Badlands (1973) Review

Star Wars

Badlands is a razor sharp dissection of youthful arrogance taken to its extreme, succeeding due to its humanizing and detailed look at its main character. The film originally seemed to be primarily about the dangers of those wanting to take advantage of underage girls, with the scenes having a rhythm of the leads trying to find safety for themselves, then something always going wrong. The first scene of the runtime is of Holly, played by Sissy Spacek, discussing a potentially traumatic childhood experience that may disorient her as to what is or isn’t normal. Crucially, her and her father suddenly move. While Holly’s dad, like many others, is a bit stubborn and protective, Kit, played by Martin Sheen, offers her additional support. This is shown in the fish scene. Regardless, he is quick to set off red flags, like faking signatures. The story gets a lot more interesting when Holly becomes a little older, having a more nuanced view of what’s going on, while still being childlike. She is a very important character for the development of the themes, characterized by many moments like her awkwardly delivering a joke she probably read in a magazine, as if trying to acclimate herself to her surroundings as much as possible and make what she can out of it from a staged source.

Kit is a troubled and multi-layered role, acting realistically like an extreme example of youthful rebellion and overconfidence. He is constantly characterized by small absurdisms that prove how little thought he’s put in his behavior, not unlike how a child might follow what they want without considering the consequences. One example is his rudimentary home and defense mechanisms, put together in a way that’s not sustainable in the long term or even that effective in the short. Another is that at a point where he should carefully consider his options, he leaves his decision up to pure chance. Logically, his behavior continues to make no sense, with his extreme thoughtlessness very compelling, possibly due to it making him vulnerable to the audience. Despite the movie featuring narration from only Holly, we learn so much about Kit, including his contradictions or otherwise strange lines of logic which seem forced to justify his impulse behavior to himself. He shows disdain for bounty hunters that doesn’t extend to the police, but he later treats the police with the same disrespect. He is also misogynist, probably as that’s the only way he can justify how little agency or freedom he gives Holly, due to him trying to live his own fantasy.

Kit is both unpretentious and uncertain of himself. What is suggested is that his behavior might be desirable to many people and the difference between them and him is that he doesn’t have the ability to comprehend how untenable his choices are and he lacks an ability to empathize. He wants to be cared about and take what he wants. His decisions follow those goals, with little more to consider. Just like how Kit doesn’t seem to understand his own behavior, neither does Holly. She treats everything like a strange adventure that doesn’t have much real value or impact. She discussed Kit like he’s a fictional character or someone unrelated to her, whose attributes are described as descriptions instead of beliefs that might be intended to inform her on a way of thinking. Her barely involved attitude makes for a very compelling contrast to the “act for the sake of acting” Kit, with some of the finest moments of the film coming from when Holly metaphorically reaches the point where he does become “real”, with her not knowing anything better to do than just be direct, like how Kit had been when describing his wants or actions.

The many wide shots of terrain give the sense of endless possibilities and are nice to look at, though overtime they seem more and more fruitless and flat. The ground leads to everywhere, but it is not in and of itself anything, and feels endless. Due to a few methodical scenes followed by a fast action, the film manages to shock you by first giving the audience uncertainty or numbing them with more mundane scenes that also tell us about the leads or the world they’re in before something happens. This is helped by the score, which shows us how they feel due to the tropical tone, like we’re watching some light escapade, which creates a brilliant surreal atmosphere that makes the story feel not real.

A fairly common issue with these sorts of movies is the characters falling in love very quickly without seeing much of why. Considering the tight and snappy pace of the story, it is probably for the best to not have had more scenes of the leads bonding. A potential work around for this would be for the movie to start with the two already dating. Another minor complaint is that the mumbling of the characters, while there for a reason, means it is sometimes really difficult to hear what’s being said.

SPOILERS

One of the most heart wrenching scenes of the film is when Kit unexpectedly and brutally shoots Holly’s dad, like the act is nothing. One of Spacek’s strongest moments is when she asks if he’ll be okay while watching his lifeless body. One of Sheen’s best is of his face painted with disbelief that he did that. He tries to keep a calm and tempered attitude over the killing, probably to keep Holly from getting upset, but also due to not knowing what this says about himself. He even says to her he’s fine with her calling the police, partially realizing that what he’s done is wrong and not trusting himself to make the right decision. After this we get him cooking up a convoluted scheme that has no way of working, like he has found some way to justify his actions as a coping mechanism. The destruction of youth for Holly continues with the long shots of her house burning down, including her toys and pictures.

One initially confusing part details Holly walking with a woman to where Kit wants them, with them not knowing what he will do with his gun, the woman possibly thinking he’ll kill her and the man she’s with. Her demeanor is surprisingly calm. However, the quiet and conversational leads might be giving them hope that if they are simply non-aggressive they’ll be allowed to live. You can also hear her holding back tears, not being entirely calm. This scene also shows how in a moment of panic, destruction can come in rapid succession, with Kit trying to solve all his issues with his gun, though getting sloppier and sloppier with how he’s using it. It is not unlikely that the couple survived their murder attempt.

It progressively becomes less apparent to the leads and the audience why they’re even running away from the authorities other than out of a force of habit. You see Kit start to realize this when he doesn’t kill someone he told an obviously suspicious lie to. There would be no reason to kill him logically, though it could be justified to Kit as preventing a witness from causing trouble for them. Of course, the pointlessness can also be applied to his other victims. The difference is that the earlier ones were done when the sense of love and adventure Kit had was stronger. There’s a fine scene of the two dancing in pitch black to a song about a love that’s ended, like our lead is celebrating his dark and horrible journey before it stops being fun and ends, with some understanding it will. This comes to a breaking point when Holly decides to stop going with him. As an aside, we see his face up close right before she says she isn’t going to go with him, letting us really see him right before it really becomes clear how idiotic this all is to him and that the ordeal is running on fumes; the last moment he will feel free.

The reason why Holly loses interest is because someone like Kit becomes less interesting upon a deep exposure. There’s nothing to him other than his look. Her being able to talk to the rich man after most of his killings humanizes his victims and gives her an opportunity to see that it’s unnecessary to be murdering people. While not consciously, Kit removes avenues that could give Holly the opportunity to see the error of his behavior, like his friend or her father. Holly may realize that she’s been manipulated by the end, with her face in the last scene suggesting this, her eyes lacking a romantic view of Kit and comprehending better what’s happened to her. One issue with this is that she seemingly accepts him murdering her father, which you think would be a deal-breaker.

One reason why people, like Holly, would like this guy is because he is reasonably nice and doesn’t seem to even understand that he’s doing something wrong, with his “heart being in the right place”. He is often compared to James Dean, someone known for living in states of uncertainty while regardless looking cool. Even if you don’t know who James Dean is before watching this, you can gauge who he is from his appearance in a magazine and the comparisons to him clearly being reverent. If you are more familiar with James Dean, while he’s obviously no murderer, he gets boiled down to just this figure of “cool”, when the man himself as well as his characters are deeply complicated and troubled. While Kit is also troubled, not in the same way. Even in James Dean’s most famous film, his character is shaken by death. Nonetheless, Kit is liked partially because of a resemblance to a more empathetic person.

The message of Badlands seems to be to be wary of charismatic figures, who might take advantage of people that want something more interesting in their lives. He clearly has some degree of respect from the cops, which logically would make no sense as he killed one. His use of humor, like when talking to the police; kissing Holly when she wants to stop running; or looking like an underdog, when he calls the law “bastards” that will probably blame him for an overturned car, are ways that manipulators and violent people can make themselves look normal or likable to those around them. Holly is also just a teenager, so is very impressionable. One issue with this is his brutal response to Holly’s dad. What would make more sense, and help explain why Holly likes him, would be if the dad was shown to be problematic and/or he wasn’t killed and instead was just prevented from seeing Holly somehow. If the filmmakers didn’t want the dad in the meat of the story, they could have Kit kill him in a way where he could lie to Holly and say he is alive.

Many characters clearly admire Kit to a surprising degree. Arguably, this should have been more prevalent throughout the film, instead of being consolidated in the end with the police officers, but this works as essentially a twist. Just as someone like Billy the Kid, you know about his story after the fact, so does Kit get written into time once he’s no longer a threat and people see him as someone to laugh with or at. Someone seems to have an understanding of this, as Kit spent his imprisoned period in solitary confinement probably because he was a bad influence on others. His audio recording of his views on life and how others should act are reasonably common among “young rebels”, which feeds off of the view of himself he’s garnered. Despite this, he’s not saying anything profound, instead something that very well could’ve come from one of Holly’s magazines. Him burying his belongings and giving more to the police gives something for potential “fans” of his to look for or idolize, like they’re artifacts. He even gave his body to science after his death. In the beginning, Kit complains about someone littering, saying that if everyone did it the whole town would be a mess. Certain “outlaw” figures are celebrated for something positive about their behavior. That may be the intention of the reference to littering, though obviously that’s too minor a moment and it’s not even something the police would know about him, but it shows his mind is not focused on hate or killing, but supposed social injustices like anyone else, which adds a layer of irony to the character that is funny and might lighten his most extreme traits to the audience.

Probably my favorite scene of the film is Holly pondering over what could have been for her while looking at old photos, really taking in and thinking on the fact that she easily could have been anywhere if things went a bit differently at numerous points. Thus, there is no reason why her current situation should be looked at as the best it can get. Just like how those pictures of people living their lives represent possibilities, we also see Kit simply existing, like he’s another part of history or possibility and no more. The final shot of the sky is a touching one. Most of the film depicts Kit unable to transcend or get anywhere. One issue Holly had with him is that he would not be able to get a job, while he enjoys their mindless traveling. However, due to his actions, he has found a way to transcend simply being a bum. In turn, he does rise above and possibly is remembered fondly or not by people for years to come. Kit often seems mindless and driven by a desire to feel fulfilled, so now he is getting an experience that takes him to an ending point, a point where he no longer has to worry. He has gone above being a person, compared to the photos of people living and is now an ethereal idea that exists in the mind or “in the clouds”. This is foreshadowed by Kit burying those photos before Holly leaves him and he turns himself in. Now that those mementos of his humanity are gone, he can become a concept.

Kit, possibly with some limited understanding that he’s become a figure of cool, enjoys his newfound attention and respect while being slightly celebrated by the police at the end, clearly trying to enjoy his presence before he’s sentenced to death. There’s a wonderful dichotomy of law enforcers loving someone because they broke the law. They even say things like that he didn’t specifically cause one of them trouble and that they wish him luck, clearly not taking the degree of his crimes into account. In the beginning, Kit wasn’t respected enough to even be given a cigarette, but at the end he stands above them like he is on a stage. He’s now someone that has some focus and can partially satisfy his fear of dying alone. He even tries to assure this by letting himself be captured in a way that would make for a good story after a very thrilling chase scene, knowing that in this way he can continue to matter. He even says he always wanted to be a criminal, though he probably lied by saying he didn’t want to be as big of one out of thoughtlessness or for the sake of the myth, unless he was hoping to be a criminal in a way where he wouldn’t ruin his life. This is a bit doubtful due to how extreme his actions quickly become. While you think he would have mentioned his desired criminality earlier, note that we pretty much only know what Holly is told and it is possible he is just making all this up as he goes, maybe without realizing it. His relative ignorance over himself here and in many other scenes adds to the appeal.

Regardless of how likable Kit is, the film is still a tragedy. To emphasize this twisted coming of age tale, as well as Holly’s “loss of innocence”, even once Kit is gone from Holly’s life she marries her defense attorney’s son, showing she will continue to be defined and exist by this incident that she had little control in. Just like how we last see Kit in a plane and then the sky, we earlier saw Holly go up in a plane after leaving him. Kit seems to understand what he’s done and finally feels bad for the woman he loved, acknowledging killing her dad and saying they should talk more later, even at the end not thinking ahead that such a chance will never come, just like he did with any kind of future with Holly. He also referred to her dad’s death as if he didn’t take part in it, but the point is he has left complete and utter self-absordment. To the detriment of her prospering in life on her own terms, Holly will also go into the verbal history book of these events, also existing as a story more so than a living person.

