| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| demonic |
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 20:14:02
This was a film that I'd seen parts of before but never sat down to watch from beginning to end. I finally did that recently with the uncut DVD and surprisingly I found it fired up some fairly intense emotions.
First off I'm aware that this is a very loved film and is highly considered in the filmographies of all involved (Leone, De Niro and Woods) to the point where it is often cited as one of the defining ganster movies on a par with "The Godfather" and an all-time classic (currently sat just outside the IMDB Top 100) - with that in mind I couldn't help but be disappointed. On the plus - and there are many - the cinematography is absolutely stunning, especially in the childhood sections of the film. The score by Ennio Morricone is justly famous. The diamond heist section of the film is incredibly exciting and expertly paced. Now to the bad...
The plot is frustratingly clumsy. It occassionally felt like two or three fairly interesting films thrown together with no real care or consideration. The childhood section sits next to the middle "criminal" section of the film so poorly they might as well not be the same characters we're watching.
I feel like I'm getting tired of De Niro as I watch more and more of his output from the 70s and 80s - with a few exceptions it's like the same performance being given over and over - the same expressions, the same tricks of delivery. It was actually Woods who made the most impression on me in terms of turning in a compelling three dimensional performance. Which brings me to my biggest problem with the film - Noodles (De Niro) is a totally loathsome character with seemingly nothing apart from the concern for the future of his gang and his similarly unlikeable friends to redeem him. Aside from the theft and murder he indulges in as a teenager and an adult (following a prison sentence in which he seems to learn nothing) he then becomes a rapist. I think the rape scene in the back of Deborah's car is one of the most horrible rape scenes I've watched. Of course it's not as violent or sickening as "Irreversible", "Straw Dogs", even "Deliverance", and the endlessly unpleasant sequence in "The Baby of Macon" is up there too, but in this instance the rapist was our central protagonist - in all the other instances our protagonist or at least a main character is the person being raped and we're affected because we imagine ourselves in their awful position. Here we're seeing our main focus violating his childhood sweetheart and the only part of him that by his own admission made him redeemable. Everything that happens following that sequence I lost all interest in the outcome of Noodles story - I just wanted him to pay for what he'd done. This is all made worse by Elizabeth McGovern's entirely insipid performance as Deborah (a shame as Jennifer Connelly in her film debut sets the character up beautifully, with some real grace and poise).
The final scenes - Noodles revisits Deborah, who really doesn't seem too bothered that the last time she saw him some thirty years before he raped her. (She's even named her son after him!) But for some reason she has spent most of her life with Max, another violent and unpleasant character who previously has had no interest in Deborah whatsoever. It seems like such a clumsy way to tie together the story that I'm surprised more people don't roundly criticise. Max, having remarkably become another man in society entirely with political power wants Noodles to now kill him rather than face the disgrace of being uncovered as a crook. Again, this just seems totally contrived and a lazy way of ending the movie.
The controversies surrounding the end are well documented. Does Max kill himself in the garbage truck or is he murdered, or is the man Max at all? - the actor performing the scene filmed on a long lens is James Woods' stand in - to intentionally make it unclear. That is fine - I like that ambiguity. The final freeze-frame smile as Noodles goes into an opium haze suggests on the DVD that the whole third section of the film (everyone older, Noodles returning to NY) is actually a dream. I'm not so impressed by that theory, but I'll buy it anyway. All that can't distract me from my central problem with the film - there are plenty of films with anti-heroes and even out and out villains that are compelling, but how can you care about a character who in this instance is meant to be sympathetic that you can't help but entirely hate?
I'm looking forward to hearing your comments! |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| randall |
Posted - 03/10/2007 : 21:48:45
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
When was the last time anyone reading this post felt the need to avenge their father and kill a few people in public, or kill someone who got in their way, or strap the rotting corpse of their mother into a wheelchair, or dig up graves and make clothing from the dried genitals of the corpses? 
Tuesday.
 |
| Sean |
Posted - 03/10/2007 : 20:58:41
|
| demonic |
Posted - 03/10/2007 : 14:49:44
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
When was the last time anyone reading this post felt the need to....kill someone who got in their way.
