Frank Costello (The Departed)

PrettyBoy

Watching 'The Departed' on Channel 4 now and I notice that Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) is seen throughout the film wearing purple. He is shown wearing various purple shirts and jackets and I was just wondering if there was any significance as to why he is always wearing this colour?

alanatoday

I hadn't noticed until you said it. I'm interested to find out now.

(Maybe purple brings out the colour of his eyes )

Hank_Jones

I would think it has something to do with Jack Nicholson doing whatever the fcuk he wants these days.
Apparently he wouldn't learn off his lines when they were shooting it and he would just ad-lib a lot of the time.

Would think it was his idea and that it doesn't really mean anything.

indough

Hank_Jones wrote: »

I would think it has something to do with Jack Nicholson doing whatever the fcuk he wants these days.
Apparently he wouldn't learn off his lines when they were shooting it and he would just ad-lib a lot of the time.

Would think it was his idea and that it doesn't really mean anything.

yeah i heard that was quite a problem on this movie

Zero-Cool

Probably trying to re-live his Joker glory days

Average-Ro

Colours in movies tend to mean or foreshadow different things; eg. range can be a sign of danger, blue can be a sign of peace or tranquility etc.

The general idea on purple is that someone is going to die. There's even a book dedicated to this subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Its-Purple-Someones-Gonna-Die/dp/0240806883

krudler

There are quite a few visual themes in it, the X's foreshadowing something bad happening is a big one.

PrettyBoy

krudler wrote: »

There are quite a few visual themes in it, the X's foreshadowing something bad happening is a big one.

Wow, never noticed that. Thanks for posting.

I definitely think there's more to the purple theme than Nicholson just doing what he wants.

strobe

krudler wrote: »

There are quite a few visual themes in it, the X's foreshadowing something bad happening is a big one.

Ha, that's cool. Could be a coincidence, just looking round the room here I can see about 10 or 11 x's but still interesting.

The Maverick

The X's foreshadowing character deaths are meant to be a homage to the original Scarface film made in 1932.

PrettyBoy

strobe wrote: »

Could be a coincidence

Eh....no.

Valmont

Average-Ro wrote: »

Colours in movies tend to mean or foreshadow different things; eg. range can be a sign of danger, blue can be a sign of peace or tranquility etc.

The general idea on purple is that someone is going to die. There's even a book dedicated to this subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Its-Purple-Someones-Gonna-Die/dp/0240806883

That doesn't really mean anything at all. For all we know the stylist might have been having a purple month. Surprised this thread even garnered this many responses.

missingtime

Watched this movie recently. Very overrated although the X thing above is interesting

Valmont

Until I hear it from a director or someone involved with the film I'm calling it a coincidence. There is no reason to assume they foreshadow anything. Especially in a movie where most scenes involves something 'bad' happening or developing anyway. This is just an example of the human mind trying to find patterns where there are none.

Also, from a film makers view, what purpose would it serve to leave these signs around? Why give things away? Did anyone in the cinema actually think 'oh man, the X is back, watch out!"

indough

^^^
im inclined to agree with that

i think the phenomenon is known as 'apophenia'

Valmont

I did some searching and this whole X thing stems from an article by Rene Rodriguez in the MiamiHerald. They just found all of these random Xs and took screenshots which is ridiculous because they don't exclusively occur when a character is about to die. There has been no confirmation by Scorsese on this one at all so until then I'm calling bull**** or apophenia It's a well documented psychological phenomenon for people to find these sorts of meaningless connections and then attach significance to them. Now that you know that I'm sure you will all cling blindly on to your little Xs!

tech77

Nicholson's character refers to a crown in one scene with DiCaprio.
Crown... Purple... Royalty.
Although that would be the extent of the connection- nothing else to reinforce the king/royalty theme tbh.
Just throwing it out there

Has the colour purple anything to do with loyalty/betrayal btw (a major theme in the film).
OK i'll shut up now .

krudler

Valmont wrote: »

I did some searching and this whole X thing stems from an article by Rene Rodriguez in the MiamiHerald. They just found all of these random Xs and took screenshots which is ridiculous because they don't exclusively occur when a character is about to die. There has been no confirmation by Scorsese on this one at all so until then I'm calling bull**** or apophenia It's a well documented psychological phenomenon for people to find these sorts of meaningless connections and then attach significance to them. Now that you know that I'm sure you will all cling blindly on to your little Xs!

Nobody said anything about characters dying, I said foreshadowing something bad happening, which in every scene I posted does, theres no way there would be so many "random" x's in the background, foreground, sets, between characters and on buildings by coincidence, Scorsese is a meticulous director so its deliberate.:need more examples?