OVERVIEW

Kit being often described by Holly shows that he, and by extension this story, is told as a tale filtered through the mind of another person and not just Kit himself doing his thing. It’s possible that even the filmed moments are not supposed to be taken as literal, and instead a personification of what Holly is saying. Kit has become folklore that the people in the movie might look up to or show interest in, and despite some variety in how you can interpret Badlands, you can’t deny; isn’t that terrifying?

The Godfather Part II (1974) Review

One of my favorite shots in the film.

The Godfather Part II packs a punch even in its very, very first scene. Al Pacino as Michael Corleone has a deep look of contemplation on his face as his hand is kissed. Solemn background music plays. From these few seconds you know everything you need about him. This also follows along from the ending of the original film, of him being accepted as leader. Also matching is that “business” scene being very tight and dark while the following scene in Sicily is bright and open. “Part 2” continues the trend of a ton of iconic scenes, which usually include some sort of turning point for the characters involved, but admittedly the main reason they’re iconic is because of something shocking, or bombastic performances, music, and scenery. Something like Vito Corleone, played by Robert De Niro, with his towel wouldn’t hit hard with subtler acting and music. Practically any movie as long as three and a half hours is trying to be an event, so we’re being given event cinema with fiery moments.

Robert De Niro gives a much more understated performance than he usually would. It’s interesting hearing him essentially impersonate how Marlon Brando speaks, as if trying to be one with him instead of giving his own take. His scenes focus on the events and less so on how he feels about the events. Vito doesn’t show much emotion, this is especially prevalent when compared to Michael. When looked at in context of the first film, it makes sense Vito would be the type of person to keep his emotions close to his chest and to only suggest them in a few moments of brutality. One favorite scene is Vito seeing the Statue of Liberty, with it treated as a symbol of freedom and opportunity. It’s shown from behind a boat, as if the boat Vito is arriving from is blessed with significance and providing him an opportunity he wouldn’t otherwise get. This admittedly does seem to go against the theme of his family business in America being what destroys them all. Considering Vito’s success, the message could be that something like a life of crime is manageable only in the short term before we see someone like Michael looking like he’s always about to have an aneurysm. Regardless, you can’t say that anyone here prefers America. Vito has a prejudice against Americans, with it being implied Michael would agree. In fact, a major theme of the series is the communal Italian style of staying with family as opposed to the individualistic American one. The American-born Michael typically acts the part.

The segments set in the past are so good that it’s a shame we see comparatively very little of it. Not that it’s necessary to see Vito’s rise in as much detail as Michael’s story, but it’s still so interesting. The scenery is also beautiful. While the film as a whole is certainly about Michael, and the past segments essentially serve to underline him with what he’s being compared to and what legacy he has inherited, the overall saga of The Godfather has gone on to include one more film and various editions that include more scenes. There was even a proposed 4th film that would barely feature Michael. Considering the series is about the family and not just Michael himself, it would be preferable to see more of Vito.

The Vito scenes have very little talking. This is emphasized by Vito’s accent being heavier than anyone else’s. What is mostly seen in these two movies is Vito creating a life for himself, his family, and his future. By extension, Michael destroys, even when it is not advantageous. The Michael scenes are also filled with talking and many plots and characters to follow. While the storyline is fascinating, the most iconic moments feature quiet moments, which tell us more about the characters than the dialogue does. While the crime plots play massively into the themes and characterizing what causes Michael to do what he does, they would be almost meaningless and comparatively dull without the great responses of quietness.

Despite this film ostensibly being about paralleling Vito and Michael, the last scene of child Vito fades into Michael’s son Anthony, as if to suggest he will also have a storied life that reflects his family past. Considering that Anthony’s middle name is Vito and in the first part, he is the only person there to see Vito die, what is implied is that he will follow a similar path as Vito, especially because just like Michael he might be inclined to learn from the failings of his father. Seeing as Michael makes many enemies, like when he has the heads of the Five Families killed last film, there might be less pressure on Anthony. Vito is often mentioned to Michael as essentially something to look up to and be compared to. Anthony in turn might feel like Vito,  had a blank slate. Anthony’s future is left in the air to give both hope and dread that the same issues of the past will be repeated, especially due to the parallel between him and Michael having to replace Sonny.

The antidote to Michael’s cold cynicism is depicted near the end with his brother Fredo simply talking about a fond childhood memory. While he is not considered bright, he manages to live better in part because of it, not so focused on worrying about everything. Their sister Connie also gets a better end of the deal due to her being a woman, who is in turn undervalued and not expected to get in the dirty work. This does lead to some humorous implications, like her apparently having gotten over Michael killing her husband. Admittedly, it wouldn’t have done her any favors to bring that up.

It would have been better for Vito to have more scenes of bonding with his friends and family, to showcase him forming connections. This problem would be helped by putting the saga in chronological order, where this would be followed by him doing things like fighting for peace in the families and having scenes with his friends. Other issues include, Michael V. Gazzo as Frank Pentangeli starting off as too hammy, though this makes good contrast from when he’s later silenced in the court scene. Maybe this is true to life, but a senator insults Italians and Michael’s family to his face, which feels really on the nose? “Hi, now that we’re at our meeting let me say I’m racist and hate you.”

SPOILERS

It is a bit too absurd when Fredo gets upset at Michael, insisting he’s smart, when the issue they’re having is over him almost getting Michael murdered. Why not include this scene in response to something a lot more minor, like a business mistake where in response Michael yells at him? After the almost-whacking, Fredo could then be like he is at the end, speechless. Still, this scene is framed very well, with Fredo’s fate suggested by him being captured from under an aquarium. It also features a great performance from John Cazale, begging to rectify the fact he is the most underutilized male member of the Corleones at that point. We also see Michael’s uncaring and cold attitude towards him.

Tom becomes more of a family member to Michael when it’s needed, as opposed to their bond naturally growing. One favorite scene shows Michael being a little vulnerable to him and accepting him as his ideal replacement. Essentially the opposite happens with Fredo, who originally had a lot of control due to natalism, but lost any kind of familial bond with Michael due to his cockup. This series as a whole, while being all about complicated relationships with family, doesn’t treat it as sacred. While Vito takes immense joy in his family, barely able to leave his mother in the beginning, and holding Michael at the end, his view of family is simplistic. Vito last installment didn’t like Carlo Rizzi not being full Sicilian or take Tom seriously, to contrast now Michael is trusting in someone not in his “in” group. Seeing as much of the most tragic events in the series are the result of Michael being made the Don when no one really wanted it, the story may be claiming that it’d be better if these sorts of affairs didn’t need to be passed down through generations and instead whoever the best person is. This would fit with Vito having told Michael to “think as people around you think” and that that makes anything possible, as if understanding something puts you ahead of those that don’t but are more closely related, even ahead of someone like Fredo who doesn’t think. However, even close friends of the Corleone family turn on them, so maybe you just shouldn’t become a violent gangster?

Kay, being American, is essentially considered the wrong choice for the purposes of the Mafia life. If Michael could have been with someone who wouldn’t question him, like his previous wife, he may have had more opportunities due to staying “closer to the heritage of his family”. Kay’s infamous abortion epitomizes how she is “taking away” from Michael. Outside of the mentality of the Corleones, her behavior is frankly justifiable due to the violent man that baby may have ultimately become. If you look at Kay as representing a newer way of thinking, one influenced from a minority or Feminist perspective, then someone like Michael is bound to become outdated no matter who he trusts or what happens. The way to survive is to modernize, which typically includes consulting more points of view, like being tolerant of something like an abortion or more generally accepting those outside his own bubble. In fact, by the end of the film Michael’s thought process has become so narrow due to others being killed or turning from him due to his own behavior that he is basically alone.

Michael not being the intended Don and his war background could explain why he is so quick to violence. He sees that the violent behavior of others gets what they want and in theory keeps his family safe, with family being held as so important, but he doesn’t have the understanding of how this will affect his relationships. The war background of needing to destroy your enemy could be informing his mindset. Michael saying “You’re still my brother” to Fredo in the moment suggests he is at least kind enough to forgive him for what he did, like family holds them together. When Michael ultimately has him killed, that line becomes chilling, as if he was trying to manipulate Fredo into a false sense of security. Arguably, Michael disowning Fredo and then forgiving him was all a ploy to get him to the point where he could be killed. He even forgives him after Connie, who earlier was arguing with him, finally bends down to him, like she’s finally at a state where he can control her, so he does this to strengthen his grip on her and his own internal sense of ability. If the war taught him he needs to survive, all of this could be viewed as a more covert way to survive, by being able to defeat anyone.

Michael killing Fredo matches the unhinged vengeance Vito had. That scene places significant importance on family to show just how far Michael is willing to fall to apparently feel revenge or at least consistent with his own worldview. The only difference is that Michael’s killing is seen as worse due to the victim being a well meaning family member. Logically, there is no reason to see it as any lesser than the other killings. He is still murdering parents, siblings, offsprings, and thus the first time he ever did so should be looked at as horrific, but cinematic language encourages you to root for a protagonist, especially one who in the first film wanted to avenge his father. That same mindset led him to what he did to Fredo. That same mindset leads him to almost try to force Kay to stay with him, and otherwise still being extremely manipulative, with apparently her abortion in part being done to make him hate her. As an aside, give an Oscar to Pacino for his eyes in that scene alone, they’re terrifying! That mindset isn’t new to Michael, with Vito doing the same thing, getting revenge with murder around the end of his story.

The ending scene partially explains some of Michael’s behavior. Everyone judges him and berates him, supposedly those “smart enough” to lead. Once he has the control, he acts as a facsimile of this, wanting respect and to not be harmed, with his only way of gaining it by lashing out and turning to threats of violence. Him sitting by himself shows him as a tragic figure essentially being pushed into a fate of sadness. He already has to be alone, even if just for a moment, but through both a combination of his behaviors that scare people, Sonny’s choice to berate him, and Vito’s choice to turn to crime fueled by a desire to help him have all lead to numerous deaths in the family and Michael faced with being alone for real, with everyone away physically or emotionally.

In theory Michael should feel at home with his siblings, due to them being his age, but no matter what he fails to connect, partially because of his upbringing and poor support network. Thus, his “American” way of acting could in part be seen as Michael being pushed to find something that works for him, and that if he didn’t feel so isolated in youth he wouldn’t have wanted to be distant later on. This is all shown due to his sadness being depicted in the chronological first scene of adult Michael and last in this film, both back to back. In fact, the reason everyone seemingly becomes desensitized to violence is because they’ve grown around it. Fredo’s murder is just revenge, not because he hates him. It could possibly be justified to Michael as “business”, which is something American culture is obsessed with. He once more broke Michael’s rule; “don’t ever take sides with anyone against the family.” Seeing as Michael is now the patriarch, he can define what the family is, and specifically Fredo out of it, as the American dream involves making your own rules, your own path.

Fredo gives the audience a reason to rewatch these movies, as this scene reveals that he, the most progressive and supportive member of Michael’s family will merely be pushed away. If this scene was shown before the first film, you might think Fredo will move everyone to accept Michael, instead of Michael pushing them away. However, this film is about the end of a gangster, implicitly saying that those that would partake in this lifestyle are dooming themselves to loneliness. Even if Michael wanted to impose his values on his children when no one else is impressionable enough to be interested, Kay shows that times will change and a Michael-type can’t keep people under your thumb like maybe he once could.

OVERVIEW

The shot of Jesus covered in dollar bills is really all you need to know. It is perhaps the most important in the film. While the Corleone family consistently practices religion, that doesn’t save them from their own selfishness. It is monopolized on as a way to gain trust and suggest they are humbled to God. Instead of following the Bible, they follow themselves, allowing the world of business to corrode all. Any decision that at least causes stress or at most murder is the result of a battle for power, aka money. Those men in turn are close minded and depressed, with no respect for even religion. The scene of someone saying his “Hail Marys” emphasizes how little a belief in God means if it gets in the way of corporatization. Despite this, the movie does not offer many answers as to what it is trying to say. As an example, while the ending scene is about duty to family vs duty to country, it doesn’t say which you should pick. Even if you look at it as “you should do the opposite of Michael”, he engages in behavior that could be described as fitting either.