I live in London Sean, it's a daily occurrence.  |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 03/10/2007 : 12:10:02
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
When was the last time anyone reading this post felt the need to avenge their father and kill a few people in public, or kill someone who got in their way, or strap the rotting corpse of their mother into a wheelchair, or dig up graves and make clothing from the dried genitals of the corpses?
Tuesday.
... and did you manage to control your urges? and/or what garments did you actually devise?
|
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 03/10/2007 : 11:40:25
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
When was the last time anyone reading this post felt the need to avenge their father and kill a few people in public, or kill someone who got in their way, or strap the rotting corpse of their mother into a wheelchair, or dig up graves and make clothing from the dried genitals of the corpses?
Tuesday.
|
| Sean |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 22:09:43
Implausible personality transformation to suit a plot is one of my gripes in fiction. The most recent one was a few days ago when I saw Mr Smith goes to Washington. <SPOILERS> I gave the movie 10/10 up until the last three minutes. Then it had about the worst ending of any movie I've ever seen (OK, perhaps Meet Joe Black was even worse  ).
Claude Rains's character does the fastest, most extreme personality shift I have ever seen in fiction. I recall glancing at the clock on my DVD player and noticing there were only three minutes left and wondering how the hell they were going to finish the movie in three minutes. At this time Claude Rains was gloating about the telegrams/letters in the senate calling for Jimmy Stewart's resignation, and gloating about the fact that Stewart's days (in fact minutes) were numbered, and had spent the last hour of the movie gleefully lying and conspiring and totally destroying the life of a good man. Then Stewart collapsed. Then Rains suddenly, without warning committed instant political suicide by confessing and exposing the bad-guy businessman Taylor. Rains had started the movie as a good guy, then made the decision to destroy Stewart (and become the bad guy), then in the space of two minutes instantly reverted to being a good guy again, without warning. It was totally ludicrous. I ended up giving the movie 7/10 anyway, as the rest of it was good. |
| Sean |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 21:51:01
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
And remember Sean, however low Michael gets, he never harms a penguin. Never.
Glad to hear it! If he did, I'd develop a split personality where one of my identities was a delusional, psychotic, crazed, psychopathic serial killer of Mafia Dons and anyone associated with Sicily.... beginning with thefoxboy.  |
| Sean |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 21:46:04
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
For one, killing people without remorse is not the same thing as being a psychopath. Sane people kill all the time.
Of course. Psychopaths are perfectly sane. They know exactly what they are doing.quote:
Criminals kill remorselessly because they've become numbed to it.
I would suggest that someone who kills without remorse for personal gain would have to be a psychopath. How more detached from humanity does one need to be?!?  quote:
quote:
Dissociative Identity Disorder where one of the 'identities' was a delusional psychotic.... and a psychopathic killer.
Where exactly is your issue?
Hitchcock contrived an 'interesting' fictional villain for an entertaining movie. I don't believe for a second that Norman Bates is a plausible character. I'm curious to hear about a real-life example of someone with D.I.D. who had total dissociation between their identities, and where one 'identity' was an Ed Gein-like deranged delusional serial killer, and the other 'identity' was an amiable chap who had no knowledge of the other 'identity'.
Peter Jackson made a good point a few years back when collecting his LOTR:ROTK Oscar, when questioned about how he felt about receiving an Oscar for a 'fantasy' movie. He said something like (paraphrasing heavily) "All fiction is fantasy, Lost in Translation is as much fantasy as LOTR, none of it ever happened."
So yeah, fictional characters by definition do not exist. They are all someone's fantasy. They have varying levels of implausibility dependent on the skill or knowledge or design of the creator. It's hardly surprising that villains are the least plausible characters of all, for a start they are made that way so as to be more interesting to the viewers/readers, secondly they will be much harder to create as the writer most likely has no personal experience to call upon. When was the last time anyone reading this post felt the need to avenge their father and kill a few people in public, or kill someone who got in their way, or strap the rotting corpse of their mother into a wheelchair, or dig up graves and make clothing from the dried genitals of the corpses? |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 12:48:03
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
No, no, no, no, no. I don't know where you got any of that.
