though.

But my impression was that the Veronica in the movie was a lot less manipulative and hard nosed than the one in the book. In that context, I was satisfied with Basinger's performance.

I think the main difference was in the Kevin Spacey character. He's a lot less glamourous in the ending part of the book (relegated to street patrol).
post #18 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by bendrix View Post
am I alone in thinking Basinger didn't do anything special in her performance?
I'm sure someone here will defend her performance. I didn't think it was Oscar-caliber stuff.

My related question is: Is it some sort of inside joke that her character really doesn't look like Veronica Lake at all?
post #19 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

I would kill to be able to see this film in theaters. I missed my opportunity in 97.
Oddly enough I did see this in the theater with my dad. Of course at 14 I wasn't fully aware of what was going on. And my dad didn't think it was anything special.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bendrix View Post
I couldn't agree more. I love the guy's work, but frankly, your reading palate craves something else after the 400th page of terse sentences without subjects. I'm referring more here to American Tabloid than Confidential, although my favorite Ellroy, White Jazz, is the guiltiest offender. I love it so, regardless.
Oh I tried reading the Cold Six Thousand and I gave up pretty quickly. I don't know what Ellroy was trying to do with that but I found it to be unreadable.

From what I remember I liked White Jazz and it's shame that adaptation never took off. Clooney would have been perfect for Klein.

And as for Hanson's approach. One thing I remember from one of the featurettes on the dvd was that Hanson wanted to go for the 50s look but exclude men wearing hats and smoking. It's kind of like the anti-Mad Men in that respect.
post #20 of 65
This came out the year after my old man passed and I remember vividly it being one of my first cinematic experiences where I really fucking missed him - cause he would have adored the shit out of it.
post #21 of 65
The costumes and the score are two of the many technical things about this movie to love. Kevin Spacey is a dapper motherfucker.
post #22 of 65
That he was. He was Dean Martin reincarnated.
post #23 of 65
Got to see this in the theater when it came out, and after already being a big fan of Chinatown, I got a big kick out of L.A. Confidential. I was in 8th grade too. The big shock to me was Dudley turning out to be the main conspirator AND him turning around and shooting Kevin Spacey. I'm sure that was a shocking moment for everyone. The ending shootout is great as well.
post #24 of 65
I love that shot of Exley with his back to the camera raising his badge to the upcoming cop cars.
post #25 of 65
Thread Starter 
Not yet mentioned:

The dual interrogation scene where Exley handles the intercom speakers like a symphony.

Bud and Exley duking it out in the file room one minute, the next minute becoming allies.

"Shut up! A hooker cut to look like Lana Turner is still a hooker."
"She is Lana Turner."

ETA something shamelessly copped from imdb memorable quotes:
Pierce Patchett: I use girls that look like movie stars. Sometimes I employ a plastic surgeon. When the work had been done, that's when you saw us.
Bud White: That's why her mother couldn't I.D. her. Jesus fucking Christ.
Pierce Patchett: No, Mr. White. Pierce Morehouse Patchett.
post #26 of 65
I really wish Colm Meaney had been cast as Dudley Smith but that's a dream that sadly died long ago.
post #27 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by bendrix View Post
Not yet mentioned:

The dual interrogation scene where Exley handles the intercom speakers like a symphony.

Bud and Exley duking it out in the file room one minute, the next minute becoming allies.

"Shut up! A hooker cut to look like Lana Turner is still a hooker."
"She is Lana Turner."

ETA something shamelessly copped from imdb memorable quotes:
Pierce Patchett: I use girls that look like movie stars. Sometimes I employ a plastic surgeon. When the work had been done, that's when you saw us.
Bud White: That's why her mother couldn't I.D. her. Jesus fucking Christ.
Pierce Patchett: No, Mr. White. Pierce Morehouse Patchett.
David Straithairn was one smooth operator. Cool as a pickle playing PMP the Pimp. Heheh. And you pretty much called out one of my most favorite sequences ever; the interrogation of the 3 Negroes.