The Godfather Part II is one of the tales to end all tales. It continues to be “everything”, as the first film was, but it grows upon its themes and takes them to a natural conclusion. It is an experience and something to be marveled at. Some think a third film was unnecessary and that the story was completely told already. However, someone like Michael very well can change in interesting ways and get into interesting situations. What is he left as after many years of dealing with the events of this story? While Part 2 doesn’t demand a sequel the way “1” does, we are in a cycle, so let’s see it through.

The Godfather (1972) Review

The most important character in the film.

What makes The Godfather great? What makes it the best in the eyes of many? It seems to just be taken for granted that it is. While you can cite the committed and thought provoking acting, which can be analyzed and acclaimed for its subtlety and impact, many other movies have such a thing. Many others have great stories and epic scales. Many others are historical in nature. One element that both adds and subtracts to this is the great length of the film. The risk is being too slow or uneventful. However, such a length yields a much greater level of development for the characters than would normally be possible for a shorter story. It also will naturally appeal to critics that want to see something different or more atmospheric, especially when living in periods of sameness in the industry. Despite this, it does hit on various aspects that critics typically like, such as crime, novel adaptations, and roots in non-American cultures.

Another key factor is surely the time. After the “Hays code” that had a stranglehold on the film industry finally started to die off, many filmmakers jumped at the opportunity of making more violent stories. While this film is certainly violent, it is also noticeably less so than other examples of the gangster genre, being less inclined to celebrate or bask in its own gruesomeness. Many reviews of movies in general mention the time they came out in, being particularly biting in the culture it’s coming from. The less bloody Godfather can be compared with the later more bombastic Goodfellas. The later film uses rock and R&B music queues and a more cavalier attitude to its brutality that may be considered too excessive or glorifying of its subject matter. The earlier outfit treats its few killings as tragic, with them representing the failures of the characters to physically stop it, the government, or the methodology and nature of this sort of lifestyle as a whole. No one romanticizes their situation. There are a lack of shots that soak in the scenery and music that pumps adrenaline or greatly intensifies a scene, treating it as popcorn affair. The music as used is less noticeable and more of a backdrop. While Goodfellas ends with a loud punk anthem, here we end with a somber orchestral score. Even the last scene of the film is primarily about a life of crime being detrimental to a healthy family, a theme that is prevalent in many, many scenes of this three hour epic.

Understandably this story has been analyzed heavily since first premiering. Notably protagonist Michael Corleone, played by Al Pacino, constantly evolves in different ways, with almost nothing directly stated, but instead suggested. Take his sunken eyes after intense encounters and progressively aged face, as if succumbing to what goes on around him. He nicely, but firmly, pushes his family to accept him in whatever thing he wants or has to do. He is typically barely touched by events on the outside, losing control to only get his way, like he wants to impress someone or seem tough. Why he might want to feel tough is expanded upon in the second film. Events in this story are often driven by small moments that may either lead to little or brash responses, with them hanging around in the minds of those involved but not confronted beyond a potential reference. The famous restaurant scene is one example. Another is the baptism one. Especially that latter scene makes use of contrast, which this movie engages in often.

Considering the desire of the film to be extremely detail-oriented, it is a minor shame that various plots and characters are relatively thin. Examples include Michael in Sicily not having the significance it could. What is something he can learn other than what he learns in his final scene there? Some of the characters that appear in those segments also lose relevance. There are some you’d think would have an opinion on Michael or his lifestyle, so what is it they think or feel? The characters of Luca Brasi and McCluskey clearly have a point, especially when taken as part of the themes of the government’s participation in crime and loyalty to your own pack, but a little more of them would simply emphasize those moments better due to more clarity of what they’re here for. Considering the needs of the story to not be longer than it has to be, these issues are excusable and frankly very minor. A more egregious issue caused by this is the roles of Fredo Corleone, played by John Cazale, and Tom Hagen, played by Robert Duvall. Both characters are featured all too briefly. Considering the nature of the film, there is potential over how they would affect the journeys of the more prominent roles. However, there is inadvertently a way to fix this that anyone can apply, which will be discussed later.

Vito Corleone, played by Marlon Brando, is portrayed as generally ethical and thoughtful. However, considering his much more hotheaded children, namely Sonny, played by James Caan, this does suggest Vito may have raised them with too much influence from the criminal life, as if this corrodes even the more well meaning of people that would choose this. Even beyond the core Corleone family, someone like the new in-law of Carlo takes their seeming vast control as a challenge and he in turn creates issues due to his desire to have power over them. Despite Vito not liking Carlo, Vito’s own children are similarly shortsighted. Vito’s meeting with the “Five Families” shows novitiate in how to get his way, wanting to better things, but too late. What does help Vito quite a bit is his willingness to do favors for people and act confident, both of which are less honest and more shady, so there is a beautiful contrast where much of the film focuses on him while old and essentially retired.

This novitiate doesn’t come from Brando poorly portraying someone supposedly used to power and set in his ways, but of someone simply tired of the old troubles, though also far too familiar with them for his own good. It’s even mentioned that some don’t like him due to being stuck in the past. While Michael and the others look up to him, they also show a desire to improve on his ways. Note that Vito is often surrounded by claustrophobic and gloomy spaces. While there are many shots of depressing and claustrophobic scenes of characters in business rooms discussing death, the shots in Sicily are much wider, being filled with open areas of grass, blue skies, and community, all of which lack elsewhere in the story.

The few times something inane or methodical happens, like someone shopping, there is always about to be something big. It gets to the point where it’s extremely obvious what is to occur based on that way of halting the pace. Another difference between the cold and quick “whackings” of Goodfellas is that here, many of the killings are botched. It gets a bit absurd and removes some of the threat of the opposing forces. Some scenes like the horse one feature a bit of hammy acting, though that is not much of an issue overall.

SPOILERS

To go against his brother’s bloodlust, it might have been more interesting if Michael initially was not so inclined towards violence. If he did commit violence, he’d only do it out of a necessity. The movie is about Michael’s development and how he changes, so it would help in this theme for Michael to be the nonviolent one. Perhaps after his brother is killed, Michael finally feels pushed to bloody retribution? Even as is, it seems that going through World War 2 changed him into being desensitized to such brutality, but it’s still a shame we couldn’t see more of “innocent Michael”. If we started with some scenes before Michael goes to war, that would add to the tragedy by giving him more to lose.

Other minor issues are some scenes, like Michael talking to Sollozzo at dinner, not having English subtitles. Him saying Michael’s father is outdated and his shooting is business are important motifs of the story, which would be emphasized by right after Michael escalating his development by shooting him merely for revenge, with the event actually putting stress on his family. Tessio was betraying the Corleones since the beginning. More of an understanding from the leads that someone is trying to sabotage them would create suspense. That would in turn mirror the suspense of Michael. Will he get killed? Will he escape the failings of or legitimize his family? The tragic nature at the heart of the story is of someone doing what many do, trying to make their family proud, ultimately creating destruction for everyone involved. One key scene that represents this is the death of Michael’s wife in a car bombing intended for him. Her only existing in the romantic Sicily scenes idealizes her to Michael, with her representing his ideal mate that would act as he’d like. Considering Michael’s apparent safety and ties to a normal person who is now his father-in-law, he is offered freedom from the family business while also embracing his roots due to his father coming from Sicily. When she dies, so does his chance to move on. He now has almost no choice but to return to his girlfriend Kay…

Despite his respect, Vito also fails to do the right thing. This is mainly shown with Sonny, someone who lacked self control to compose himself when needed. As opposed to Vito, he didn’t typically show respect to those he had issues with, like in the excellent introductory scene of him smashing a camera then throwing money on the ground, not respecting the cameraman enough to look at him. He ultimately died after essentially a petty quarrel. Considering this, you’d think that if Carlo hadn’t been a problem, then odds are someone else would’ve come along and killed him as retaliation in a similar manner. The “be a big shot” mentality Vito gave his children only goes so far, especially when you are in a profession where doing that will cause people to want to shoot you and your family. Even in more minor ways, Michael being forced to quickly get in Sonny’s shoes and find himself a wife leads to unhappiness for him and Kay, even if you don’t factor in the sequels.

Unlike movies that jump ahead in time at the end to tell us what the protagonist is up to, this movie ends almost immediately after the climax that resolves some of the plots and characters. The film deals with constantly escalating stakes. To keep us all on edge, it ends at a point of uncertainty if it is all over or to get even more maddening. Seeing as this story is about Michael’s arc, it makes sense it ends at just the point he is at the top. Just like how we started the movie in Vito’s office, now that office is Michael’s and he’s ready to do his own deeds.

While the ending works fine, it works better as essentially the end of one part. This is the break before the rest of the story. It’s hard to look at this movie on its own without the second. More notably, various plot threads, like witnesses seeing Michael kill two people in a restaurant, his relationship with his wife Kay, and even just seeing more of what Michael will become as the Don are just not elaborated on much. They aren’t the concern of this film. That is a shame, due to them being brought up, but there is a resolve.

The first two films are far stronger treated as one six and a half hour movie, which may be how people watch them on home media. There have even been official edits that combine them. Many of the side characters, namely Fredo and Tom, have comparatively little to do here compared to in the second movie. As such, it could make you wonder why they’re included when taking this first epic on its own, but the second film pays off on this. Not only that, but it makes use of the fact they have minimal roles here. Obviously once Vito and Sonny die, they and to a lesser extent Connie will feel distress from the shift this creates in their lives. While before they had the opportunity to keep to their own devices due to a stable family unit and Sonny and Vito to do the heaviest lifting, now a jaded Michael is running the show.

Vito calling for peace because of what happened to his son means a lot more when we see what happens with his family in the next film, as if Vito can see the future and wants to leave a positive mark while he can. We see the violence he faces as a young man in part two and obviously that would be traumatizing. While most mobsters claim their murders are “business”, Michael’s are typically personal, but that eventually evolves, which furthermore emphasizes the new vs old. Vito’s view on killing also clearly changes, with parallels stretching across both pictures. One benefit of specifically the chronological edit of the story is seeing Michael pre-war before getting sent off as a child, though admittedly even in the one scene of him pre-war played by Pacino isn’t so upbeat.

Even part two suffers due to being separate. We don’t learn much about Vito’s friends, but their minimalist roles work more when you think of them growing in prominence and diversity in the events of part one, just like how Vito’s kids progressively fill his role. The sequel is overtly about the contrast of Vito and Michael, but the first film is no less about that. We start with Vito making criminal deals in the dark while Michael sits outside in a bright party. At the end, Michael’s way of concluding the main threats is exactly opposite what Vito wanted. Vito’s idealism is elaborated on with him actually having to be in Michael’s youthful perspective. The last scene of part one is Michael literally being closed off from family, which we see Vito never did or would want his kids to do.

OVERVIEW

Essentially, the reason why this effort is considered the best is because of many factors. These span from complex storytelling and characters, while managed expertly here, are sometimes done wrong in other stories, thus that in and of itself doesn’t make the film; to simply attractive scenery and a large scale. There are many memorable and iconic moments, some perhaps due to including humor, like the fish scene. Such scenes almost are cheats, as is the trend for critically acclaimed films to be about real tragedies, to be long, and historical. Namely, it comes down to the right time. 1972 was the moment to burst through the scene with new and old faces, all filled with credentials to bring together a beautifully told story about the human experience and a lot else from feminism to family to embracing your culture to managing a claustrophobic business life to doing things you don’t want to do but are expected to. However, not every movie, like a short one, can be an experience in the way this film can. While some movies are criticized for being too broad in appeal or too busy, this film makes it work due to only including what can fit in a throughline of the story of these characters’ reflective experiences. Such a well balanced work erases some of the admittedly minor quibbles. And just like the fact that this film is based in history, it in turn begs to become history, with its depiction of aging and going on through generations. The Godfather is great because it is and has everything.

ON THE CORNER AND OFF THE WALL

I was talking about the cat.