Theres a few of those where an X just happened to be, like the scaffolding in the last shot, but the others a coincidence? nah

Valmont

krudler wrote: »

Nobody said anything about characters dying, I said foreshadowing something bad happening, which in every scene I posted does,

It's falling apart already; the Xs are so random the best you can come up with is 'something' bad is/was/or will be happening. Considering this film is one giant train wreck of bad events, that argument is moot.

krudler wrote: »

theres no way there would be so many "random" x's in the background, foreground, sets, between characters and on buildings by coincidence, Scorsese is a meticulous director so its deliberate

There is a way, it's called chance. This is exactly the root cause of human inability to accept randomness or chaos; people are hard wired to find patterns that aren't really there. I could do a case study on your posts here.

You have to admit, you don't know for certain it's deliberate at all. The argument that Scorsese is 'meticulous' doesn't strengthen the issue either. Case closed as far as I'm concerned but I am willing to accept some sort of reason for the Xs if we hear it from Scorsese or someone involved with the film; not some neurotic journalist with too much time on their hands. Next you will be telling me that there are 23 Xs in the film and that in one scene there is a shadow that looks just like the virgin Mary!

PrettyBoy

Valmont wrote: »

It's falling apart already; the Xs are so random the best you can come up with is 'something' bad is/was/or will be happening. Considering this film is one giant train wreck of bad events, that argument is moot.

There is a way, it's called chance. This is exactly the root cause of human inability to accept randomness or chaos; people are hard wired to find patterns that aren't really there. I could do a case study on your posts here.

You have to admit, you don't know for certain it's deliberate at all. The argument that Scorsese is 'meticulous' doesn't strengthen the issue either. Case closed as far as I'm concerned but I am willing to accept some sort of reason for the Xs if we hear it from Scorsese or someone involved with the film; not some neurotic journalist with too much time on their hands. Next you will be telling me that there are 23 Xs in the film and that in one scene there is a shadow that looks just like the virgin Mary!

FFS the all of the X's are hardly a coincidence, they didn't just happen to be there. Scorcese clearly wanted them in there.

krudler

Valmont wrote: »

It's falling apart already; the Xs are so random the best you can come up with is 'something' bad is/was/or will be happening. Considering this film is one giant train wreck of bad events, that argument is moot.

There is a way, it's called chance. This is exactly the root cause of human inability to accept randomness or chaos; people are hard wired to find patterns that aren't really there. I could do a case study on your posts here.

You have to admit, you don't know for certain it's deliberate at all. The argument that Scorsese is 'meticulous' doesn't strengthen the issue either. Case closed as far as I'm concerned but I am willing to accept some sort of reason for the Xs if we hear it from Scorsese or someone involved with the film; not some neurotic journalist with too much time on their hands. Next you will be telling me that there are 23 Xs in the film and that in one scene there is a shadow that looks just like the virgin Mary!

Yeah, Scorcese and everyone on set just happened to miss the fact they were shooting a scene with a GIANT X right in the shot, and nobody said a word, and this happened over a dozen times throughout the shoot of the movie. Its obvious some of them were a stylistic shot choice, others were a coincidence that fit the look of the movie

2 Espressi

I think there's a Departed Drinking game in the making here somehwere...

Penn

A few of them seem to be coincidental (scaffolding etc), but when you add in ones like these two:

krudler wrote: »

They clearly seem to have been planned, which makes it more likely that the ones which appear coincidental were also planned

krudler

2 Espressi wrote: »

I think there's a Departed Drinking game in the making here somehwere...

We do a Lethal Weapon one, any time you hear Danny Glover go "Riiigggssss!" you take a drink, its easy on the first, but in the second movie you'll be hammered after ten mins

Valmont

krudler wrote: »

Yeah, Scorcese and everyone on set just happened to miss the fact they were shooting a scene with a GIANT X right in the shot, and nobody said a word, and this happened over a dozen times throughout the shoot of the movie. Its obvious some of them were a stylistic shot choice, others were a coincidence that fit the look of the movie

Giant? Right in the shot? Hardly. Some of them flash by very quickly and are off in the distance. The stills give the appearance of permanence to you now but watching them during the film would lessen the impact. Now you're telling that some of them were coincidences and some weren't, how do you know for certain? Oh right I covered that, no one except Scorsese does. I know the film well and the points at which the Xs appear are not uniform in their foreshadowing. In some, something is about to happen, something is currently happening or something has just happened. There are so many presumptions behind this idea I'm surprised people are defending it so vigorously. Perhaps you could gather more support in the conspiracy theories forum?