For one, killing people without remorse is not the same thing as being a psychopath. Sane people kill all the time. Criminals kill remorselessly because they've become numbed to it. Michael Corleone is able to kill point-blank at first because he's driven by the need to avenge his father.
Basically I agree but just to add that Michael Corleone's descent into killing starts legally, in the army, where he was apparently a hero. No doubt this involved killing for his country.
And he doesn't kill in the restaurant to avenge his father, but to protect him against further attacks. No longer legal but morally justifiable, even necessary.
Michael goes through a series of moral erosions all the way down to unnecessary fratricide. Psychopaths do not need to be morally eroded before they commit unjustifiable murders or other acts of violence.
And remember Sean, however low Michael gets, he never harms a penguin. Never.
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 03:04:57
No, no, no, no, no. I don't know where you got any of that.
For one, killing people without remorse is not the same thing as being a psychopath. Sane people kill all the time. Criminals kill remorselessly because they've become numbed to it. Michael Corleone is able to kill point-blank at first because he's driven by the need to avenge his father.
quote:
Dissociative Identity Disorder where one of the 'identities' was a delusional psychotic.... and a psychopathic killer.
Where exactly is your issue? |
| Sean |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 01:09:14
<GODFATHER, PULP FICTION, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, HANNIBAL, PSYCHO spoilers>
This raises the issue of the way the world of fiction deals with fictional villains. My view is that fictional villains are very seldom plausible. They usually have parts to their character that are simply not compatible with other parts to their character. I'm assuming this is done to allow the reader/viewer to 'understand' the character, and actually watch the events that supposedly gave rise to their character flaws occur on the screen. This doesn't mean that such characters are even remotely plausible in real life. A few examples:-
Michael Corleone:- He was able to kill people point blank, and order other killings without remorse, and all for personal gain. Clearly a psychopath. His principal regrets were about his chosen path, i.e., whether he would benefit most from a violent or a peaceful way of attaining power and wealth. But, in order to allow the viewers to 'connect' to the character, he was also portrayed as emotional and having emotional attachments to other characters. I don't believe this is plausible, but it did make for a 'good' movie.
Jules (S. Jackson) in Pulp Fiction:- A hitman who had a religious experience and changed his ways. Errmmmm.... I don't think this is even remotely possible. Psychopathic killers don't have religious experiences and 'change their ways'. A great fictional character though, very entertaining.
Hannibal Lecter:- Perhaps plausible in SOTL, his character became ludicrous in the sequel. Here was a psychopathic cannibal killer who'd rather chop his own hand off than harm a certain other person? Psychopaths don't develop emotional attachments to others, they don't have emotions. Sure, it made for a nice story and a tense moment. Fiction of course, and quite impossible.
Norman Bates:- Dissociative Identity Disorder where one of the 'identities' was a delusional psychotic.... and a psychopathic killer. Errmmm... riiiiigghht. A fun story, but implausible again.
Noodles:- <Sorry if I don't remember details, only seen it once, and it was a while ago>. He was 'hard to watch' and totally unsympathetic. He did bad things, and expressed no remorse, even years later. And he was an efficient killer. This all points to a hollow shell of a human being. A psychopath. He expressed no remorse about the rape because it meant absolutely nothing to him, and he had no remorse. He had no redeeming qualities, just like real psychopaths. So perhaps here Leone and De Niro did an excellent job in making a gangster movie with a plausible bad guy for a change. There was nothing for us to connect to because normal empathetic human beings simply can't connect with psychopaths.
Perhaps the world of fiction has a lot to answer for by repeatedly presenting us with villains that deep down inside have a 'human' weakness that we can relate to (in the interests of plot development and audience capture), when in reality no such humanity exists. Psychopaths are essentially intelligent crocodiles in human form who exist only for self-benefit, and are incapable of any kind of attachment to any living thing, hence are devoid of any kind of moral code. They are also not very interesting people to study (apart from serial killers perhaps), hence writers of fiction create far more interesting (but implausible) villains for our entertainment. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 00:05:36
I wish people would mention films I really like a bit more so I can sound more positive, but OUATIA is, to me, overrated.