Angels with Dirty Faces (1938) Review

One of the defining moments of Rocky’s power.

Despite this movie being made during the code, there’s no Public Enemy title card denouncing the lead’s behavior.

Angels with Dirty Faces is a well regarded 30s gangster movie that has some of the goods of what you’d expect from gangster flicks. It is violent for the time, but not so much by the standards of later films by those like Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorsese. Those newer movies benefit due to both entertainment value and often thematic value by not beating around the bush of what it means to be a gangster. However, the level of violence doesn’t matter too much if you got a good story. Dirty Faces is clever and has something to say, but at points wastes time and has loose subplots. It’s also not as subversive to films of its time as it can seem to some. Regardless, there is a fair amount to get out of it.

The performances are solid all around. Jerry Connolly, played by Pat O’Brien, does well being this almost silent observer whose subtle character arc tells us a lot about both the protagonist and what the movie is trying to say. The camera loves to give us nice shots of his face reacting to what’s going on, showing the impact of those that live around a criminal and how the audience supposedly should feel when various events unfold. A trope that comes up that is sometimes irritating is when a character says what is obviously the main point the writer is trying to convey. Here, that works better as Jerry seems to be realizing and coming to terms with certain things, like how criminals are revered by society. At one point, this is conveyed by him literally giving a speech. Ann Sheridan as Laury Martin is a weaker element. She has a purpose, but is treated as little more than a prize to be won and is barely even referenced. Jim Frazier, played by Humphrey Bogart, brings this fake confidence to every scene, like he’s trying to slide his way through the story undetected. Jim comes off as a bit of a loser, but that not only feeds into the message that being a gangster will only get you trouble, but it arguably feeds into one of the great themes of the film… Rocky Sullivan is unstoppable!

James Cagney really gives it his all as someone determined to not take crap from anyone in his life and not let anything get him down. A major theme is in fact Sullivan going to great lengths to get things his way. As such, he becomes a larger than life figure that everyone has an opinion on and many look up to. Cagney throughout supplies the tough as nails demeanor that you’d expect from such a person, while also adding elements to humanize him, mainly in his respect for Jerry. His intelligence is used to cheat and steal, with the heart of the movie coming from when he isn’t doing that. He succumbs to emotions both when he’s at his most fiery and when he’s at his most compassionate. By extension, you see another side of Rocky.

Interestingly, some of the gangsters seem to have ethics, like when one lets a shop owner live when he could’ve just as well been shot. Some of the gangsters also seem really stupid, like when one calls the police. This arguably adds to the theme of Rocky being so unstoppable, but their idiocy is mostly used as a plot convenience. The actors that played the kids that idolized Rocky were called the “Dead End Kids”. Their performance in the movie comes off a bit comical, with exaggerated street kid accents and this almost unwavering loyalty to Rocky. The leader especially acts like a dog who is always happy to see his owner. They do have some good moments, like when they’re playing pool. It’s also worth noting the scene when one seems to be critical of Rocky, but then that never comes back into relevance. The scene has a bit of purpose by showing the protagonist manipulate the kid into not disobeying him.

While not shown on screen, Rocky is depicted as having power over corrupt police. By extension, the police are shown to be impulsive and emotional like Rocky. Jerry also correctly points out that we live in a society where money is used to create supposed shields from crime in isolated areas, which doesn’t deal with crime on a large scale. The supposed corruption of the government is barely mentioned. That isn’t much of an issue, but it would’ve been ideal to get a sense of what will happen with it at the end of the film. We saw Jerry’s actions throughout. What will he do next? How will that affect the police force or the government?

There’s some beautiful cinematography, like when Frazier is bathed in darkness listening to the radio, when the camera pans from Rocky to a mirror with Rocky in it, and when Jerry walks away from the kids after they don’t want to play basketball to the left when he entered the scene from the right. Those last two shots show a shift in how those characters will act and should be seen by the audience. The ending scenes are also shadow-heavy, showcasing its offbeat conclusion. One interpretation of what the darkness is “saying” is that hanging around criminals or having a criminal past will never really escape a person, possibly unless they find Jesus and drop the negative influences.

SPOILERS

Jerry as a child almost getting hit by the train is a bit silly, seemingly just there to add in a bit more drama, though you could say this explains why he turns against the criminal lifestyle. Rocky being captured by the police in the beginning, and later on seeing him spend about fifteen years in prison, goes against the mythical image he is later shown to have. What if instead we saw him from the perspective of one of the kids that idolized him? Only later do we know of his failings, or better yet, we never do and him being cornered, arrested, and killed at the end are finally the time we see him lose, with his pleading creating a nice contrast where he never really accepts defeat internally, but demonstrates it for Jerry’s sake. Another issue is the montage of many potentially important scenes of Rocky gaining status. If these weren’t necessary to the story, why not just skip over them? They hurt the flow of the story. We were building momentum beforehand and now we have to do it again once we get to the current setting. If this was supposed to establish Rocky as a big name, it’d be better to see what gets him that name. Let’s see people fear or show interest in him.

Frazier’s death is very poorly edited, with him seemingly going from the middle of a quiet small room to the bar of a giant danceroom. The setting was not even established, so it’s a surprise to see all those people. The shots of people trying to break in the room and Rocky’s escape scored with theatrical music feel extremely overblown, like we’re being pushed off a cliff into a climax, with editing that is way too quick on the draw. There’s no chance to take in what’s happening. Probably why this scene and the later standoff lack some impact is because the movie was not very focused on killings and the police, being more about the interpersonal relationships. While the finale shows a functional value to the story, it doesn’t thematically follow what the movie was about.

To contrast the brutality of a criminal life, and show that crime is not really what the movie is about, the main force Rocky must go up against is his friend Jerry, who initially was just like the children who later follow Rocky, willing to follow him. He grows apart to a degree by going for a clean and Godly life, but thinks he can essentially use Rocky to help get some young boys into healthier activities. The problems with Rocky come out and negatively affect the children. Despite Jerry’s renouncement of what Rocky’s doing, Jerry does do some of the strategies that Rocky does, essentially cheating for his own gain, though this is easy to miss. While Jerry does seem to genuinely like and respect Rocky, he still uses him to get the kids into sports. Despite his desire to clean up the streets, he doesn’t much vouch against Rocky. He is more critical of those like Jim Frazier probably only because he isn’t friends with him. There is of course ultimately the final interaction between the two, which will be discussed later.

As Rocky climbs the social ladder and begins to seem unstoppable, it gets to the point where essentially, he must challenge God. Throughout the film, it is shown that crime doesn’t pay, with those that engage in it paying some kind of price. The exception is seemingly for a time Rocky, who at one point evades getting hit. When Rocky gets robbed, he finds those that did it and uses his name to earn their trust and loyalty. He even has a seeming disposition to luck or cleverness when after the kids tried to break through a slot machine to get money and only managed a little, Rocky uses a much simpler method to get a lot more from the slot machine in secret. While realistically there was a lot that was working against Rocky, he only starts to lose his power after a few selfless acts.

First, he gives money to Jerry that he needs, then refuses to allow Jerry to be killed by the mob. Showing the fragility this type of person must have, Rocky secures his fate by trying to escape the police, killing some, in a battle he has no way of winning. This could be seen as a way to prove to himself that he is tough. Even if he will be vulnerable with Jerry, he won’t be with anyone else and they need to know it. He even briefly uses Jerry as a human shield, though it seems clear he would not actually shoot him. And what is Jerry supposed to represent? God, of course. God “saves” Jerry early on. As you’d expect from a film like this, God is shown as a way to heal those who have wronged. It is implied the children influenced by Rocky will eventually go a Godly path and not follow a life of crime. An Atheist interpretation would be to say that what defeats the unbreakable Rocky is his humanity or a desire to do right. He repeatedly wanted to do right by Jerry and the kids, with his final act a selfless one designed to help the children. Jerry also does some good. He often empathizes strongly with others and is driven to help them.

The ending sees the culmination of Rocky’s philosophy and Jerry’s. Jerry, who clearly tried to do the right thing, including using negative influences to achieve his goals in a way that is not obvious to the audience and possibly Jerry himself, ultimately comes down to Rocky’s level clearly, saying that he needs Rocky to be dishonest for him and pretend to be a coward afraid to die. In turn, Rocky also embraces Jerry’s way of being by after at first refusing to do this before acquiescing, demonstrating how hard it would be for him to do that or even to simply tell Jerry he will. It could be that what is most difficult for Rocky is to admit his lifestyle beforehand was problematic enough that he would need to directly say he will do what Jerry wants. His behavior has already afforded him so much. Jerry is also creating his own internal conflict, to hold on to this lie and also create a false image of Rocky that could remain in history for a long time. Despite his problem with justifying the means for the sake of the end, he does that. Just as Rocky benefitted often from his selfishness, so does Jerry here.

To nullify that impact to some degree, of course Rocky does “lose” early on and for the rest of the movie has to deal with problems, but some of those work to help him or at least don’t weigh on him. By contrast, Jerry having a conscience will create stress for him. Note his solemn and unsettled face in the last scene. He even mentions the earlier scene where Rocky “couldn’t run as fast as I could” to escape the police, as if he’s sad he couldn’t save Rocky from outrunning a life of crime and becoming a better person. He also can’t escape the fact that he used some of Rocky’s tricks and is even benefitting from his death. Just like how Rocky seemed impervious to setbacks before that ruined him, Jerry fears becoming impervious and outside the rules in a similar way.

Jerry acting like it’s okay if Rocky is seen as yellow if the two of them know the truth could be shown as a call to sacrifice the idea of always being so strongly and boldly “yourself”, so certain and full of yourself that you think the world revolves around you. While Rocky has tried to succeed in life by always acting tough, Jerry is saying that the best way to be tough and to be “yourself” sometimes can be done in a way where no one else will know that you were. He could also be saying that Rocky doesn’t really have the power he thinks he does, so the way he can actually get it back is by being strong enough to do something like this. Note earlier the police were insulting him and he was rattling the bars to no real response. This shows how powerless and ineffective he’s become. Under the interpretation some take that Rocky was not acting at the end and really was begging for his life, this would add that Rocky’s search for power and success at it resulted in him losing everything about him he valued. He already admitted earlier that he’s lost basically everything.

OVERVIEW

While Angels with Dirty Faces includes more humanity and nuance than a film like The Public Enemy before it, it’s not got the pizazz of it. Here, we don’t see much passion from the protagonist or much of an adventure, with the story being more about arguments and the conflict between the two main friends. Due to the limitations of the 30s, especially with the Hays Code, we seem to lose some edge or nuance that would help the story along, like some scenes of graphic violence and police corruption. Those could enhance its message. As such, we don’t get the many iconic moments Enemy has to make up for some of its shortcomings, but you certainly get many interesting moments for those that want a “thinker” movie.

Casino (1995) Review

A frame from the film.

Just as The Irishman feels like it’s related to Goodfellas, the same can be said for Casino. The theme of crime drawing out the worst of violent and selfish hotheads (who tend to be played by Joe Pesci) is prevalent to the point that with The Irishman and to a greater extent Casino, they work less on their own. The 1995 outfit contains similarities in the performances of Robert De Niro and especially Pesci. While both still turn in solid portrayals, especially with De Niro as Sam “Ace” Rothstein, they are clearly aping off of the good graces of what’s come before. The beginning of the movie is like a trailer, with excessive narration and attention-grabbing imagery from De Niro and Pesci as Nicky Santoro. They vaguely discuss having done a rise and fall that we’re about to see, without a sense of reflection or personality that might come from a real person. Their lines and characterless deliveries feel like impersonal documentary narration due to the extreme excess of spectacle and establishing dialogue, with the cast a step away from saying “This is just Goodfellas with some twists, so we hope you remember that movie.” The dialogue is all style, and lots of it, and no real substance. The opening moment of Sam seemingly being blown up is also comical and spoils part of the movie. Throughout the film, the score is edited chaotically, with snippets of songs coming and going, reflecting the worst of this movie’s impulses to be a rearranged version of what’s come before.

