This particular change to the “French Connection” came without explanation or notice, so we can only speculate on the exact reasoning behind it. But you can imagine why the language even existed in the first place. “The French Connection” is based on a non-fiction book about two real-life detectives, both of whom appear in the film, but this scene clearly places the viewer in a gritty environment, i.e. casual It tries to draw you into a space of violence, outspoken prejudice, and second-rate humor. . There’s a little banter between two police officers working in what was then called the “Inner City,” and a conversation that highlights their “good cop, bad cop” relationship. In some ways, it’s not all that different from the sets you see in blaxploitation films of the time. Doyle’s bar-going zeal hints at the long-running “alcoholic” trope, and his homosexual jokes are a reference to his womanizing, another genre that continues to this day. offset by cliches. His racist rant makes him feel misplaced frustration. Doyle is portrayed as flawed, reckless, obsessive, vulgar and “rough”, but of course, we ultimately intend to make him feel both charming and heroic. He is one of the long running characters in dramas like ‘The Shield’ and ‘The Wire’. “Good Cop, Bad Cop” is a character built around the idea that it’s not just an interrogation style or a companion. Not only a movie official, but also a single officer.
trying to edit Picking just one character flaw inevitably creates a sense of inconsistency. I know a true hero shouldn’t use racial adjectives. But they’re probably also supposed to avoid many other things Popeye Doyle does, like racing (and crashing) cars through residential streets and shooting suspects in the back. This selective edit feels like a project for stakeholders who are so concerned about the film’s legacy and lasting economic value that they don’t want to risk damaging the film itself. The purpose of the editing is not to turn Doyle into a noble figure, but to turn him into a mere character in a film that modern audiences can watch without discomfort or displeasure. Gene Hackman is the great incarnation of American cinematic paranoia in three of the country’s most prophetic and haunting surveillance thrillers: The French Connection, The Conversation, and Enemy of the State. ‘, his turn here is to the extent that organizations ranging from the police to giant corporations are willing to mitigate such risks.
This is a space of casual violence, overt bigotry, and second-rate humor.
Skillful jump cuts reveal all sorts of interesting connections between images. The bad ones only cause problems with your logic. They are disorientated in ways that suggest external, selfish forces are at work. The newest smuggled into the “French Connection” reveals a man’s hand, in historical terms, even if it’s unclear from which direction it’s coming. (Is Disney treating its adult audiences the same way it treats children to whom it’s accustomed? Did Friedkin, who once changed the color of the film, approve of the change?) Like too many cops, censors can be too aggressive or too simplistic in their judgments. Attempts to neutralize perceived threats. Even if the characters featured in the police station scene didn’t let the main characters make offensive remarks, they all went from references to Italian-Americans to codenames “Frog 1” and “Frog 2” for the officers against French targets. To date, it has done nothing to remove other ethnic insults. ’ It’s also hilarious to see the non-verbal violence that so often appears in this film in this sanitized context. A man is shot in the face. A train conductor gets his chest blown up. A sniper misses Doyle and cuts out a woman pushing a stroller.
Surveillance, as this movie teaches us, is a game that requires relentless attention. When you focus too much on one thing, you miss the details that surround it. Picking out details of old works of art to break today’s rules inevitably makes it difficult to see the big picture and full context. Instead, we become fixated on fuzzy indicators, legal violations of our current sense. And actively altering those works—continuously remaking them to suit today’s marketplace—ultimately jeopardizes the entire archival record of our culture. Only present evidence is left, not past documents. In some ways, this is the same spirit in which hard-headed politicians try to keep obnoxious American history out of their textbooks, and students are always learning in a state of constant, inexplicable chaos. , and living.
