I had never seen the 1980's gangster film Once Upon a Time in America before, although I had a vague feeling (confirmed by looking at Rottentomatoes) that it was reasonably well regarded at the time. Directed by Sergio Leone, whose spaghetti Western oeuvre is definitely not my cup of tea, but it has De Niro and some other big names, most notably James Woods. (More about him at the end.)
So, there was at least a chance I would like it, and it has turned up on Aussie Netflix. At least, one version of it, as I haven't bothered looking into where (if anywhere) the even longer version of it was released.
But: the movie is shockingly bad, from every almost aspect, and I am completely puzzled as to how anyone, at the time of release or later, ever gave it credit as a good movie.
There is exactly one thing that I thought it noteworthy for in a sort of positive way - it seemed that whoever was put in charge of set design and decoration (and putting extras in shots) was given half of the movie budget. I mean, especially in the first hour or two, every single scene seems to be stuffed to the gills with - stuff. And people. In fact, restaurants, nightclubs, the opium den (yes, it features a New York Chinese opium den - something I was not aware of as being a thing back then) and streets are so massively cluttered and busy I started to feel it was over the top, but admittedly in an eye-catching, "jeez they spent a lot of money on the look of this film", way.
But don't get me wrong - it's still a really bad movie, and let me count the ways:
1. the overall story: it's stupid and made no emotional sense to me at all. And I mean, if you are finding it a bit odd before intermission, just wait 'til the second "half". (Actually, it's only about a third to go after intermission.) If this is meant to be some grand picture of corruption running through US 20th century history or something, it's a complete failure.
2. the dialogue: never sounded very natural. It had 5 or 6 writers, which is usually a sign of trying to fix problems, isn't it? They were never solved. And by they way, did Sergio make every film with dubbed dialogue, even if the actor spoke in English, or is this just a fault with the print Netflix is showing? The sound consistently did not quite match the mouth, although I guess I sort of got used to that, eventually.
3. the acting: some pretty hammy kid actors; some unconvincing adult acting too. De Niro is ok-ish, I suppose, in a thankless role. But really, I wasn't convinced by anyone else.
4. the characters: no one is really sympathetic, although you keep getting the feeling that we are meant to feel for De Niro's character. But he's a murderer (for base motives, not just from a sense of self protection) and rapist - see next paragraph.
5. the sexual politics: come on, I know the 1980's had some terribly sexist treatment of women in movies, but I find it hard to believe that the awful and ridiculous sexual politics of the film wasn't noticed even at that time. As my son said (he gave up on it by intermission, which was a wise judgement in retrospect) - "this film is really rape-y". There are two prominent rape scenes, one of which results later in the victim falling for her rapist (happens all the time!); the other doesn't, but when she meets him again 30 years later, it doesn't get a mention. And the De Niro rape scene is really protracted and unpleasant. Yet within a minute of it, we get "Noodles" (the silly nickname the film gives the De Niro character) looking sad beside the beach while the music swells - see next paragraph.
6. the score! It's like a romantic score from the 1960's that ended up in the wrong movie. (Well, at least when it isn't featuring pan flute, which seems, at best, incongruous.) There's a constant swelling up of strings in places where it just doesn't seem warranted. I mean, it seemed to signalling sympathy for De Niro after his big rape scene. It's artistically weird: the whole movie is!
There are so many things wrong with the movie I feel I have forgotten one of them.
But I have just remembered one amusing thing about it - James Woods's character keeps getting upset when De Niro calls him "crazy". Yet Woods did end up a real life pro-Trump wingnut. De Niro must laugh at the irony of that.
Update: I remembered one other, minor but noticeable, thing: the fake blood used in some scenes, but not others, looked exceptionally fake. This is a movie from 1984 - fake blood didn't have to look so bad by that time. Did the set decorator blow the budget so badly that they had to go to the paint shop and ask for any left over tins of red for the blood?
Update 2: OK, I have read more about the film, including the [SPOILER ALERT]
fairly well know theory that the ending means that about 1/3 of the film is an opium dream of the future where things are made (sort of) right. This explains things like the wild improbability of the story, and his childhood sweetheart barely ageing.
Clever, huh? Well, no - it might be interesting if the confrontations in the future carried some emotional weight, as dreams can, but they don't. It makes the movie more of a waste of time than ever, if you ask me. And it's also a definite cheat, if that was the actual intention, to prominently use a song written in the 1960's on the soundtrack. Opium doesn't make you dream future songs, does it? But, the theory does make quite a bit of sense. Just doesn't make it worthwhile.
3 comments:
The musical score was composed by Leone's longtime collaborator Ennio Morricone. "Deborah's Theme" was written for another film in the 1970s but was rejected. The score is also notable for Morricone's incorporation of the music of Gheorghe Zamfir, who plays a pan flute. Zamfir's flute music was used to similar effect in Peter Weir's Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975).[12][15] Morricone also collaborated with vocalist Edda Dell'Orso on the score.
Well, Morricone is great, but that's a weird way to get your music to film. Probably accounts for the inappropriateness you talk about.
The initial critical response to Once Upon a Time in America was mixed, because of the different versions released worldwide. While internationally the film was well received in its original form, American critics were much more dissatisfied with the 139-minute version released in North America. This condensed version was a critical and financial disaster, and many American critics who knew of Leone's original cut attacked the short version. Some critics compared shortening the film to shortening Richard Wagner's operas, saying that works of art that are meant to be long should be given the respect they deserve. Roger Ebert wrote in his 1984 review that the uncut version was "an epic poem of violence and greed" but described the American theatrical version as a "travesty".[37] Ebert gave the uncut version a full four stars while giving the American theatrical version one star.[38] Ebert's television film critic partner Gene Siskel considered the uncut version to be the best film of 1984 and the shortened, linear studio version to be the worst film of 1984.[39]
Big difference between one star and four stars, anyway, maybe there's y7our problem. Not that I've seen any of them!
Tim, the Netflix version is the 3 hour 49 minute European release version, not the cut down American version.
So all the good reviews are to do with the Euro version. And there was a also a 250 min version that was shown in re-release!
Apparently, Leone had ten hours of film that was originally cut down to 6 hours, intended to be released in 2, 3 hour films. The studio said no, and ended up with the European release. But lots of people ask on the net if the 6 hour version is still around. Talk about gluttons for punishment!
And thanks for the info on the score - my comment about it sounding like it was really from another movie was pretty close to the mark!
Post a Comment