After this introduction, De Niro dramatically improves, producing an effortless likability, probably from how in control he is and how layered Sam is. It becomes clear he’s trying to make himself look as good as possible, so it’s so fascinating seeing how he copes with certain issues. When he does something like yell in public, you get the sense that he is trying to exert the power he’s been given and maintain social good graces. His foil comes with Sharon Stone as Ginger McKenna. She is introduced at surface depth, just having the core qualities of her character type. She is pretty, she likes money, and she is dishonest. Martin Scorsese has had a way with weak female characters and Ginger is often used as window dressing. This is subverted when the second half of the movie focuses on her and allows Sharon Stone to turn in an emotional and open performance of a woman losing her mind. The rawness of her mirrors the gruesomeness of Nicky, both are mean in their own way. One of the most interesting parts of this story is seeing how her behavior changes Sam, with there being great contrast on how he is with people like Don Ward or even his friend Nicky and Ginger. This second half corrects some of these aforementioned wrongs with the Ginger character, but this leads to the greater issue of how disparate the film can be, with certain plot points unresolved.

Pesci is extremely entertaining, as is typical for him, but he doesn’t draw interesting developments from Sam or the main plots in the way he has in past works. As such, he plays more as comic relief here. His various conflicts with Sam don’t have much of a climax. Something happens that may lead you to think something big will happen between them at the end, though there isn’t really. There is an arguable example of “something big”, but it doesn’t tackle the nuance of their relationship. Another backhanded compliment about the film is that from around the thirty minute to ninety minute mark, it has a very good story about the issues in Sam’s business life, then most of the rest of the film is about his personal life with Ginger. Both main plots are intriguing and complimentary, with there obviously being parallels between the two, but the issues of the first half fizzle out with little to tie them off. Ginger is then the focus. More resolution to the beginning segment and a more complex introduction to Ginger would help a lot. Another way to help them is to have both going on simultaneously. This movie is based on a true story, so maybe it wasn’t true to life that these were happening at the same time, but it’s hard to believe there was no overlap and the film takes so many creative liberties that all of the film character names are fake.

SPOILERS

While De Niro does bring a lot to the role, the script somewhat lets the character down by glossing over much of the complexity of the real life person Sam is based on. This is typified by the feud between Sam and Ginger seeming mostly caused by Ginger, though what seems to actually be true is that Sam’s basis was much more of a problem than is portrayed. While the other mentioned films do the same thing of a lighter treatment of the lead, they trade that in for the ending of The Irishman and what that says about the character and Goodfellas essentially sucking us down into the mind of Henry Hill and sitting next to him as he tries to get out of his erratic state. Sam has an almost limitless amount of power due to his wealth. The one way he doesn’t have power is that he can’t make Ginger either love him or behave as he wants. His confrontation of this problem is minimal. We’re simply told he doesn’t want her to go instead of really feeling how he does without her. We don’t even see him particularly vulnerable. He’s often very confident and has a strong backbone. When Ginger is caught saying she wants to have Sam killed, nothing changes. Sam doesn’t even seem afraid for his life. That scene may as well not be there, though in the moment we get some really quality acting from the rage of the two.

Especially considering that Sam never took back control of the money that he let Ginger have the key to until well after things spoiled for them suggests that in the eyes of Sam, Ginger’s behavior is not as extreme or inexcusable as it would seem to the audience. As is, he just comes off as stupid for not seeing the writing on the wall, due to us not seeing much turmoil from him between what she’s doing and his love for her. By contrast, we get a better sense of the love Sam has for his daughter, like when he shows concern unseen before when he finds her tied to the bed. In fact, Nicky and Sam are portrayed as surprisingly good parents. It’s just a shame we don’t see much of this, with Nicky’s son having almost no screen time and us not really seeing Sam care for his daughter until she was kidnapped.

While the power of the film comes from its strong tales, certain themes can still be read. The most evident is how love and criminality both can be dangerous and look absurd from an outside perspective. The characters show what the appeal might be. Logically speaking, Nicky was setting himself up for a whacking due to how volatile he is, wanting to follow his own personal goals even at the cost of others. Yet, to extrapolate this, why would anyone even want to be a gangster or more vaguely a criminal due to the high risk? This is best demonstrated in the end when various mafia bosses lean on the safe side by killing anyone they think might rat on them. Even if you do everything you’re supposed to, you could still be murdered if someone is just trying to be precautious. All of this seems pointless when the mafia bosses are depicted as extremely frail, so why bother getting into this stuff for just a little money? Love is essentially criticized as it initially leads to Sam allowing Ginger far more forgiveness than he should give, and later his love of his daughter leads him to threaten Ginger in public, which could have gotten him in trouble, though it doesn’t. The film also points the finger at Sam for his criminality. He initially wants to keep a low profile, but gets into trouble due to his relatively minor criminal past. His power inflates his ego to the point of him doing absurd things like getting a tv show when everyone wants him to keep quiet.

A lot of these themes should have been emphasized more, as they feel almost incidental. Ginger loving her ex mirrors Sam loving Ginger, but Ginger and her ex’s dynamic is never resolved. If it was, it could make for an interesting comparison or contrast with Sam’s romance. Why Nicky decided to sleep with Ginger could have been established better, like if it was set up that Nicky was the type of person that wanted to do whatever he could to hurt someone he feels hurt by as much as possible. Nicky crying at the sight of his brother being beaten shows a side of him that wasn’t seen before and almost seems here to force something else for the audience to think on or to give him more humanity. He has already been humanized because real people do what he does. The mafia aspect of the movie is relatively minimal, with you having to read in why they do what they do. While that’s okay to a degree, they are simply too off to the side until they suddenly come around at the end. You can imagine Scorsese wanting to fill in the blanks with Goodfellas, which is much more about being a “gangster”.

Due to the disjointed storylines of the film, it would be difficult to tie up the movie in a satisfying way. It doesn’t, with two of the three main characters simply being killed off. Such endings betray their various plots and issues, essentially sweeping them under the rug. Those deaths feel moralistic, as if saying that’s the consequences of their bad actions, which is simply boring. There’s also a severe lack of tension due to the ending being about mostly no name mobsters getting killed, when this movie before barely focused on the mob. The way this plot point provides a climax makes it feel forced in to add some violence and conclude the film. Due to us consistently seeing Sam and his development, his ending works much better, with his failed murder attempt “freeing” him from this stage of his life and encouraging him to go back to essentially what he was doing before, with the message probably being that it’s best to quit something like this while you’re ahead, instead of going down with the ship in the way Nicky does. Nicky is suspected to be the person that tried to kill Sam, but he earlier was opposed to the idea of killing him and the two didn’t seem to have that much bad blood. However, it is believable that Sam would think Nicky would try to kill him and that such a murder would be so despicable that it’s for the best Sam leave this life behind him. It is a shame we don’t see how this apparent betrayal by his friend makes him feel.

Sam’s ending is very understated, with the last shot literally of Sam reflecting, which could be seen as disappointing, but at least leads to contemplation of the character and the story, unlike with something like Nicky’s demise. This ending comes after cinematic shots of casinos being knocked down and replaced, with the intense glamor suggesting this has a sense of glory and power for someone else, with Sam upset he’s not the one with that power. When he says at the end “Why mess up a good thing?” in reference to his current life, he is mourning the loss of the good thing he had and is enjoying the way he currently has respect. The gorgeous shots of the buildings going down is a literal way Sam’s past has gone away.

OVERVIEW

Part of what makes Scorsese’s films so engaging is the deep look inside the heads of their characters and the many aspects of their lives. It all comes across as a very full picture. As such, the “telling and not showing” of the very beginning of this film is rather bizarre and unnecessary, as some of it could simply be shown. One example is when Sam mentions how charming Ginger is, with us not seeing much of her like that. The first thing we see her do is try to steal and then Sam immediately jumps to his infatuation with her. Despite the varying negatives of Casino, the strong and engaging performances and stories makes it a satisfying viewing, though reeks of lost potential if handled a little better. It’s hard to say this picture is a failure, as it has all the qualities of great Scorsese, they’re just a bit muffled.

Goodfellas (1990) Review

A frame from the film.

No matter what anyone has or could say about this film, you can’t deny that it is one of the most definitive statements on the lifestyle it portrays. The tension and developments come from the varying, sometimes minor, ways that being a criminal affects people. Even when we get into tangents like the main character’s belle, her behavior is almost always colored by what she’s gotten herself into. Through her and the main character of Henry is a brilliant look at mobsters through simply watching a few of them live their lives. Beyond the core handful, most have very little to do, so the prominent cast are asked to tell us a very grand story, which they do through excellent acting and a rather long runtime. Ray Liotta as Henry Hill is the most relatable and humanized gangster. Despite this, and also that the movie features his narration and is based on a book Hill wrote, we avoid vulnerability or a complexity of emotions from him. He is almost always taking a situation and either trying to enjoy the ride or get out ahead. As such, it can be easy to forget at times what he’s a part of. Just as his goals are immediately and simply stated to be about living an easy life, we are asked to just enjoy the journey he is on. When things happen to him, we feel them as we’ve seen Liotta’s lively and realistic portrayal. He is mainly interesting in what he represents and brings out in others, especially with the paradoxical answer to the big question of whether or not this movie glorifies gangsters.

Joe Pesci as Tommy DeVito and Robert De Niro as James “Jimmy” Conway are hard to discuss without spoilers. Their point is to cover different types of behaviors and mentalities in the mob. De Niro as always has this effortless class that he always maintains with a smile or sliding a little bit of money to another. Pesci on the other end has an explosive temperament and whose callus attitude colors how these criminals manage to do what they do. His many memorable lines tell you what gangsters supposedly think. Karen Hill, played by Lorraine Bracco, represents the human aspect of the story. While the three men cover the corners of what it means to be a gangster and what it’s like, Karen often concerns herself with the fallout of whatever has happened. She also explains, frankly quite clearly, some reasons why someone would want to marry a gangster. Emotions are often plastered to Bracco’s face, which give relief to the dense scenes of violence.

The “gangster life” is depicted in a far rosier way than you might expect after seeing the later Scorsese flick The Irishman. In fact, one of the first scenes of the film is a romantic and inviting scene of 50s life. While more and more this perception is challenged, it doesn’t completely. The most telling example of this is that the last time we see Henry, he looks pretty good and not much older than in the 60s. In fact, all of the characters are shown as sympathetic and likable to a degree, like they are to be enjoyable and entertaining, almost letting you forget their gruesome crimes. The various killings or cadavers are treated as comedic or like just another thing to discover, with little look at the horror of it outside of what Henry witnesses.

The inviting and lively world makes for excellent pacing and an exciting story, which leads to this lifestyle’s portrayal as just as exciting. As a narrative, you can’t deny the intrigue in simply seeing various little events hit Henry and seeing in what little ways it affects him and how he tries to manage with changing stresses. Due to the slight ways problems buildup, you realize overtime how he progressively becomes less carefree. The narration suggests Henry probably survives and is in a relaxed state, which furthermore adds to the sense of this being an adventure. Those that get the bad end of the stick are not covered with great depth. Despite some narration from Karen, the story is essentially always on Henry, which gives minimal opportunity to turn your sympathies off or disconnect from him. An example of this is in the freeze frames, which detail important moments of Henry’s life. Many of the freeze frames showcase moments of Henry receiving something, which in turn color his life. While not exactly a freeze frame, the photographs of Henry just enjoying life with his gangster friends are the most important, telling us of how close he is to them, which makes for important contrast with the ending.

A common theme is contrast between the brutality of being a gangster and something far more cheery, like community or upbeat music. The usage of “Frosty the Snowman” takes on an ironic approach when it plays over the outburst of a serious issue, representing when the positive attitude the film has at points changes. Earlier, young Henry has a cavalier attitude to his father beating him, which may as a bonus suggest Henry’s worse qualities come from childhood trauma. We see Henry meet a large group of gangsters, as if they’re celebrities for the young protagonist to admire. Henry later enters a club through a kitchen, with his nice suit and ability to do as he pleases going against the type of life he’s wanted to avoid around him.

