Friday, July 29, 2011

Day 66: I Like The Stink Of The Streets

ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA (1984)
Directed by Sergio Leone
Starring: Robert De Niro, James Woods, Elizabeth McGovern, James Hayden, William Forsythe, Larry Rapp, Joe Pesci, Burt Young, Danny Aiello, Tuesday Weld

Back in the early 70's, Sergio Leone, director of the famed "Dollars Trilogy" (A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, The Good, The Bad and the Ugly), was on the short list of directors Paramount wanted to direct The Godfather.  For his own reasons, Leone turned them down.  So Paramount got B-movie director and Roger Corman protege Francis Ford Coppola, and the rest is history.

Turning down The Godfather had always been one of Leone's biggest regrets.  As such, as far back as he could remember, he always wanted to make a gangster film.  So when he came across the novel The Hoods by Harry Gray, he jumped at the chance to make it into a film.

Seeing as how this is a Sergio Leone film, I'm changing up my format just a bit for this review.  You can listen to this music while you read it.

THE GOOD
As expected, this is a movie by a master filmmaker.  Never mind the fact that it's four hours long; this is basically a clinic on how to make movies right.  Just by watching this one film (more than once, and taking extensive notes), you can learn everything there is to know about the art of filmmaking.  Everything here works.

THE BAD
"WHAT?  You thought there was something BAD about a Sergio Leone film!?  Blasphemy!"

Hold your horses, guys.  I already went on and on about how great Leone was.  But there was a lot about this film that just didn't sit right with me.

I said that watching this movie will teach you all you need to know about artful filmmaking, and it's true.  But to do that, you will have to sit through nearly four hours of horrible people doing despicable things.  The main character, Noodles (De Niro), is one of the most unlikeable protagonists I have ever seen in a movie.  He and his partner Max (Woods) have absolutely no redeeming qualities.  They are greedy, violent, sex-obsessed hoods, and even though their friendship and ultimate falling out are intriguing, it is nearly impossible to like them.

THE UGLY
Noodles is the worst of the two characters, and the movie focuses on him.  While he starts off as a tough little punk in a Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn, he quickly turns into a monster.  Though he does a lot of horrible stuff, the worst is when he rapes his childhood sweetheart Deborah (McGovern), and seems to have no qualms about it.  And the problem is that Leone seems to linger on this scene (and others like it) for just a bit too long, making the animosity grow toward the character we're supposed to be the most interested in.

However, there may be a reason for all this focus on the depravity of these characters.  It's often been said that The Godfather was an extremely romantic take on Mafia families.  Yes, they were criminals, but they were also bound together by a strong family tie.  There's none of that here in Once Upon a Time in America.  These guys are the worst of the worst.  And Leone does do quite a good job at deconstructing the Mafia mythos, just as he had done with the Cowboy mythos many years earlier.

But at least the Man With No Name had a few redeeming qualities.  I just wanted someone to stab Noodles in the eye.

So yes, this is a masterful film by a masterful filmmaker.  But it's one of the toughest movies I've ever sat through.  And it's got an ending that may frustrate (even infuriate) many viewers, and it's the subject of the question that James Woods says he gets asked the most often: Did Max die at the end?  If you think you're up to it, watch it and try to figure it out for yourself.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Day 65: They Can Only Kill Me With A Golden Bullet

LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)
Directed by David Lean
Starring: Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, Alec Guinness, Anthony Quinn, Claude Rains, Jack Hawkins, Jose Ferrer, Anthony Quayle, Arthur Kennedy

A few years back, when I was first becoming interested in the study of film, I had a list of films that many considered to be "required viewing."  All of the typical films were on there: Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Seven Samurai, The Good, The Bad and the Ugly and the like.  During this time, I came across Lawrence of Arabia.  I tried to sit through it, but the long, tedious shots of the desert and the snail-like pace at which the film moved were too much for me, and I gave up before the Arab Revolt had taken Aqaba.  Man, this movie is overrated, I thought. 