PrettyBoy

Valmont wrote: »

Giant? Right in the shot? Hardly. Some of them flash by very quickly and are off in the distance. The stills give the appearance of permanence to you now but watching them during the film would lessen the impact. Now you're telling that some of them were coincidences and some weren't, how do you know for certain? Oh right I covered that, no one except Scorsese does. I know the film well and the points at which the Xs appear are not uniform in their foreshadowing. In some, something is about to happen, something is currently happening or something has just happened. There are so many presumptions behind this idea I'm surprised people are defending it so vigorously. Perhaps you could gather more support in the conspiracy theories forum?

Well we know that Scorsese put them there purposely, but for reasons we may never know. Give it over with your ridiculous coincidence argument.

Valmont

PrettyBoy wrote: »

Well we know that ScorseseGod put them there purposely, but for reasons we may never know. Give it over with your ridiculous coincidence argument.

Ridiculous? You see a random smattering of Xs in a movie and all of a sudden you are certain they were all purposefully placed there to foreshadow certain 'bad events'! Read your post again and tell me you don't sound like a religious fanatic. The logic at work here is that faulty.

krudler

Valmont wrote: »

Ridiculous? You see a random smattering of Xs in a movie and all of a sudden you are certain they were all purposefully placed there to foreshadow certain 'bad events'! Read your post again and tell me you don't sound like a religious fanatic. The logic at work here is that faulty.

Ok well ignoring the foreshadowing element, its definitely a stylistic choice, very little on a movie set that makes it to the screen is coincidence, go find me another movie with a piles of "random" X's in a two dozen shots of the movie and I'll admit its a coincidence

PrettyBoy

Valmont wrote: »

Ridiculous? You see a random smattering of Xs in a movie and all of a sudden you are certain they were all purposefully placed there to foreshadow certain 'bad events'! Read your post again and tell me you don't sound like a religious fanatic. The logic at work here is that faulty.

I never said they were there to foreshadow bad events or anything like it. I said they are there for Scorsese's own reasons which we don't know. Maybe it is a homage to the original Scarface movie? Maybe Scorcese likes the letter X? Regardless, he wanted them in the shot.

krudler

Valmont wrote: »

Ridiculous? You see a random smattering of Xs in a movie and all of a sudden you are certain they were all purposefully placed there to foreshadow certain 'bad events'! Read your post again and tell me you don't sound like a religious fanatic. The logic at work here is that faulty.

Visual cues and symbols are constantly used in movies, take M Night Shyamalan, he uses colours constantly to show danger (the red balloon before Cole gets locked in the cupboard in The Sixth Sense, The Village has an entire plot point built around colour) or in Unbreakable, was it a coincidence that the wrapping paper on the comic that Sam Jacksons character gets as a child is purple?



It becomes a colour thats prominent throughout any scene hes in later in the movie, his jackets, his suit, the interior of his car etc etc ,



likewise Bruce Willis's character is always associated with green, be it his shirts, his work poncho, Its a deliberate stylistic choice.



Both colours present here again:


Take the use of colour in Unbreakable again, Shyamalan has said anything red,yellow or orange indicates wrongdoing or evil, eg the man in the orange suit keeping the family hostage being a hugely obvious one,but also in the train station scene, everyone who David encounters who has done wrong is wearing one of those colours, the woman stealing:


The racist attacker:


and of course the man in orange:


But watch the scenes with David and his son, every time we see the kid he's wearing a green tshirt or hoody, and as the movie goes on it gets mixed with other colours, its a red shirt under a green hoody during the scene with the weights:


and then a red tshirt and orange shirt during the scene where hes been fighting in school and sitting outside the principals office (he started the fight, notice the other kid is wearing green, the roles have been reversed, where Davids kid has become a tormentor instead of a protector).



And in the next scene where David is talking to him, there is an amalgamation of green, yellow, purple and orange all together, showing the conflicts between the characters and their motivations:



Then in the final scene between David and the kid, when he's accepted his new hero fate, the kid is wearing a mostly green shirt with very little red and orange on it



After he realises what his father has done we only ever see the green portion of his shirt, showing the "hero" side of him ( Shyamalan had originally intended Unbreakable to be the first act of a 3 movie story about a superhero, but devoting an entire film to the origin story, where most superhero movies, Spider-Man etc get this part done in the first third of the film, and it was also rumoured that his kid would be the villain in the second movie, hence the conflict between him and his father in this and the use of colours to show it)

Or it could all be a coincidence...

christ I have too much time on my hands

Gillington

This is the only thing I could find that apparently Scorcese said.