There are plenty of fun little moments. One example of the tense pacing is the scene of one character going to look at dresses, with the slight strangeness and emptiness of the scene, as well as how long it goes on, creating this unnatural and uneasy vibe. Past established information about the characters add to the drama here. Another example is the excellent music, especially with the “Layla” scene. The final act gets quicker and puts you in the cocaine-fueled headspace. The famous last scenes are as good as its reputation proposes, summarizing the whole story in a powerful few lines and shots. One nitpick is the weaker scene of Tommy and Jimmy with the former’s mother. They seem to be trying to improvise something to say, reminiscent of a friend doing a silly Italian impression.

SPOILERS

Some miscellaneous comments include: The movie should have revealed why Paulie, played by Paul Sorvino, didn’t want Henry dealing coke, as that would punctuate the ending of the two characters. It doesn’t make much sense that Jimmy would want to kill Karen. It seems the reason for him doing this was to test if Karen trusted him, which would tell him if Henry trusted him. If he had killed her, that would just push Henry to the authorities even more. The reason this scene is in the movie is probably because in real life this basically happened, only there was an actual reason for Jimmy to whack her. Next, the very detailed look into seemingly any ol’ day of Henry’s life, as well as the very fast pacing, spoils that something “big” will happen, as otherwise we wouldn’t see so much of it.

Another way this film is less scathing against this lifestyle is that Henry is never shown to kill anyone and at points is disgusted by the violence, as if he is pure and worth rooting for. His friends that do do the acts are shown getting punished. In fact, the scene of Henry, Tommy, and Jimmy eating with Tommy’s mom seems to be humanizing all three, though also separating Henry from the others. He appears closer to the camera and covered in shadow, like he’s not part of them. The painting the mom shows depicts two dogs going in opposite ways, mirroring Henry feeling said conflict and distance. Later, the three digging up a body has beautiful lighting and use of darkness, making the experience cinematic. Tommy making a slightly humorous comment before dying, as if it’s to be taken lightly, is probably the only time this is an issue. His death is later taken with some weight, so it should have some here.

Even if Henry didn’t kill anyone, he did participate in a deadly system and support his friends until his own neck was on the line. The reason he doesn’t do the worst of it and gets off well at the end is for catharsis, to see the likable lead journey up and down and give relief in his reward. If we weren’t supposed to like him, why have the story lose tension and decompress itself with Henry escaping, instead of on some moment of him losing in a more real way, like going to prison? This is also very reminiscent of old movie tropes. In 1930s films with gangsters and criminals, oftentimes at least one reforms and is given some honor and/or a woman. No Limit and The Public Enemy are examples. This was done as a simple way to not let a bad person off the hook and if they are going to survive to the end, let them not promote a dangerous lifestyle. The difference between those and Goodfellas is that the hero gets into worse debauchery and doesn’t even honestly reform, but he is still living the same life in essence.

The bizarre and fake-sounding laughter is perhaps the first sign of how unglamorous being a gangster can be, showing a fakeness to how everyone acts, probably because they don’t want to start trouble. While Henry celebrates the idea of being able to do anything he’d like, it progressively becomes clear to him that this means he could be killed unceremoniously as others can also do what they like. He is shown to be shocked by some of the mindless killings and violence of his friends. Even then, he shows loyalty to them until it seems that one of his friends is going to have him killed. Perhaps he would’ve taken a sentencing if it wasn’t for that? While the constant killings of Jimmy have their reasoning, it ultimately is what dooms him. Just like in The Irishman, we are following the one gangster that was lucky enough to escape a serious punishment or death. Another element of the story details the negative side early on…

Karen watching The Jazz Singer adds to the constant contrast of something heavy and something light, while also suggesting one way she copes with her stress, enjoying light entertainment, and probably relating to its story about a fellow Jew who feels ostracized by those around him. Whether or not she finds much fulfillment in life by the end is left ambiguous, though the answer is probably not. Her husband and her are left without the sort of money they could use for something like rehab for their cocaine addictions. Their clear lust for doing bad things also isn’t satisfied or tied off. In fact, with Henry it’s explicitly stated that he doesn’t want to stop. Karen’s desire to keep Henry in her life probably will not work out in her favor, as he is never shown having remorse for his cheating or wanting to stop. She even has to apparently have almost no contact with her parents out of fear that that will lead to someone getting in danger. While some say the movie is really about Karen and what happens to her, that is muted by how the last scenes are solely about Henry and how he feels. At that point, Karen loses autonomy.

The real point of her narration seems to be to give a more nuanced view of the events than what Henry could do alone. We get a good look of Jimmy’s ill will when she experiences what she thinks is a hit attempt from him. After just looking at Henry’s world, including him being late for his date, we’re pulled out of his view by hearing Karen’s feelings on the matter, as if she’s telling him the world is not all about him. While Karen’s usage as representing Henry’s homebase is serviceable for the story, there is a feminist critique in it and in other scenes. Women are sexualized quite a lot. You could argue the point of this is to show the excessive and joyous lifestyle Henry lives, but it goes a bit far. Karen giving Henry head only seemed to be there to grab any audience members who may not have been paying attention. The numerous scenes of women’s bodies suggests that that is essentially the big thing they’re adding to the story, perhaps a few more male butts in seats? The view that Karen is the “counterweight” to Henry is mere interpretation, and thus easier to miss than the sexualization.

The most damning the film is against gangsterdom is in how the principle characters act. Tommy takes to heart the “ability to do anything” that Henry falls for. This not only hurts many people around Tommy, but Tommy himself. His death being implied as coming from one of his reckless murders is one of the clearest cases of how this sort of thing can catch up to you. Jimmy trades in Tommy’s thoughtlessness for something seemingly better but just as detrimental. He’s honest to himself about how dangerous his surroundings are, which leads him to decide to kill most of his own friends. In turn, he’s also losing a lot of support for himself and giving Henry ammunition to turn against him. Him at all making Henry aware of his murders of their comrades is in itself foolish, but maybe he either wanted someone to trust or he wanted another opinion on the matter? Jimmy crying over Tommy’s death suggests the sense of humanity that the former is ignoring in others he kills and how inherently selfish he is. This speaks to the contradictions in doing what he does.

Jimmy’s understanding of his predicament probably influences his behavior. Maybe he gives people money to quickly get them on his good side and put them in a false sense of security? Maybe he helps Tommy with his killing, as he doesn’t want to get in heat? By extension, the character of Morrie represents Jimmy deciding to kill the others off. It seems the only reason Morrie was alive up to that point was that he owed Jimmy money. Once that was settled, Morrie irritated him, which in turn pushed Jimmy to realize that killing everyone would make things a lot easier for him, especially because the others were making poor decisions. Thus, it is possible that if everyone followed the rules, Jimmy wouldn’t have felt pushed to take them all out.

Henry challenges this lifestyle in a different way, with dishonor. While he keeps his nose out of the murders, he can’t resist the temptation to allow things to get in over his head. He shows an awareness of the threat of this when he promises his wife he won’t get imprisoned, as those that do make idiotic mistakes. If he was “logical”, he would understand that dealing coke, or at least doing it, would not end well. However, he bought into the idea of being able to do what he wants. He eventually gets so deep into his cocaine business, which he was told not to do, that his only options are to rat out all his friends, even Paulie who didn’t do him any wrong, or to die. Thus, he was forced to essentially break the bond with those he was so close to initially. He also yells at Karen in front of their child, leaving a bad impression on her. Despite this whole movie being Henry’s story, the children barely factor into it, as if he didn’t really care about them.

Beyond Henry not respecting the “family”, which is a concept often talked about, no one really does. The notable example is Jimmy and Tommy’s killings, which prove that the idea of them being family is just to create false security. Even if not intentionally, that is the product. Paulie on the other hand does show respect for the concept. When Henry makes a confession to him that could get Paulie in trouble and the former whacked for the trouble, Paulie helps him with some money. Henry then betrays him more. In turn, he is really betraying and disapproving the concept of the “family”, which seems to be what the movie is really trying to prove. It goes against both the moral gangster and the nameless gangster. These are people, but still out for themselves. Henry may have “won”, but most don’t. Despite all this, probably the reason Henry went to Paulie for money is because he did trust that his “family” would help him.

The ending showcases this dual mindset of Henry, who never shows remorse for his actions, just like with Jimmy and Tommy, he doesn’t regret it, and doesn’t show signs of stopping. However, his inability to ever back down does cost him. Jimmy, Tommy, and Paulie also don’t back down and end up in vastly worse positions, showing this was all more a matter of luck. Henry pointing them out in court punctuates how badly they’re being screwed by him for doing the same song and dance, while also mirroring the earlier court scene of Henry being celebrated for not ratting on anyone. What’s so brilliant about this finale is how it tells you what we’ve already learned, but makes it a revelation. Even when we’ve seen violence be glorified or Henry arguably take a lesson in some way or him defeat immense odds, he still wants to get ahead like any other gangster and isn’t so different, despite the contrast with how his life ends up. Just like how cheating through life hasn’t failed him yet, he probably will not stop trying. Paulie can be seen as the product of stopping the cheating. In fact, him ratting is simply another cheat, just as the other gangsters do in their lifestyle. He simply now can best cheat by following the rules, but that alliance is as temporary as Jimmy was to his life. As the final shot of Tommy shows, he even can be whacked and maybe even haunted if he accepts morality.

OVERVIEW

There is a definite comparison between the final shot and the ending of The Irishman, as does the ending music, saying what happens if you do things “My Way”, with the films showing the benefits and drawbacks of that through the lens of a life of crime. Whether or not Goodfellas glorifies that crime doesn’t matter in one important aspect; it doesn’t change whether or not the movie is good. In fact, it doesn’t matter much that it is such a thorough dissection of the “gangster life”, which seems to be a big reason why it’s so liked. The film is extremely exciting and interesting, with that and the essentially perfect pacing propelling it to masterhood.

See for a cop tasting some untested cocaine to make sure it’s actually cocaine.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) Review

One of the most iconic shots in the film.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is known for a lot of things. On the very surface are the many quotable lines and big performances, which are both so fast paced that they arguably consume everything else at play in the story, such as the theme of attempting to grab power. The four principle characters all go for it at some point, with not all of them even being aware that they’re doing it. In the great tradition of classic American cinema, we get power in clothes, makeup, and boobs! Elizabeth Taylor is intentionally supposed to look older and dress casually, looking crotchety like she’s supposed to be, but also is extremely captivating, bringing an aura with how well her clothes fits her and how much character is in both the wardrobe and Taylor’s demeanor.

You are immediately hit with the intense loudness of the film. The two leads seem to be making a point to be as insufferable as possible and they frankly succeed. It is arguable if they are “realistic” due to just how unable they are to not throw out a deprecating quip. Those quips sure make the affair electrifying, but it adds a level of absurdity that probably is not desirable, like that they all want to be attention-grabbing to an audience. It is hard to see anyone as a real person, though one might feel the same way if they actually met someone like that in real life. There are few moments where we are supposed to feel for the two leads, but when they do the effect is jarring, especially when considering certain interpretations of the plot. They also seem to sometimes go for laughs, which maybe would work better on a stage, but not so much in this movie intended to be disturbing. “I am the Earth mother and you are all flops.”

The insults do serve the purpose of telling us a lot about the main couple. Martha, played by Elizabeth Taylor, often comes off as dead inside, with her behavior often driven by a desire to get focus or feeling, even from things that are really bad ideas. She even says she likes her husband’s anger. Taylor in turn seems to be making an effort to steal the scene every time she speaks. Her exaggerated and drawn out delivery, topped with repeating the same lines for emphasis is trying way too hard to get attention and to a degree numbs the audience to her performance. This works to compromise the character from reaching her full potential. Another problem with Martha is how she mostly only exists through the lens of her husband, with her behavior and backstory typically related to him in some way. This is most apparent when we’ll hear Martha speaking ill of her husband and we’re watching his reactions, showing that’s what is important.