And much love to Bud and Ed's team up. I love that even after Bud realizes that Ed is telling the truth, he's so angry with himself he just has to let some more anger out on Ed physically while he beats himself verbally (Think, damnyou, THINK!).
post #28 of 65
The interrogation sequence is probably the single scene from the movie that makes it all-time. Just masterful.
post #29 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu View Post
The interrogation sequence is probably the single scene from the movie that makes it all-time. Just masterful.
I'll counter that with Spacey's last scene and "Rollo Tomasi", a scene that doesn't exist in the book. That's one of the few times I remember gasping out loud in the theater.
post #30 of 65
The weak links were Basinger's performance (I love that when Devito takes the dirty pictures of her and Crowe, they have all their clothes on), and Crowe taking a bullet to the face, then appearing good as new in the back of the car. It's surprising it wasn't a change from the novel because it screams studio inteference. More time should have been spent on explaining that he was affected by it, making the happy ending earned.

But performance-wise, Spacey, Pearce, Crowe, Cromwell, the tone, the portrayal of corruption and racism in the LAPD, they all really work. Wasn't there a sequel talked about in the news section of this site? Something about Pearce coming back and playing a different character, or someone else playing Exley?
post #31 of 65
Thread Starter 
Joe Carnahan has been trying to make the last book of the LA Quartet trilogy, White Jazz, for years. For a while, George Clooney was attached to star, but he dropped out. Exley is a player in that book, and I think I remember Pearce said he wasn't interested in reprising the role. Issue's moot anyway because it's been in development hell for so long.
post #32 of 65
While I understand the need for a Hollywood ending and for the villain to be punished, I always thought it sucked that the film killed off Dudley Smith. One of my greatest pleasures in reading the L.A. books was the behind-the-scenes chess match that "LA Confidential" sets up between Dud and Exley: with each settled into positions of power and manipulating the officers around them to get revenge on one another. So, so good.

As a side note (and not to derail), when is Ellroy going to publish "Blood's a Rover"? Rumor has September 2009, but I want to read the final volume of the "American Underworld" trilogy now. Also, when is someone with cajones going to tackle the task of making a film (miniseries?) version of "American Gangster"?
post #33 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post
I'll counter that with Spacey's last scene and "Rollo Tomasi", a scene that doesn't exist in the book. That's one of the few times I remember gasping out loud in the theater.
On the new special features from the recent release of the DVD/Blu-ray, they go into how they made Spacey's eyes gradually look dead. He asked that they draw two dots on the wall behind James Cromwell so he could shift focus in his eyes. It was a really cool example of simplicity and good technical acting.
post #34 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattioli View Post
While I understand the need for a Hollywood ending and for the villain to be punished, I always thought it sucked that the film killed off Dudley Smith. One of my greatest pleasures in reading the L.A. books was the behind-the-scenes chess match that "LA Confidential" sets up between Dud and Exley: with each settled into positions of power and manipulating the officers around them to get revenge on one another. So, so good.
They probly wouldn't have killed him if they'd actually planned on making the sequel, because as I recall Dudley is killed at the end of White Jazz. Bad planning on their part, I guess, it would ahve been great to see a continuation with all of the original actors - though I was pretty surprise to see how big a role Buzz Meeks plays in the trilogy, considering how he's portrayed in the film.

Quote:
As a side note (and not to derail), when is Ellroy going to publish "Blood's a Rover"? Rumor has September 2009, but I want to read the final volume of the "American Underworld" trilogy now.
If Cold Six Thousand is anything to go by, this one's going to be 5000 pages long and consist of nothing but 2-word sentences.
post #35 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
On the new special features from the recent release of the DVD/Blu-ray, they go into how they made Spacey's eyes gradually look dead. He asked that they draw two dots on the wall behind James Cromwell so he could shift focus in his eyes. It was a really cool example of simplicity and good technical acting.

Okay, that's kinda cool.

Basinger wasn't up to the task, no. But she didn't bring anything down that I could tell. She hit her beats and that's about it. But to me, she was the least element of the story. Bud and the guys with the girl tied up in the bedroom told me every little bit I needed to know about his attitude toward protecting women.
post #36 of 65
There was talk a year or two ago of the same team getting together to do LA Confidential 2--a new story that would be unrelated to White Jazz. I remember Carnahan writing about it on his blog and saying it wouldn't hold up White Jazz, but that they'd have to change Exley's name in their movie. Ellroy was supposed to write the story for Helgeland and Hanson to work off of, not sure what ever happened to that. God knows Hanson could use something to get him out of his post-8 Mile funk.
post #37 of 65
I must have been 14 or so when I saw this, with my parents on VHS. I can't really remember.