Flash forward to now.  I have just sat through the entire 3 hours and 47 minutes of Lawrence of Arabia, and I have just one question for the Me-of-the-Past: What were you thinking?

It would be tedious and rather pointless for me to sit here and reiterate what every film textbook ever written has said a hundred times over, but...this is a great film.  And it's one of those films that film enthusiasts drool over.  It's wonderfully and nearly flawlessly made.  It's got some of the best cinematography in history.  The shots of the desert are legendary.  Even the music is great, with a theme song that I'll be humming to myself the next time I'm in Arizona.  It really is the total package.

But for me, the thing that really made Lawrence of Arabia interesting was Peter O'Toole's performance.  It's one thing to make a character interesting, but O'Toole makes T.E. Lawrence almost hypnotic.  Everything he does has such purpose and weight behind it that you can't wait to see what he does next.  But the thing about T.E. Lawrence was that he was, by all accounts in real life, a riddle wrapped in an enigma.  And O'Toole plays this up to the hilt.  There are very few times in the film when one can tell whether or not Lawrence is being sincere, or more specifically, what his plans and intentions are.  Even real-life accounts of Lawrence's life were said to be greatly exaggerated by the man himself.  So is what we see really what we get?  Only Lawrence knew for sure.  And O'Toole plays up the mystery.

When a movie gets up to and past the 3-hour range, it is of the utmost importance to keep the audience interested.  I admit that a few years ago, my attention span was rather short, and that was to my own detriment.  Because of that, I missed out on some great films.  And I think the movie-going audience at large is missing out as well.  Movies are supposed to take us on journeys, and journeys are not about destinations.  They're about the experience we have getting to the destination.  We should all sit back, relax and enjoy the scenery once in a while.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Day 64: An Eye For An Eye Only Makes The Whole World Blind

GANDHI (1982)
Directed by Richard Attenborough
Starring: Ben Kingsley, Roshan Seth, Saeed Jaffery, Alyque Padamsee, Candace Bergen, John Gielgud, Martin Sheen, Trevor Howard
There are two ways I could talk about this film.  I could either A) talk about the technical aspects of the production, which would bore all but a select few of my readers; or, I could B) just talk about how this film made me feel, which makes more sense.  After all, this film wasn't made so a bunch of film techies could sit around on a Friday night talking about how great the camera work is.  Gandhi  was made to elicit an emotional reaction, which is exactly what it does.

In fact, my own reaction to the film is really one of awe.  Kingsley's portrayal of Gandhi was done with great reverence, and it's astounding how much he actually looked like Gandhi.  He really got lost in the role, which helped me get lost in the story.  Keeping the audience's interest is key in any film, but even more so when you've got something important to say.

Of course, there is a difference between Gandhi the man and Gandhi the character, and I think what we get here is more of a character.  But we don't get a characature, which would have defeated the whole purpose.  However, Attenborough doesn't shy away from the fact that he's making a narrative film and not a documentary.  And it is an epic film, at that.  But he borrows more from David Lean than Cecil B. DeMille, which is a good thing.  It's actually a bit of an oddity to have a movie that this big (30,000 extras were used for the funeral scene alone), but doesn't become cartoony.  That danger must have been on Attenborough's mind quite a bit.  I imagine it would be on the mind of anyone who would make a movie about such an important subject.

I realize I wrote more about the impact the movie had on me than the movie itself, but then again, it's that kind of a movie.  Yes, it's beautifully shot, wonderfully acted and lovingly made, but it really is more than the sum of its parts.  It's the story of a man who changed the direction of his country, but in the end, couldn't change human nature.  But the fact that he tried is what made him so noble and such a fascinating figure.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Epic Win

Taking a bit of a vacation right now, but I will be back next week!

My next group of films will test the strength of my bladder and the length of my attention span, as they are all films that are 3 hours long or longer.  On the block are:

Gandhi
Lawrence of Arabia
Malcolm X
Once Upon a Time in America