Richard Burton as George does fall into some of the trappings that Taylor does, but includes some minor, but telling mannerisms that are quite fascinating. He also changes much more significantly than Martha. In the beginning, he almost comes off as a victim to Martha’s cruelty, though it later becomes apparent that’s not the case. Note how he also treats each character differently. Nick, played by George Segal, he seems to relate to and respect in some ways, but can also seem to play around with his emotions. Honey, played by Sandy Dennis, on the other hand is basically disregarded. Martha by contrast is never ignored by him. He often tries to project intelligence, unlike Martha.

The movie is characterized by a lot of very amusing stories about the characters’ pasts. For the sake of a tighter narrative, some probably should have been cut, especially considering how simple the ending is, in contrast to the “big” film. The stories do go to serve one theme of the movie, essentially wishing to constantly contort reality to what you would like it to be. Another consequence of this “telling stories” approach is that the picture becomes a bit predictable. You know you’re going to hear Martha say something about George, then George will about her. You also know how they’re going to deliver the information. Martha is brassy, while George acts like he’s sophisticated. The focal point of the film is the masculinity and other insecurities of George. One example of him failing to be what he wants is when he can’t get Martha to get the door or stop speaking ill of him. He might want to stay with her because despite Martha being very bombastic, she hasn’t left him. Martha often makes the men feel emasculated with her constant yelling and certain comments.

The cinematography filled with angles and consuming darkness work to make the house feel small and claustrophobic, more like a prison cell. Most of the movie lacking a score adds to this, as do the bits of quick editing, like when we sharp jump from the leads in the car to Honey humming and spinning in a circle. Another particular striking moment is Martha wandering around in the dark, with the camera keeping a large distance from her. The actors also sell how uncomfortable this situation is, even with the limitations. One such limitation is the simple fact that Taylor looks gorgeous and not that old, which takes away from the desired effect of her being past her prime. Burton also looks and is young, though is slightly more convincing as a middle-aged person. It’s even shown in the film that Taylor is desirable to others. Nick and Honey are audience surrogates in the beginning, before things get intense. Thus, the message may be that average people can end up how they do. In fact, Nick is not named in the film and “Honey” may just be a nickname.

SPOILERS

George appears willing to fight pointless battles just to keep Martha and others under his thumb. When George and Nick talk, especially outside, George appears to be trying to “win over” Nick, making him relate to him. His goal in this is unclear, but based on how empty his life is shown to be, perhaps he wants to keep himself busy or have a pawn to use against Martha? Earlier on, he argued with Nick about any random topic, probably to get him on edge for amusement, though you’d think this would make Nick like him less. Maybe the reason why is because things like Honey throwing up are embarrassing for Nick, so he feels a need to be accommodating to George, so as not to perform a social faux pa? The two men then have a nice enough conversation where they’re relating over their issues with their wives. For a time, Nick appears to get along with George.

A more likely theory is that while he does want to control others, George can’t resist insulting people he feels are beneath him due to his desire to have power. Based on his arguments with Martha, he clearly has basically no control. He probably feels especially threatened by Nick, so the young man doesn’t deserve respect as he thinks his work will lead to genes being rearranged, wherein “everyone will be like everyone else”. Perhaps he believes he is owed control over others as a man and doesn’t want to see a world where he is not afforded that? Thus, he says he is threatened. There’s one scene where he refuses to light Martha’s cigarettes, but says he will do things wherein he would be a heroic and level headed support to a woman. Another notable moment is when he’s embarrassed by Martha talking about times she had dominated over him. In turn, he feels a need to project confidence and do bold things because he can, like pretending to shoot Martha. Later, Martha insults Nick’s sexual performance, so she may have done the same with George.

When Nick and Honey are more receptive, they’re drinking. Such drinking is encouraged by George, possibly because it makes them more likely to do stupid things or at least just go along with him. One great moment is when we get a closeup on George’s hands as he fills Nick’s glass before the latter reveals personal information that will later be used against him. If his goal is to gain a sense of power, then more support will help his case. Admittedly, he’s not very good at this, with everyone scared of him by the end. In fact, if any new alliances were made, it would probably be between Honey and Martha. Honey gets taken more and more into what could be called the “fun part” of George and Martha, like when she yells “Violence!” and other quips. She probably likes that Martha is louder and more bold than what is expected of a woman, while Nick seems concerned about her not filling the expected womanly role in a marriage.

Another motif of the film is the battle between these women who both don’t have children and have a desire to be “dominating”, while the men are more submissive and are insecure about that. The messiness of the older couple’s house signifies Martha “failing” to be a housewife. Honey initially seems reserved, but is opened up by the events of the narrative. Honey seems to be blamed for stressing her marriage by not wanting children, as we get a large view of Nick’s distress over feeling forced to be with and accept her, as if that is something a woman just should do and you are not doing your womanly duty by not having them. Note how little Honey is delved into, like she’s just here for the others and thus her perspective shouldn’t be seriously considered. Martha’s sadness over not having children could be interpreted as the message of the film being that being childless devalues people, at least women. The scene of a lullaby-esque instrumental playing over Martha walking around and yelling for George plays into this, as if through it all she wants is to be in her relationship and without it she’s just aimless in life.

The ending seems like something intended for those that either would not understand the picture or want what could maybe be considered a happy ending. The revelation of the leads’ son being non-existent does not tell us much that we don’t already know, that these characters are empty and need something to fill their lives. That was already very evident based on their behavior. We have also already seen George’s desperation to do something that will really hurt Martha. Their son’s existence in the story only serves to be an “explanation” of why they’re so mean and also possibly to give some commentary that it is crushing to not be a parent, which might be a bit of a stretch or at least an outdated view.

While George lightly saying his son died represents the metaphorical death of their lie, the use of the term is clearly chosen for dramatic reasons, with Burton feeling like he is acting to a crowded theater, instead of like how a real person might say it. The acting is pushing so much to be dramatic. This ending perfectly describes why George has so few friends or support, he’s simply a very apparent nutter, though it’s hard to believe he hasn’t been kicked to the curb if he’s going to do things like this, at least from a “logical” point of view. However, right before we close out, George shows a bit of empathy for Martha, which according to some means he might become nicer. Far too little is done to suggest this and it would also be an unsatisfying ending due to how the character was written. His reforming is not strongly stated or implied, so it is easier to believe he hasn’t changed and is only pretending, so Martha can be hurt later.

This ending, that people like this essentially only survive by feeding off others, is more consistent and thought provoking than “Martha crying fixes their toxicity”, especially when considering that the two not distracting each other with attacks and the other’s presence would mean confronting their own insecurities. This is supported by scenes like Martha and George bonding by picking on Nick, calling him a houseboy. They clearly don’t know how to manage not playing mind games on another, at least with George. Otherwise, why would they stay together? Martha even says George makes her happy. Earlier outside the danceroom, Martha shows some awareness of their pathetic situation, same with when she says she is afraid of Virginia Woolf, representing her fear of facing reality. Thus, George here is really shown to have some level of control. Martha doesn’t have anything else to turn to. Even if she did make friends with Honey for a time, she and Nick leave at the end disgusted. No matter how manipulative George is, he seems constantly willing to put up with her, so she can metaphorically fight her demons through him. Still, even if George has power over her, he of course doesn’t have any real power, punctuated by how when he makes Martha cry at the end, everyone only listens because he’s basically forced them to, with Honey so drunk as to be out of tune with what’s going on. Yet, that all still may give him some personal satisfaction. The real edge of the film comes from the fact that while George and Martha may have succeeded in either having control and/or companionship, that’s basically doomed them based on their circumstances.

OVERVIEW

Despite how overly theatrical the dialogue and performances are, you can’t deny how interesting they are regardless. Part of the fun of this affair is wondering what’s being left unsaid, despite the fact that there are quite a few confessions that do tell us who’s thinking what. “Truth and illusion” is a line in the picture. Perhaps not taking the film at face value and instead as some sort of hyperbolic representation of its themes would make it work better? Still, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? does indeed answer the question in the title.

See for Richard Burton riding a swing and more importantly Elizabeth Taylor eating a chicken wing.

A Face in the Crowd (1957) Review

Patricia Neal and Walter Matthau

“I hear you just wrote the ending to my book.”

A Face in the Crowd is one of those films that might be destined to be considered constantly provocative and predictive of the future. Before ever seeing it or knowing anything about it, I’ve heard people compare its main character Larry “Lonesome” Rhodes, played by a young Andy Griffith, to Donald Trump and some others. In truth, Trump is not the first egotistical rich person to get high on his own farts, and the movie has more to say than just that one should look out for these types. While the film does have value and meaning in these “messages”, with those messages automatically pushing it to a higher quality of storytelling than that which has nothing to say, the cost of this is how often certain characters are just one thing.

Larry is initially all rebel and all wacky, before eventually being all asshole when need be for the story. It’s hard to say if he’s going too far with his brashness, as him going so far is seemingly the point. Patricia Neal as Marcia Jeffries and Walter Matthau as Mel Miller are more absurd than even him. Mel often has a sly remark on the tip of his tongue and Marcia is always reacting to Larry in an audience-insert role. Especially seeing as she isn’t shown having anything going on in her life outside of Larry, she comes off as a caricature. Both are just different ways one might observe or think about someone like Larry. There’s even a time when Mel is waxing lyrically, only for the scene to unnaturally fade before he’s done talking. His words are more syrup than substance.

The pacing by contrast is excellent. The movie starts as a pseudo-adventure, with us following Marcia try to make more of her show and something for Larry, then quickly things get out of hand for both her and the film, being more eclectic. Marcia becoming less involved at this point leads to the issue of the story focusing more on its social commentary than being a proper story. We’re now focused on the new and intimidating plotlines that relate to Larry. Just as life is busy for him, the story is busy with him typically trying to overconfidently power through problems. Arguably this all could have been trimmed down, though the dominating presence of it all helps communicate what the narrative’s trying to say. The movie doesn’t spare showing what a wealthy lifestyle affords someone: influence, (illegally) young women, and notably compromises in one’s values. The quickness makes this slideshow easy to watch, other than the occasional slow point.

The ending asks a little much of these plain characters, with the score taking everything to a slightly comical and overdramatic level. Just as this movie is more about documenting a type of person, the ending should carry that style of merely capturing something that apparently needs to be seen. The “big” performances generally serve to remind you you’re watching a drama and add a level of fakeness. Admittedly, even Larry as a whole seems cartoonish, but you can also say that about real people, especially some politicians. Seeing real people like this does weaken the impact of the picture, as does the blatant allegory of something like the laughing machine, showing the weakness and unoriginality of this affair. A more sophisticated comment about the subject would help a lot. Maybe watching this movie at the time would be more meaningful? As is, it does have some things going for it, mainly in not knowing what will happen next and the acting not being focused on enough to matter. If it was about thirty minutes shorter and the ending more in keeping with the rest of the plot, it wouldn’t be obvious that we’re short on tricks and it’d be easier to focus on the punchy pace.

SPOILERS

The ending seems more directed at the audience than any character. Mel’s dialogue in particular details this, coming off as quite silly in the context of the film, essentially with him telling off Larry. However, it does communicate a truth of human nature. Many people only care about someone’s image, especially their positive image, without worrying too much about any scandal. The real crux is time, with many stars relegated to more and more distant memories. Just as much as the picture criticizes someone like Larry for being so mean to people, it criticizes the average person. The reason why people like Trump persist is because of the fallibility of anyone to hold accountable the types that show no respect for them or at least others, especially the less fortunate. They’ll also empower someone to influence politicians just because of easy manipulation tactics, like showing support to women and people of color and having a unique personality. Some might note how at the end Larry calls his black workers a racial slur, which suggests his support of them may have been a conscious facade, if not then something that can be retracted at whim.

There’s other ways of looking at the lead, such as that when Larry was this hot rebel that didn’t know or care for the way of doing things around him, he was genuine and that’s what people liked about him. Him feeling like he had nothing to prove and didn’t care about success is why he became successful. However, power corrupted him, though only took advantage of what was already there. Larry was always rude to some degree, it just greatly exacerbated. As Larry became powerful, he to a degree became aware of his corruption, but was so high on success so as not to care. He used to genuinely work in a salt of the Earth environment and have that spirit to him, though that eventually became something he pretended to be on his show, with that aesthetic literally just set decoration. Businesses found a way to make him marketable and to appeal to him in a way that would get him to cooperate, so they used him to sell products until he was no longer able to. They in turn exploited the part of Larry that wanted attention. No corporations tried to stop him for being such a mean person when there wasn’t a scandal. Despite being popular because of how he was different, Larry eventually just became another suit.

