The Godfather Part II (Francis Ford Coppola, 1974)

Is The Godfather Part II superior to The Godfather? In a lively discussion on sequels, film fanatic Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy) in Scream 2, argues how “sequels suck”. But, unlike Terminator 2: Judgement Day and Aliens, The Godfather Part II stumps him. It covers a greater space of time, tells a grander story and turns what was a family-centred, but nevertheless New York “Gangshter” story, into a personal drama set on an epic, ambitious scale.

Though the dialogue in The Godfather holds iconic and memorable lines, definitive scenes in The Godfather Part II show Michael Corleone’s true menace revealing itself. The Godfather portrays his sinister and deeply-calculated methods of management, but they are subtle and carefully-constructed. He recommends the hit on Solozzo and MacCluskey; he marries Kay (Diane Keaton) to maintain a strong family unit; he settles all family business in the climax of the film by killing off the leaders of the New York mobs – Barzini, Cuneo, Stratchi and Tattaglia (and Moe Greene in Vegas). But these murders occur at the very end of the first film. Part II shows how corrupted he has become – and how his lack of morality will stop at nothing to “protect the family business”. Subtlety is not the aim of the game – Michael Corleone wants to make a point. Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) asks whether Michael wants to wipe everyone out – in The Godfather Part II it appears so.

Alongside Michael’s ruthless pursuit of the American Dream, it is juxtaposed with his Father, Vito Andolini (changing his name to Vito ‘Corleone’ after his town of birth). Played by Robert DeNiro, we see a considerable difference between the man who began with nothing and Michael. Through a strong sense of family values and respect, Vito built an empire. He was willing to work his way through the system fairly – he works as an assistant; he raises a child; he joins a friend at weekly theatre shows that hark back to the old country. It is through the corruption within little Italy – and the lack of support offered by the authorities that Vito steps in. Fanucci (Gaston Moschin) extorts the local people and abuses their trust. Vito decides to stop this treatement. As a comparison to his son, who aims to control casinos in Vegas and set-up a new gambling hot-spot in Cuba, it is clear that something has been lost in between the generations.

Of course, Michael is not the only Son. Hot-head Sonny lost his life in Part I while Fredo (John Cazale) and adopted-Son Tom Hagen remain loyal to Michael. But family has been eroded – and continues to be eroded in Part II to great effect. The less family-focused conflicts are stumbling blocks. Hyman Roth (Lee Strasberg) and Johnny Ola (Dominic Chianese) in Cuba can be overtly political and less-engaging, while Senator Pat Geary’s (G.D. Spradlin) “love” for Italian-American’s is so forced it borders on parody. Even the Frank Pentageli (Michael V. Gazzo) plot bugs like a stone in the shoe as we can only imagine what it would’ve been like had Clemenza returned from Part I.

But these are pedantic points. The Godfather Part II still holds the most striking scenes in the series. The New Year’s Eve party as Pacino viciously grabs the head of the traitor – “I know it was you!” – is one such moment. Another as, what appears to be a small conversation between Kay and Michael, in the final act becomes one of the most explosive arguments he is involved within. Any scene with Fredo breaks your heart as John Cazale truly shows how strong an actor he is – and why Pacino, DeNiro and Meryl Streep often credit him with the strength of their acting. Finally, the entire story set within little Italy is an example of expert filmmaking. You can see that Sergio Leone can’t have looked too far when making Once Upon a Time in America, whereby the context and even lead actor in Robert DeNiro is reused.

The Godfather Part II has influenced many and remains a masterpiece to this day. Whether you believe The Godfather is a superior film or not, one cannot deny the importance of The Godfather Part II – and how it manages to capture such an ambitious story so effortlessly well. Randy Meeks was stumped for a reason – The Godfather Part II is the one sequel that can comfortably take on its predecessor.

Originally written for Flickering Myth and published on 21st February 2014

The Conversation (Francis Ford Coppola, 1974)

"We know that you know, Mr. Caul. For your own sake, don't get involved any further. We'll be listening to you."

Introduction

In a world whereby Google Maps can place you anywhere in the world and 'data bugs' have become a hobby for people to find - it seems that gadgets surveillance and The Conversation are potentially out of date. Where does Harry Caul (Gene Hackman) fit in? Would he be as respected or successful in 2012? Then again, in 1998, Tony Scott released Enemy of the State, a sequel-in-spirit to The Conversation, at a time whereby gadgets were front-and-centre but again, 14 years later, looks a little out of date.