“For me, there are two major films that are really important from that category,” he adds. “The first is Public Enemy [1931] with Jimmy Cagney, the William Wellman film, which is probably the toughest gangster picture ever made. We wanted to generally refer to that one from time to time in this movie. And more specifically, we wanted to make direct reference to Howard Hawks' and Howard Hughes' Scarface [1932], the original. In that movie, every time someone is killed, there is an ‘X’ in the frame — a cross. You have to find them when you watch the film. It's usually either in the lighting or the shadow, or in the most famous case, if you know the picture, when Boris Karloff, playing the gangster, is bowling, hiding out, and gets shot off camera, you just see the ball drop in the runner of the bowling alley. You never see his body. Then, you see somebody put an ‘X’ up on the scoreboard for a strike in bowling. Those same Xs are in this film. In the beginning, we ‘X’ pictures of each of [the main characters] out as the picture starts. They are like crosses in their graves. Everyone has the same fate in this picture — that's why we call them the departed. The film is filled with that sort of stuff.”

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/fieldprod/revfeat/video_scorsese_gangster_style/

Cartman78

Scorceses makes specific reference to the use of X's in one the extras on the DVD - it's an homage to the original Scarface movie.
Not an expert on Scorcese by any means but I would hazard a guess that every detail in every frame is there intentionally.

As an aside, I'm always disappointed by the negative reviews of this film. Yes, it's not as good as the original or a whole bunch of Scorcese movies that should have won Oscars, but still a damn fine thriller with a great cast of top quality actors

Renn

Not an expert on Scorcese by any means but I would hazard a guess that every detail in every frame is there intentionally.

Exactly. For someone to think otherwise is just silly. These things don't just happen to appear on screen ffs

Average-Ro

Valmont wrote: »

That doesn't really mean anything at all. For all we know the stylist might have been having a purple month. Surprised this thread even garnered this many responses.

The stylist having a purple month? That doesn't mean anything at all. For all we know it might have been done on purpose. (See what I did there?;))

Someone asked why Frank Costello might have been wearing a lot of purple, I gave an answer, with an example/proof. You don't seem to understand the level of attention that goes into every single detail with regards to filmmaking. Colour is a hugh part of it (as outlined by a previous post regarding "Unbreakable") and it wouldn't be something as simple as the stylist having a "purple month".

Valmont wrote: »

Until I hear it from a director or someone involved with the film I'm calling it a coincidence. There is no reason to assume they foreshadow anything. Especially in a movie where most scenes involves something 'bad' happening or developing anyway. This is just an example of the human mind trying to find patterns where there are none.

Also, from a film makers view, what purpose would it serve to leave these signs around? Why give things away? Did anyone in the cinema actually think 'oh man, the X is back, watch out!"

Again, not comprehending the level of detail in filmmaking. Ive been on plenty of sets and the main thing that seperated the good directors from the bad directors (and the good films from the bad) was the attention to detail.

Gillington posted a quote from Scorsesse above. Do you agree now that it's not a coincidence?

krudler

Someone asked why Frank Costello might have been wearing a lot of purple, I gave an answer, with an example/proof. You don't seem to understand the level of attention that goes into every single detail with regards to filmmaking. Colour is a hugh part of it (as outlined by a previous post regarding "Unbreakable") and it wouldn't be something as simple as the stylist having a "purple month".

Exactly, movies arent shot on a location that just happens to look exactly what ends up on screen, set designers, costume designers, the director, the visual dept, all have a hand in it, theres very little coincidence in movies that wind up on the screen

PrettyBoy

krudler wrote: »

Visual cues and symbols are constantly used in movies...

...Or it could all be a coincidence

Gillington wrote: »

This is the only thing I could find that apparently Scorcese said.

Cartman78 wrote: »

Scorceses makes specific reference to the use of X's in one the extras on the DVD - it's an homage to the original Scarface movie.
Not an expert on Scorcese by any means but I would hazard a guess that every detail in every frame is there intentionally.

Renn wrote: »

Exactly. For someone to think otherwise is just silly. These things don't just happen to appear on screen ffs

Average-Ro wrote: »

Someone asked why Frank Costello might have been wearing a lot of purple, I gave an answer, with an example/proof. You don't seem to understand the level of attention that goes into every single detail with regards to filmmaking. Colour is a hugh part of it (as outlined by a previous post regarding "Unbreakable") and it wouldn't be something as simple as the stylist having a "purple month".

Gillington posted a quote from Scorsesse above. Do you agree now that it's not a coincidence?

krudler wrote: »

Exactly, movies arent shot on a location that just happens to look exactly what ends up on screen, set designers, costume designers, the director, the visual dept, all have a hand in it, theres very little coincidence in movies that wind up on the screen

Still just a coincidence Valmont? :pac:

2040

It's amazing how many people fail to appreciate how much attention to detail goes into movies.