The ending where he’s basically yelling for a shred of attention reveals that he’s now desperate for that feeling of control, at best being left with his only friend pre-fame. Seeing as that friend is never shown walking out on him, that might imply Larry was once a sincerely good person, though what else would he even do? If I was him I’d just keep living in that lavish place wearing nice clothes as long as I could. Mel later saying he and Marcia were too charmed by him but got wise implies he was always like this and there always will be people like this and the trick is to know to leave once you know the truth. Marcia’s character arc mirrors this, with her initially infatuated with him, putting up with some lesser red flags, becoming like him (mainly when she wants acknowledgement and money), is hurt by him, and realizes how she’s behaved. If you compare this to either an abusive relationship or to having some negative experience with a politician, it’s not likely someone could just do one thing to sink the other as Marcia does, which is one reason the ending feels a bit off. However, this represents a quicker and more theatrical way of detailing how someone’s bad reputation can remove their support and respect overtime. Marcia as a whole seems to represent what it does to someone when they empower a person that ultimately is no good.

OVERVIEW

Cleverly, the film doesn’t answer the question of whether destructive rich people are born mean or become that way. It simply says that it happens and what to do when it does, as oftentimes it doesn’t matter either way and just as the movie flips over whether Larry is a product of nature or nurture, so can we get these mixed signs from real life people. What does matter, and what you’re left on when considering the narrative, is that such Trump types don’t deserve influence and should be ignored, at least if they’re in a place to suck other people down. Still, there will probably be some way for them to steal at least a little credibility and attention, as self-identified wealthy representatives of average people can find at least a small few that will listen, even as time withers them into A Face in the Crowd.

The Share Out (1962) Review

William Russell and Moira Redmond in what looks like a lobby card for the film.

The Share Out gets to the point. The cast are at worst admirable and effective in their roles, the story is clever and intriguing, and due to the one hour runtime, the pacing succeeds due to having little time to waste. You could imagine a better group of filmmakers finding a way for more intense performances, a more sophisticated script, or a tighter product; as near the beginning this film could be punchier. Regardless, this little novelty provides for the fans of these quick and hot little tv mysteries while supplying a little more for those that want above average. A big theme of this movie is trust. Most of the trusting revolves around the wonderfully charming and sly protagonist Mike Stafford, played by William Russell. Despite the fact that many people rely on him and despite the audience following him, the script proves how smart it can be by telling us of his crooked ways in the beginning, only for the sheer good will and likability of Russell to get us on his side. He’s the only one that doesn’t act like he has something to hide. Based on how confident he often is, you can tell Mike has thought through everything quite a bit.

Mike is brought into “The Calderwood Property Group” to help around and due to his charisma is trusted. However, there’s not much logical reason for him to be, though most of the character’s personal plans involve trusting someone, and he presents himself as the perfect person to rely on. You can also suppose everyone would feel better working with a newbie than those they’ve come to know. Regardless, initially no one seems to be any more likely of being guilty of anything than anyone else, such as the murder that occurs early on. The leader of The Calderwood Property Group, Colonel Calderwood, played by Alexander Knox, has seemingly thought up a pretty solid way of keeping his business associates honest. Thus, the movie is initially about everybody checking the other person to see if they’re trustworthy, as opposed to anyone worrying about cheating in order to get ahead. The movie is briefly more about setup for the end that is baked into a look at human behavior. In theory, there’d be no real conflict, but when you have such slimy people, even the most secure plans never are as airtight as one might hope, so that’s where the drama intensifies.

The story asks you to second guess people a lot, which creates a tense atmosphere. The black and white and somewhat noirish look of the whole film adds to this seedy charm, as does the conversations that you almost know will contain some lying. It is strange that the characters don’t have more awareness that them trusting in others is foolish. Some incidents of someone relying on another, such as at the climax, don’t make much sense. Maybe this is supposed to be a look at some great fallibility of human beings, far too willing to do something that seems simple but is really stupid, or it’s a plot contrivance?

SPOILERS

As is a very common trope, the handsome man sticks by the law and ultimately seems rewarded for it. He is in good graces with the police and has a pretty girl for added measure. However, this handsome man has already betrayed everyone else as need be, so the ending does a twist on him lying to everyone else. The detective we’ve been following reveals he thinks Mike committed one of the murders, suggesting he was lying by saying Mike was good to go. Just like how the other characters essentially had to trust someone and that ultimately was their downfall, there’s no reason why Mike would get off any differently. The film has had a few clever tricks to get us to trust and like him, and if you know conventions of these movies, it’s not uncommon for these guys to genuinely reform at the end, but there’s no reason based on the information here for us to trust him.

When he was accused of the murder, I initially recalled how we saw what he was doing at the time and it couldn’t have been him, but then I realized that during that scene there was a time skip, then we saw Mike and another person discover the body. Who is to say Mike wasn’t the killer, but then he left, came back, and acted innocent, just like how he was putting on appearances for everyone else? Admittedly, Mike didn’t have a reason to kill the guy, unless someone paid him to offscreen. The point of this ending may have been to say that “crime doesn’t pay” to the audience, and as such it could have done a bit better at finding a more believable reason to get Mike in trouble, or even just letting him win. This is not a big issue, though.

OVERVIEW

The Share Out is a really effective drama that boasts enough solid actors and ideas to not waste the hour length. See for scenes of private investigations being executed by taking the subject to dinner, discussions of how sticky ends come to all except the cleverest, and faked phone calls.

The Man Who Fell To Earth (1976) Review

The Who Who Sold The World He Fell To

So, I wonder… is The Man Who Fell To Earth the same as the Man Who Sold the World? A few things really stop this flick from shining. The main one is that David Bowie turns in a pretty piss poor performance. He does get some brownie points for really looking like an alien and contrasting how aggressively 70s everything looks. If he never played an alien in his career, you’d wonder why. It does seem like something that would be in his wheelhouse. Like Arnold Schwarzenegger after him, he might shine in a role where very little is asked of him, especially in terms of giving a layered and human performance. We are asked to care about the little white duke that is “Thomas Jerome Newton”, also known as Tommy, with him sometimes going into panic or madness. However, he comes off just like a person that doesn’t know how to deliver their lines, not an alien. “Get out of my mind, all of you!” is one particularly silly line. Whenever Tommy has to have complex emotions, Bowie comes off as wooden and having no idea what to do. Apparently he really didn’t, and thus he basically kills any chance for the film to work.

Early on, the film is defined by a shoddiness so brazen as to possibly be intentional. We see some shaky camerawork document Tommy going down a hill, then we see him wander around not doing anything of consequence. It feels very low budget and that isn’t the worst thing to strive for, but it sets a tone of being more about an experience than getting to an ending, but so much of the actual film is just mindless imagery that at best can have a meaning forced out of it. The score is also chaotic, sometimes loud and jarring or starting and stopping at random-feeling points. We get a lot of pointless shots of closeups on faces or someone walking around. Important information then is sometimes skipped over. There’s a little bit of narration when the movie otherwise doesn’t have any. It all comes off as thoughtless.

Candy Clark as Mary-Lou does lay on a lot of ham, but sometimes is moving, like when she cries about receiving money because she really wants Tommy. Her character often is chasing something, which makes her more relatable. Clark captures a decent naivety at such times that is one of the more interesting elements at play. Some of the more compelling moments are when Mary-Lou is a bit mad over her love of Tommy, who she is not ever particularly on the same page with. The other characters, and sometimes Mary-Lou, feel like stock filler that gets us to either some sci-fi visual mumbo jumbo or more likely, tits and ass. Depending on some interpretations of the story, like being about the business side of life, she doesn’t really matter much. As such, she is dressing beyond anything else.

The plot is basically incomprehensible, with the excessive visual mumbo jumbo and sudden shift in characterization of the cast making it hard to ever know what is going on. The script, especially with how Tommy is depicted at the end, wants to be clever so badly, but it forgot to really say anything or come to an actual point that means something. Sometimes we just see characters in a certain state without us knowing how they got there, like when Tommy suddenly has money or the really creepy bit where his nipple is cut open. We see Tommy just wandering around with no apparent aim, even a scene of him at a pawnshop seeming to be low on funds, only to somehow have a lot more money and resources in no time without us seeing how. Perhaps there is some way to connect all the disparate dots in this story and see it as brilliant, but such tales are always polarizing? No matter what, it is hard not to see the nudity and psychedelia as mere spectacle, or the slow dialogue-heavy scenes that take an eternity to get anywhere as just killing time.

One interpretation is that Tommy can be seen as a metaphor for David Bowie himself. He looked and felt very alien. Despite not coming from much, he managed to make others a lot of money, was able to have a lot of frivolous thrills, then ultimately got stuck in the system that made him successful. The gun-play sex party especially feels like it could be intended to reflect rock and roll excess in how gratuitous and violent it is. This doesn’t much benefit the film as seeing this as analogous to Bowie is very much just one interpretation and you have to reach outside the information in the movie to think this. Seeing this as about Bowie or more broadly about what fame does to even the most “outsider” of artists is debatably a bit clever. A lot of the movie, like the scenes of Tommy in space, are meaningless in this view.

SPOILERS

Tommy and Mary-Lou’s relationship is not well handled. They are essentially fine until one day they’re bickering and getting very heated, without a more natural transition. Their acting leaves much to be desired. In fact, Mary-Lou does a lot of jumping from loving Tommy to being over him, with her character not adding anything by the end. She could be seen as just “the girl” that might serve as a celebrity’s first marriage. Near the end Mary-Lou loves him so much that she doesn’t try to save herself when she thinks Tommy is going to murder her, and gets over how horrible it was for him to act like he was immediately. In almost no time, she is saying she doesn’t love him anymore.

The film often keeps its focus off Tommy and either on the plot or other characters. When he takes off his human suit to show Mary-Lou his true form, we don’t get much of how Tommy is thinking and feeling, but we very much do from Mary-Lou. As such, the few scenes that do focus on Tommy, notably the last shot of the film, are a bit weird. The emphasis on him acts like we’ve had some great look at him, so it should be tragic when he succumbs to his demons, but it instead emphasizes how much of a mess this all is. Similar can be said for how quickly Tommy and Mary-Lou’s relationship corrodes. We jump from them being stable to a very explosive fight. Their first argument is also the first big sign of Tommy going mad. He acts cartoonish and way more over the top than he usually has.

Tommy showing his true identity to Mary-Lou doesn’t carry the value you’d expect it to. One big reason for this is Tommy hasn’t shown much love for her or for anything, so why would he feel comfortable with this? Why not have a build up of them having a seemingly great relationship, with this being the tipping point of how much he feels for her? The sequence also gets lost in the montage of sci-fi imagery, how bad Bowie’s costume is, and how absurdly Mary-Lou acts. She’s screaming in terror, then soon enough disrobes. Also, did we have to see a closeup of her peeing? Is that one of the filmmakers’ kink? Buck Henry as Oliver V. Farnsworth’s death scene also is a real fever dream. The heavy breathing, light music, and the long time it takes to kill him makes for a really bizarre and comical scene that can’t hope to emotionally invest you in this person being killed. Him bouncing off the window he is thrown at is basically a joke, as is how obviously the falling body is a dummy.

OVERVIEW

The Man Who Fell To Earth is simply too busy. If it is about the celebrity lifestyle, then that is a bit light for a film so chaotic and more importantly so long. Such a long runtime and simple story asks to be more about the fine details, such as seeing specifics of Tommy and his life, yet so much is shown either out of context or is not given much gravitas. Many reviews essentially look outside the film, such as in viewing it as a social commentary, so it makes sense the text itself is so thin, but that also means it can’t survive on its own. Some might find this type of adventure fun, but it’s definitely a very acquired taste that to some is the definition of boring and mindless. Or maybe I just don’t get it?