Links
Football, video games, math, food, other stuff.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Re-viewing Two Movies
Has anyone noticed that more television stations seem to be showing more movies these days? It seems to me that it used to a relatively rare occasion for a station to show movies, and if they did, there were usually of the movie-of-the-week sort of variety. Now, for example, the station-formerly-known-as-TBS shows a movie every night - and most are of them did fairly-well at the box-office. Anyways, with M away, I've been watching more movies on TV, and lately had the chance to re-watch two movies I was disappointed with when I first saw: Gladiator, and the Godfather Part II.
Gladiator
The actual watching-of of Gladiator I remember fondly. It was our second or third year at Waterloo, and M and I were out with a bunch of people. I believe we had been out pretty late the night before, and we decided to go see a movie with this group - Gladiator, as it turned out. After the first 15 minutes or so, M fell asleep - and soon after, I did too. Having been so tired all day, and having done so much, it was great just to doze off beside my lovely girlfriend. I woke up here and there, and watched bits of the movie, but each bit I saw only reinforced my belief that I wasn't missing much.
However, lots of people seemed to like it, and it won a bunch of Oscar's, so when I saw it on TV again, I thought I'd give it a second chance. As it turned out, it was even worse than I remembered. The plot makes no sense, the characters are essential caricatures, and, to top it all off, the action is, for the most part, rather dull. The movie also takes itself far too seriously - always a bad sign. I still don't understand what people see in it.
The Godfather, Part II
(Note: re-reading this post, I realize it contains quite a few "spoilers" for both Part I and Part II. If you haven't seen these movies yet, I highly recommend doing so before reading this, even if you don't think you'll like a movie about the mob. If nothing else, see it as a fascinating study of the films' main character - Michael Corleone).
I really, really liked the Godfather Part I, and after seeing that most critics preferred the sequel, I was hyped up to watch Part II a few years ago. After it was over, however, it felt like a huge disappointment. Two things come to mind about that first viewing. First of all, I didn't quite follow some of the plot details. There are a number of events that happen quite quickly around the centre of the film, and I just didn't really follow what was going on. Secondly, I just didn't see the point. To me, it seemed as if the point was to compare Michael and his downfall to his father's rise to power - then to hammer it over your head, until you were sure to get it, that Michael was, essentially, a complete bastard while his father was just looking out for his family. By the last twenty minutes, I just wanted it to end.
After the previous evenings re-viewing of Gladiator, I saw that this was on TV again as well, and so decided to give it a second chance - and was I ever glad I did. What a difference this second viewing made. I can now see where the critics were coming from with this one.
Perhaps the key event that I failed to grasp was the ending of the movie. I loved the ending of the Godfather (I) - as I had written about in essay on aesthetics, it was the moment when the film became art. With the single image of the lackey closing Kaye off from Michael's inner sanctum, we realize just how much Michael has changed - and how power has corrupted him. This, just after Michael has flat-out lied to Kaye, and she believed him. It's a stunning scene.
On watching Part II for the first time, I essentially glossed over the ending, which I now realize is perhaps an even more insightful ending than Part I's. By flashing back to when Micheal first announces to his family that he is going to war, we are suddenly forced to realize how little Michael actually wanted any of what he now has. At that time, he had flat-out rejected his family "business" - but his father, and father's advisor, had "other plans". Now, after years of power and neglect of his own family, we see just how little Michael actually wanted this power he now has. As I mentioned earlier, throughout Part II it is almost impossible to feel any sympathy towards Michael at all - but with this one scene, suddenly we do.