Watchmen is another great example:









source.





et cetera.

krudler

One of the best examples of attention to detail and meticulous planning in movies is Michael Mann, take this for example from The Insider:

Toward the end of the film, Mike Wallace shows Lowell Bergman an unflattering article and editorial about CBS in the latest New York Times. The article and editorial are clearly from different sections of the paper. This would seem to be a goof, since the Times' op-ed pieces usually appear in the back of the main news section. The real-life pieces to which this scene refers, however, were published on a Sunday (12 November 1995), which means that the news and editorials would in fact have appeared in separate sections, just one more example of director Michael Mann's eye for detail.

I love all the meticulous details that go into movies, people who pass it off as coincidence just have no vision

amacachi

I know it's not a film but just look at Arrested Development for examples of foreshadowing etc.

indough

krudler wrote: »

I love all the meticulous details that go into movies, people who pass it off as coincidence just have no vision

we also know that the majority of the time these things are just coincidence, take the one about the colour orange in the godfather for example, probably the most well known of all, the filmmakers to this day say it was just a coincidence yet people go on about it foreshadowing death etc

we know now that it was intentional but its not such a stretch to believe an x could show up in shot every now and then in a single film, its hardly a complex shape and you could probably point out a dozen or so in any 2 hour long film if you looked hard enough

Valmont

Gillington wrote: »

This is the only thing I could find that apparently Scorcese said.

Straight from the horse's mouth! I can live with that.

Valmont

krudler wrote: »

people who pass it off as coincidence just have no vision

Goodness you are deluded. I was completely wrong, in this case, but don't insult me because of it. If you think skepticism in this case implies a lack of vision then you need to get the dictionary out. Speaking of vision, you weren't the one who discovered the Xs either; I'm not accusing you of having no vision am I? Perhaps you are willing to accept, unwaveringly, any assortment of random signs as something meaningful, I simply ask for evidence. If you think that is a bad thing, well I can't help you there.

PirateShampoo

I watched Shutter Island last night and i was seeing bloody X's everywhere.

Liam O

If only everyone watched the extras on the DVD It was a feature on Scorcese's direction afaik where they say that the Xs are there as a homage to Scarface and it even gave examples from both movies

watched Shutter Island last week, never looked out for it, will do tomorrow on my second viewing

RGDATA!

PrettyBoy wrote: »

Watching 'The Departed' on Channel 4 now and I notice that Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) is seen throughout the film wearing purple. He is shown wearing various purple shirts and jackets and I was just wondering if there was any significance as to why he is always wearing this colour?

i'm a total believer in apophenia, but I'm a little incredulous that there's debate on a film forum that motifs like this in a Scorsese film might just be incidental or coincidental, especially with the catholic connotations of purple...

"Purple is used [by the Catholic Church during Lent] for two reasons: firstly because it is associated with mourning and so anticipates the pain and suffering of the crucifixion, and secondly because purple is the colour associated with royalty, and celebrates Christ's resurrection and sovereignty."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/holydays/lent_1.shtml

I only saw the Departed once a while back and I don't remember copping this when I saw it but his films are loaded with Catholic imagery and themes.

decent video series of Scorcese talking about his favourite movies - relevant words to this discussion from the very beginning where he talks about when he:
"began to realise what a director did: that is, translate ideas into images, using the lens like a pen, and that's the key - forcing the audience to see a thing a certain way, that you want them to see it."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TJKf70Tpfc

Valmont

RGDATA! wrote: »

i'm a total believer in apophenia, but I'm a little incredulous that there's debate on a film forum that motifs like this in a Scorsese film might just be incidental or coincidental, especially with the catholic connotations of purple...

Why does it surprise people that not everyone knows so much about Scorsese? Or about film making in general? I'll be paying closer attention when I watch Shutter Island, but you can't seriously expect everyone to pick up on these things.

PirateShampoo

I wasn't deliberately looking out for them in Shutter Island, just when the opening scene where he is driving up to the gates there are 4 massive X's on them. So then this thread got stuck in my head and i was seeing them all over the place.

I think most of them where just coincidence.

RGDATA!

Valmont wrote: »

Why does it surprise people that not everyone knows so much about Scorsese? Or about film making in general? I'll be paying closer attention when I watch Shutter Island, but you can't seriously expect everyone to pick up on these things.

didn't mean to sound consdescending or whatever, just I assumed most folks on a film forum would know scorsese's form. of course not everyone is going to pick up on these things.

Hrududu

Back to the original questions Roman Consuls wore togas with purple borders. The robes of the Emperors were also purple.