I just want to mention a few points which bother me.
Firstly, for me the characters do not feel Jewish.
Secondly, although Noodles's aging is done very well, Deborah's is the worst example of aging in a film I have ever seen in my life. They haven't met for more than 30 years, and she looks 13. What happened here? I thought she had escaped from a scene in "Bugsy Malone"!
The ending with Max jumping into the back of a garbage truck (or not) is ridiculous. Has anyone ever commited suicide by jumping into the back of a garbage crusher? Would anyone choose this incredibly painful death? And why the ambiguity as to whether its Max or not? I mean, is it suggested the filmmakers just threw in a scene with someone else throwing themselves into the back of a garbage truck, just for the hell of it? What possible sense would that make?
I agree with Demonic that the idea of Max becoming another person unrecognised for 30 years - when he definitely looks like Max and is living with the ex-girlfriend of Max's closest friend - is silly.
However, unlike Demonic, I thought De Niro's performance was the strongest part of the film and, even if I don't actually like Noodles a whole lot at least he is interesting. None of the female characters rose above Leone's obvious misogynism to make their characters plausible.
Finally even the score, which would be good in itself, I found jarring as it was trying to take me to emotional places the script had not earned.
The whole film has a kind of portentiousness which makes you think it must be a great film, but it just isn't. Give me Rocky any day of the week!
|
| demonic |
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 23:37:59
That's an interesting point MBI - in which case my fault with the film must lie almost entirely in De Niro's performance. I didn't feel just because he came back thirty years later (maybe....) with grey hair and a wasted life that he was overly regretful for what he'd done. Guilty - absolutely - hence the endlessly ringing phone at the beginning as he remembers his betrayal of the gang, and despondent for the wasted years, but sorry? I didn't get that. He didn't apologise or attempt to attone to Deborah for a start, I don't think it even crosses his mind. When confronted with Max he's not emotional at all. Maybe this is all just symptomatic of my falling out with the screen work of Bobby D. 
Sean - I can't quite define why Noodles is so much less likeable than Michael Corleone or Vince Vega or any number of criminal protagonists. I think we're not meant to like Michael particularly, but we see how inexorably he is drawn into a life he originally wanted no part of and it becomes a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions; like Macbeth his moral sense worn away until he's capable of murdering his own family. I'm absolutely gripped by Michael's story from start to finish and I do finally feel for him.
In the instance of the guys in Pulp Fiction it's a different matter because they are either very funny, or very cool. Sort of sad really, but both things go a long way to making a villain palatable (see Richard III!). Noodles isn't particularly cool, he's definitely not funny or an easy person to watch on screen (his only smile to my memory is the final image of the film) and we don't see his process from good kid to hoodlum. He's a shit from the start.
By the way I only saw parts of it originally because I imagine it was on television when I was younger and I didn't see it from the start - I wouldn't only watch bits of a film on purpose - I can't even stop a film half way through on DVD and pick up later... |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 23:16:50
Very odd complaints you got there. DeNiro's character is almost entirely defined by his regret, for every single thing he ever did. For most people, that softens the hateable-ness of most protagonists. |
| Sean |
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 23:13:28
It was a few years ago I saw this, so can't comment on details. But, it looks to me like the "lack of a likeable protagonist" bogey has reared it's ugly head again. This has never bothered me, most gangster flicks I know of don't have any likeable characters, except for perhaps some innocent victims (usually female), e.g., gangster's wife etc. I didn't like any character in Godfather or Pulp Fiction but that didn't bother me either. De Niro's character was scum, as were the other gangsters. I never expected to like him any more than I was expecting to like Pacino's character in Godfather.
I agree that Woods was excellent in this, as was Connelly.
I remember strongly liking Once Upon a Time in America, and don't recall having any problems with it, i.e., nothing really jumped out at me as being 'wrong' with it. But I didn't watch parts of it before sitting down and watching it properly, I couldn't stand doing that to a movie. |
|
|