Immediate Start

The film begins immedietly. We see Harry and his team observe and record a couple - Ann and Mark (Frederic Forrest and Cindy Williams) - as they discuss a clearly-confidential matter. The couple walk in circles and find a busy-place to meet ... and even clock onto one of the team listening to the conversation. The story unfolds as Harry realises what he has been employed to do - and the morality behind it.

I believe what many people take away from the film is the ending, which turns the story on its head. The idea of surveillance was very new during the seventies and became something that could be seen as a negative and controlling influence of the government. The film seems to paint the picture that the awareness of the true amount of surveillance (in the 70's!) drives people to paranoia or to apathy. Or, akin to the moral-stance of Burn After Reading, it often simply confuses the issue to further - which is the c\ase, as the film draws to a close.



Harrison Ford in a Pre-Star Wars role

Influences

Coppola specifically notes the influence of Antonioni's Blow-Up, and this is clear thoughout. In both films the lead actor is over-analysing an image - or in The Conversation, a tape-recording. But whilst Antonioni seems to delve deep into the multiple attitudes and changes to the art world, Coppola seems to attack the very nature of observing in and of itself.

Harry Caul is a private "bugger" (as in he "bugs" houses!) which in turn emphasizes the conflicting attitudes as, within surveillance-circles he is well-known and respected whilst outside of this, he is proud of not being known as he refuses to use a phone and acts and dresses in a manner that excludes him from society. This lonliness extends further as he is racked with guilt - and he believes he is responsible for the murder of a family (which was in response to a client finding out information, sourced by Caul). Blow-Up doesn't truly explore the themes of guilt and lonliness that The Conversation, but the steady pacing and back-and-forth between narrative and images.tape-recording constantly force you to think about the words spoken and what they mean. By the end of the film, many of the lines you will know off by heart, because they are repeated so often.

John Cazale in the far background

Oscar-Nominated

As Philip French observes in The Guardian, between 1970 and 1979, Coppola was the best working filmmaker in Hollywood. Between Coppola's scripted-Patton, the double-whammy of The Godfather and The Godfather Part II, and then hitting a home-run in '79 with Apocalypse Now, surely ensures Coppola as one of the best filmmakers of all-time. I don't believe that these films, and this period in Coppola's life can be ignored due his more-personal, but less-commercial efforts of recent years including Youth with Youth and Tetro. Indeed, The Conversation was nominated for Best Picture but lost-out to The Godfather Part II. If there is one way to lose an Oscar, it is surely to another film you've directed from the same year.

Personally, I love a specific actor that features in The Conversation. Every single feature-film he acted in was nominated for a Best-Picture Oscar. He worked with directors Sidney Lumet and Michael Cimino alongside starring in three Coppola films. Of course, I talk about John Cazale. A man who Al Pacino stated that "All I wanted to do was work with John for the rest of my life". This rounds up my viewing of all five Cazale films and he really does steal the show - an actor who was taken much to soon, dying in 1978 of lung cancer.

The Perfect Time

The Conversation is a brilliant film - but I would assume watching the film again would benefit me greatly. The recurring sequence from the start of the film, I believe, would almost become hypnotic when you watch it a second time. As if Harry Caul is wandering in a dreamlike state, as this sequence plays in his mind. I would assume, this dreamlike state was what many American's felt when it was revealed, in 1973, that President Richard Nixon's administration was found to be bugging his opponents offices. Named after the Hotel which was bugged, it was called the "Watergate Scandal". To imagine how this event rocked the country in one-year before The Conversation was released, it seems exceptionally timely, premiered on 7th April 1974, in the middle of the hearings about Watergate, and before Nixon stepped down from office in August. The idea about recurring themes, I'm sure many viewers related to, as they recalled how horrendous the situation was as Nixon completely abused the trust of his country.

This film is perfectly timed and it is fascinating as an example of the climate in America - and the ongoing-controversy of surveillance.

A-Z #14: Apocalypse Now

You can pick up hundreds of DVD's for a buck each - it doesn't matter. Its never about quantity, its about quality. A-Z is my way of going through my collection, from A-Z, and justifying why I own the films...

#14 - Apocalypse Now 

Why did I buy it?