Realizing this, I suddenly understood the structure of the film much better. By opening the movie with the killing of Vito's father, and Vito's subsequent flight to America, we start by feeling sympathy towards Vito, something that is carried throughout most of the film. For most of the entire film, he is shown merely trying to support his growing family - when he loses his job because of organized crime, he turns to crime himself to support his family. When the local Don tries to stop his business, he merely takes the next logical step. Conversely, by intercutting Vito's rise with Michael's fall, we feel almost no sympathy for Michael, as we are given little background. His attempts to grab further power, contrasted with his father's humble beginnings, make us hate Michael. Then, suddenly, the final scenes reverse all of this. Vito returns to Italy to avenge his father's death - but not for any real purpose, as the man he kills is barely conscious. We start to be worried about our previous sympathy towards Vito - and just as we think this, the final scene helps us understand Michael, reversing everything that has gone before. It's a brilliant ending.
Nor did I realize how much Part II reflects Part I, just as Vito's rise reflects Michael's fall. There are numerous parallel scenes, each revealing aspects of the other. The most obvious is the (modern-day) opening - each begin with a celebration on the Don's estate. But the celebration in part II serves to illustrate how Michael has lost touch with his roots (or perhaps is discarding them) as the food, music, and general atmosphere feel like a cheap Las Vegas celebration, rather than the opening of Part I, which feels like a joyous family reunion. Another good example of parallel scenes are the scenes where Micheal consolidates his power at the end of each movie. In part I, he has little other choice - he himself would be killed otherwise. In part II, he does it to enemies that are already fleeing, and have little hope at striking back. In part I, it serves as an example of how powerful Michael has become - in part II, as an example of how far he has fallen.
I can see where the critics were coming from. It is undoubtedly a more complex film than part I, and definitely required a second viewing. It was also an interesting exercise to then compare it with Part III - but that will have to wait for another post.
Has anyone noticed that more television stations seem to be showing more movies these days? It seems to me that it used to a relatively rare occasion for a station to show movies, and if they did, there were usually of the movie-of-the-week sort of variety. Now, for example, the station-formerly-known-as-TBS shows a movie every night - and most are of them did fairly-well at the box-office. Anyways, with M away, I've been watching more movies on TV, and lately had the chance to re-watch two movies I was disappointed with when I first saw: Gladiator, and the Godfather Part II.
Gladiator
The actual watching-of of Gladiator I remember fondly. It was our second or third year at Waterloo, and M and I were out with a bunch of people. I believe we had been out pretty late the night before, and we decided to go see a movie with this group - Gladiator, as it turned out. After the first 15 minutes or so, M fell asleep - and soon after, I did too. Having been so tired all day, and having done so much, it was great just to doze off beside my lovely girlfriend. I woke up here and there, and watched bits of the movie, but each bit I saw only reinforced my belief that I wasn't missing much.
However, lots of people seemed to like it, and it won a bunch of Oscar's, so when I saw it on TV again, I thought I'd give it a second chance. As it turned out, it was even worse than I remembered. The plot makes no sense, the characters are essential caricatures, and, to top it all off, the action is, for the most part, rather dull. The movie also takes itself far too seriously - always a bad sign. I still don't understand what people see in it.
The Godfather, Part II
(Note: re-reading this post, I realize it contains quite a few "spoilers" for both Part I and Part II. If you haven't seen these movies yet, I highly recommend doing so before reading this, even if you don't think you'll like a movie about the mob. If nothing else, see it as a fascinating study of the films' main character - Michael Corleone).
I really, really liked the Godfather Part I, and after seeing that most critics preferred the sequel, I was hyped up to watch Part II a few years ago. After it was over, however, it felt like a huge disappointment. Two things come to mind about that first viewing. First of all, I didn't quite follow some of the plot details. There are a number of events that happen quite quickly around the centre of the film, and I just didn't really follow what was going on. Secondly, I just didn't see the point. To me, it seemed as if the point was to compare Michael and his downfall to his father's rise to power - then to hammer it over your head, until you were sure to get it, that Michael was, essentially, a complete bastard while his father was just looking out for his family. By the last twenty minutes, I just wanted it to end.
After the previous evenings re-viewing of Gladiator, I saw that this was on TV again as well, and so decided to give it a second chance - and was I ever glad I did. What a difference this second viewing made. I can now see where the critics were coming from with this one.