I've been wanting to see it since moving to LA; I think I even have the DVD, which I bought but never saw. I'll try to catch it tonight and report back.

I love, love, love the soundtrack.
post #38 of 65
Throwing a little love to the oft-unsung third Aussie in the L.A. CONFIDENTIAL ensemble: Simon Baker (TV's the Mentalist!) as doomed actor Matt Reynolds. He does a lot with a little in his handful of scenes.
post #39 of 65
I do remember that autopsy report: "Hot Dogs, french fries and semen".
post #40 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beldar View Post
God knows Hanson could use something to get him out of his post-8 Mile funk.
His pre-Confidential, post-Wonder Boys funk you mean?

I thought it was a pretty accepted maxim that Hanson is a pretty straightforward journeyman director who's made one great film in Wonder Boys and one utter classic in Confidential.

I've always found the rest of his filmography to be utterly forgettable (and yep that includes 8 Mile)
post #41 of 65
I really quite enjoyed 8 Mile though. Not a great movie, but one where it seems like it should've never been anything watchable. But Hanson made it so.

What did he make after 8 Mile? Lucky You?
post #42 of 65
Looking back over Hanson's pre-L.A. CONFIDENTIAL credits, I'm surprised at how solid and accomplished his 'journeyman' credentials are.

Stuff like THE RIVER WILD, THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE and BAD INFLUENCE isn't exactly world-beating, but these movies are put together with a strong grasp of narrative and pacing. (I'm very partial to BAD INFLUENCE.)

Plus he seems to generally find the appropriate tone for his films - he captures the right atmosphere in projects as diverse as WONDER BOYS, 8 MILE and the underrated IN HER SHOES.

And Hanson wrote THE SILENT PARTNER, a truly riveting '70s thriller. I'll always have his back for that.

ETA: Forgot about LUCKY YOU - might watch that this afternoon.
post #43 of 65
Lucky You was marketed as a substandard chick flick, but it's actually a fairly solid poker/gambling movie with an unfortunate case of Barrymore.
post #44 of 65
Doing a The Shield parallel

Exley - Alcaveda
Jack Vincense- Shane
Bud- A more noble type of Vic Mackey?
post #45 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattioli View Post
As a side note (and not to derail), when is Ellroy going to publish "Blood's a Rover"? Rumor has September 2009, but I want to read the final volume of the "American Underworld" trilogy now. Also, when is someone with cajones going to tackle the task of making a film (miniseries?) version of "American Gangster"?
You mean 'American Tabloid'?

I've always imagined a Martin Scorsese directed version with Willem Dafoe as Ward Litell and George Clooney as Kemper Boyd.
post #46 of 65
Love this film, but I haven't seen it in about eight or nine years. I remember most of it, but I'd love to give it another shot soon.
post #47 of 65

I don't know anything about the night owl

This may be a question for another thread, but how did the poker playing in Lucky You stack up against Casino Royale? I've seen poker afficionados on this board, especially in the Bond franchise thread, complain about how Bond's playing was all luck. Lucky You also had the distinction of being one of those movies when I feel horribly embarressed for the main character as he makes mistake after mistake and hurts those around him.

Back on topic, L.A. Confidential is incredible. Read the book and agree that the movie streamlines it to a more enjoyable degree. The serial killer subplot in the book, although interesting, went on too long and the fact that it stretched years seemed to make the cops seem incompetent. Love the moment during the interrogation scene when Bud, so pissed, cracks the back of a chair in half.
post #48 of 65
Not that I particularly trust Roeper as a critic, but I happened to catch his review of Lucky You and he seemed to think the poker scenes were quite authentic and specifically brought up Casino Royale as a highly contrived comparison.
post #49 of 65
Lucky You and Rounders have fairly realistic poker scenes. Casino Royale and Maverick, not so much. Thing is, high-level poker is just extremely uncinematic.
post #50 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
[I]Thing is, high-level poker is just extremely uncinematic.
For 99.99% of hands, this is true. However, in every sizable tournament I've ever played there were two or three hands that were definitely Casino Royale-esque in terms of implausibility.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Films in Release or On Video
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › L.A. Confidential