I held back on this for multiple reasons. I watched it back in my Uni days whereby Jo and I shared a flat. Jo had the film - the redux - and I borrowed and watched it. It was a long film. I fell asleep and watched the second half the following day. I always thought it was surely better than I recalled... so it was only a matter of time before I would watch the theatrical cut. Years later, that sweet tin-edition fell down in price to something like £7 and I was sold. The perfect opportunity to watch the film a second time.

Why do I still own it?

Because that second viewing was much better. I didn't fall asleep and I could appreciate the incredible images every frame offered. Even catching the shot I chose from this post was tough - the silhouetted 'copters with a burning-backdrop, each shot could be framed. Martin Sheen is incredible in his role and the gritty truth of war is highlighted in a tasteful and expressive way. I see now the masterpiece that Apocalypse Now is.

I know I shall watch this many, many more times in the future...

  

Remember - you can always email The Simon and Jo Film Show directly using this email: simonandjoshow@gmail.com

We are also on Twitter  and Facebook.

Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979)

"You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment! Because it's judgment that defeats us."

Introduction

There is so much that can be written about this film. I have chosen to analyse this film because I haven't been 'apocalypsed' with the film. Though I can support its technical achievment - it hasn't 'connected' to me like others. I don't know how long I would spend reading the Peter Cowie book - or whether I would search out Hearts of Darkness - both Conrads novel and the documentary that went on to win god-knows how many Best Documentary prizes. My hope is to start off with this post and, in time, revive it as and when neccessary. Maybe I will be converted in time and I will look back on this post in shame. For one, Danny Boyle spoke to Empire magazine and claimed that he watched Apocalypse Now before he began any film project. I like to imagine it is shortly prior to prinicpal photography. The day before. To calm his mind. And make him see the parrallels with madness of ... filmmaking?

The Madness of War

When we first meet Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) we do question his sanity. In a room, he seems to be on some sort of acid trip - craving another mission, not content with loneliness of a hotel room in Saigon: "shit; I'm still only in Saigon". Already, War has destroyed him and he cannot rejoin civilian life. Approached by intelligence officers he is given a mission - to kill "with extreme prejudice" Col. Kurtz (Brando). Kurtz was an intelligent man - but has gone renegade. Apparently, Kurtz is controlling a small legion of troops himself, buried in the deepest forests of neutral Cambodia, and is a threat - thus the order for his death. This type of control and destroy is comparable to a motivation for war - capture and control or destroy. Kurtz is not controllable.

Upon his journey to and up the fictional Nung river he comes across a huge bombing of a small village - apparently for the war effort, but appears to be more for the 'surf', they come across a tiger, a huge 'show; for the troops - that seems corrupt and animalistic in its nature and then, prior to finding Kurtz, the true madness of the mainly African-Americans on the front line. Obviously, upn finding Kurtz we find the true 'horror' of the situation and understand his madness but disagree with it - akin to understanding the horror of war and the reasons why - but disagree with it.

Iconic Images

Visually- and in a pure cinematic sense - the film looks incredible. Akin to The Godfather you could freeze-frame any section of this and put it up on canvas. Every establishing shot could be a poster for the film - with the splattered-font for the title. Each character is perfectly created - the madness of head-scratching Kurtz, his constant quotes from T.S. Eliot through to the madness of Hopper and even Willard. The boys on the boat - including a young Laurence Fishburne - so innocent and full of energy.

My problem is not the images - my concern would be the progression of the story in the Redux. I watched the 'Redux' many years ago and fell asleep. I had to start halfway through the following day. One beautiful thing about this film is how, as you watch it, the whole world changes from the hustling and busy streets of Saigon and the explosive village bombing and, bit by bit, it gets smaller ... and more claustrophobic. So this half-one-day-half-the-next is not how to watch it. The recent watch stimulating this post was watched in one sitting (maybe a coffee break - but thats allowed!) and that assisted in the progression of the story. I recall watching it the first time and thinking come on! get to Kurtz. Luckily, the theatrical cut is more condensed and he does get there quicker. Upon his arrival we see a world that, although violent and dangerous (heads on sticks..) is controlled and calmer than the society we have witnessed - calmer than the near-rape of playboy models, calmer than the fear in the eyes of the soldiers on the front line. Calmer than the unneccessary death of the innocent civilian who happened to be on a boat at the wrong time. Even the flippant attitude to this death was completely at odds with the Western worlds arrogance of lifestyle. To some extent, it is even a joy in death. Wagners 'Ride of the Valykyries' playing as they bomb what appears as a quaint and peaceful village - with schools and women and children. This is the focus - not so much the journey. How there is complete madness in the pride of war in America.