Perhaps the key event that I failed to grasp was the ending of the movie. I loved the ending of the Godfather (I) - as I had written about in essay on aesthetics, it was the moment when the film became art. With the single image of the lackey closing Kaye off from Michael's inner sanctum, we realize just how much Michael has changed - and how power has corrupted him. This, just after Michael has flat-out lied to Kaye, and she believed him. It's a stunning scene.
On watching Part II for the first time, I essentially glossed over the ending, which I now realize is perhaps an even more insightful ending than Part I's. By flashing back to when Micheal first announces to his family that he is going to war, we are suddenly forced to realize how little Michael actually wanted any of what he now has. At that time, he had flat-out rejected his family "business" - but his father, and father's advisor, had "other plans". Now, after years of power and neglect of his own family, we see just how little Michael actually wanted this power he now has. As I mentioned earlier, throughout Part II it is almost impossible to feel any sympathy towards Michael at all - but with this one scene, suddenly we do.
Realizing this, I suddenly understood the structure of the film much better. By opening the movie with the killing of Vito's father, and Vito's subsequent flight to America, we start by feeling sympathy towards Vito, something that is carried throughout most of the film. For most of the entire film, he is shown merely trying to support his growing family - when he loses his job because of organized crime, he turns to crime himself to support his family. When the local Don tries to stop his business, he merely takes the next logical step. Conversely, by intercutting Vito's rise with Michael's fall, we feel almost no sympathy for Michael, as we are given little background. His attempts to grab further power, contrasted with his father's humble beginnings, make us hate Michael. Then, suddenly, the final scenes reverse all of this. Vito returns to Italy to avenge his father's death - but not for any real purpose, as the man he kills is barely conscious. We start to be worried about our previous sympathy towards Vito - and just as we think this, the final scene helps us understand Michael, reversing everything that has gone before. It's a brilliant ending.
Nor did I realize how much Part II reflects Part I, just as Vito's rise reflects Michael's fall. There are numerous parallel scenes, each revealing aspects of the other. The most obvious is the (modern-day) opening - each begin with a celebration on the Don's estate. But the celebration in part II serves to illustrate how Michael has lost touch with his roots (or perhaps is discarding them) as the food, music, and general atmosphere feel like a cheap Las Vegas celebration, rather than the opening of Part I, which feels like a joyous family reunion. Another good example of parallel scenes are the scenes where Micheal consolidates his power at the end of each movie. In part I, he has little other choice - he himself would be killed otherwise. In part II, he does it to enemies that are already fleeing, and have little hope at striking back. In part I, it serves as an example of how powerful Michael has become - in part II, as an example of how far he has fallen.
I can see where the critics were coming from. It is undoubtedly a more complex film than part I, and definitely required a second viewing. It was also an interesting exercise to then compare it with Part III - but that will have to wait for another post.
Comments:
Yeah, as far as gladiator, I thought it had some good action scenes, particularly the first one, but other than that was pretty weak, so I have to agree with you there (though I have not rewatched it). I also feel killing commodus in the ring is just too blatantly non-historical. His death is well recorded (killed in the baths on new years eve). I don't mind minor divergence, but this is a major event which is completely wrong. Aside from specific events, I felt the plot was based around a complete lack of understanding of rome at that time. This movie is also one of the major factors in the forming of my hatred of dream sequences.
As for godfather part 2, you've convinced me I should rewatch it too, I did like it the first time, but I certainly didn't appreciate the subtleties you mentioned (it was probably 10 years ago I saw it). I did watch godfather 3 for the first time recently, and have no intention of rewatching that.
Post a Comment
<< Home
As for godfather part 2, you've convinced me I should rewatch it too, I did like it the first time, but I certainly didn't appreciate the subtleties you mentioned (it was probably 10 years ago I saw it). I did watch godfather 3 for the first time recently, and have no intention of rewatching that.
Post a Comment
<< Home