"The Horror, the horror..."

So, that is the focus - if we ask the question 'what is war' we will eventually find that in the centre of it, war itself is mad. There is no real justification or 'reality' in destroying 'countries' and the inhabitants. From the senior officials explaining how to attack to the front-line young men and women who carry out these orders - think The Hurt Locker - war itself is a purely selfish act. I'll finish with a little Roger Ebert: - "It is not about war so much as about how war reveals truths we would be happy never to discover". The horror becomes real for Kurtz and Willard and - the followers on the island - praise them for this.

Rumble Fish (Francis Ford Coppola, 1983)

"You ain't got your brother's brains. It's nothing personal, Rusty James, but nobody would follow you into a fight because you'd get people killed - and nobody wants to be killed."


Introduction

I watched The Godfather trilogy at 15. I watched Apocalypse Now at Uni when it was very late and it was the redux' and I fell asleep and had to watch it again the following day. I had not seen this, but remember a conversation (ooo, a pun considering...) with friends Chris and Wes whereby the two followed a discussion about The Godfather by saying that Rumble Fish was brilliant. Embarressed, I never even knew such a film I kept my eyes peeled for it - always finding it in obscure shops like Music and Movies costing £10 plus ... a ridiculous ... until, as I was making my way for a till in HMV I found it for £3. I could now watch this 'brilliant' film and, in the future, take part in such conversations about Francis Ford Coppola. Then again, I haven't seen Jack so maybe I have a long way to go yet ...

What I reckon ...

It does look stunning - thats for sure. Its shot in inspired-by-Fellini-and-Bergman black and white. Then again, looks like and arty-version of West Side Story with a man-on-man fight to begin also. The obvious link is also Bogdanovichs' The Last Picture Show - a teenage story, shot in black and white. Made in 1971. This whole style reeks of influences moreso - a film-noir look enhanced with Lawrence Fishburne as this friend who dresses like a detective, thin-tie included, furthering this film-noir style as he walks along with his friends in alleys and leaving smokey silhouettes in the backdrop.

The story follows Rusty James (Matt Dillon) a not-so-clever, but popular character. In the same way I watched Toy Story and profiled Sid, Rusty James is influenced easily and is not the quickest of cats - maybe indicating SEN (Special Educational Needs). He looks up to his brother - the Motorcycle Boy (Mickey Rourke who looks alot like a young Bruce Willis) - a menace to society, we are led to believe. Thing is, we only see the policeman who despises him and the difficult upbringing the boys have had under their father, played by Dennis Hopper, a single parent who is an alcoholic. Wea re told of the 'stories' The Motocycle Boy knows of, but are now entirely shown his menace. Until we see him at the end as a character who is not just a menace - but mentally unstable.
The Motorcycle Boy is quite a tragic character. He is colourblind and is, bit-by-bit, destroying himself and ultimately does - but luckily does not destroy his brother.

I'm glad I have seen this and this is surely one of those films which too often gets unnoticed - Coppola makes some great films and this is ambitious enough to give a watch but, then again, it does at points drag. Looks too good to be seen as realism when the story itself has a connection to the audience that realism could have captured so well. Its based on the book by S.E. Hinton - an author I have read nothing of, but Coppola is a big fan of. To close, I think if films like Rumble Fish were more prevalent in cinema than the likes of the latest teen-rom-com than maybe cinema would be a better place.

Some great factors include a character Smokey, played by Nicholas Cage. This character is smart and provides a clear contrast to Dillons Rusty-James - you see how careless, clumsy and immature Rusty really is, while Smokey has more intelligence and is clearly mores street-smart than Rusty too.

Last point - Stuart Copeland provides the music and, funnily enough, I have got into The Police. Stuart Copeland is the drummer and, when you listen to a fair bit of The Police you realise how impressive that is. Copeland has also created the music for the stage adaptation of Ben-Hur (A show recently on in London's O2) and, I assume this was in the early days of soundtracks he created. So much percussion and business adds to the atmosphere and provides an incredible backdrop for The Motorcycle Boy and his brother Rusty.