I just rewatched My Beautiful Laundrette, ostensibly for a Valentine's review of stories about love. Sadly, I've just realised that this film is not about love very much at all, other than my own love for Daniel Day Lewis (a love so great that my bestest uni friend Frances and I once stayed up until 3.30am to watch this very film, even though we had to be up at 7.30am the next morning- we were so tired on our way to our lecture that we had to keep stopping to laugh, cause we didn't have the energy to do both at once!). Anyway, I've watched it now, so I'll do my best to spin it into a love story for you... I'll just use a little artistic license!
So the film basically follows Omar (Gordon Warnecke) as he tries to negotiate the business world of his uncle, whilst simultaneously trying to keep his depressed, possibly alcoholic father happy. In fact, of all the things in his life, it seems to be that the least complicated of them all is his relationship with Johnny (Daniel Day Lewis). This relationship unfolds during the film, as Johnny seems to only be Omar's friend and colleague at first, but it suddenly, without warning, becomes clear that they are more than this when Johnny grabs and kisses Omar around the back of the laundrette (it's so classy). This is where the love kicks in, but also where it doesn't- there isn't really any mention of love at all between the two men, even though, I think it's clear, that they do and must love each other.
Johnny is probably my favourite character in this film, not only because Day Lewis just has so damn much charisma, but because he's so lost and vulnerable, and torn between a way of life that is easy but he knows is wrong, and one that is much harder, but that he wants. He is also, in a way that will tend to complicate his romance with a pakistani-english boy, a (hopefully) ex-member of the national front, an organisation whose ultimate goal would result in Omar's removal from the country. This tends to complicate things between the men, and means that they are never quite in the same place in their relationship- Omar wants to punish Johnny for his past actions, and Johnny still retains a certain amount of solidarity with his old, racist friends.
In spite of these differences, disputes and all the rest, there still remains something that appears unshakeable between Omar and Johnny. Perhaps because no one knows about the romantic relationship between them, or maybe just because they are really meant to be together, nothing seems to happen to irreparably damage that side of their relationship. Neo Nazis are defeated, cousins are deflected, and the one stable thing that remains is Johnny and Omar, seemingly together through whatever the world can throw at them. And they are apparently free to do this, in the film's odd and non-relational ending where the two men just splash each other at a sink as if Johnny hasn't just gotten beaten up by his friends, protecting a man he hates. It's almost as if, when they are together, all other problems become unimportant and trivial. Which, if it is not love, must be pretty close to it, for each other to be enough to make all the problems and cultural differences and everything just fade away to nothingness.
I feel that I have done My Beautiful Laundrette a little bit of a disservice in the way I have recapped it, because, trust me, there is far more to it than just love, there is culture and race and ideology and so much more all crammed into 90 minutes that you feel really intelligent for watching, understanding and analysing it at all (or, at least, I do!), so I urge you to see it if you haven't already! Apart from that, I just want to add two more things about Daniel Day Lewis, whom I adore so dearly. Firstly, that he has the absolute worst hair I have ever seen on anyone ever,
and, secondly, anyone who says they don't want Daniel Day Lewis to do this to them is clearly lying,
Seeing as it's Valentines Day tomorrow, (boo hiss, or, alternatively, yay! depending on how you think about it... I'm not really bothered by it, but I am going to have lunch with my Facebook wife, so it should be pretty awesome anyway!) I've decided to narrow my devouring ways to films and books dealing specifically with love. (500) Days of Summer is especially suited to the task, since, as we are aware from the beginning "This is a story about boy meets girl, but you should know upfront this is not a love story." Catering, therefore to all people, encompassing the good and bad in relationships; whilst not making anyone feel too bad about their own current relationship status. As an added bonus, our heroes Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Summer Finn (Zooey Deschanel) both work at a greeting card company, the ideal place to start a post about Valentines Day texts, since, as we all know, they made the whole thing up anyway, to make people feel either amazing/horrible about themselves. So thanks for that.
(500) Days of Summer is one of my favourite films of recent times (I was going to say of last year, but it actually came out in 2009. Time is going far too quickly) because it's just so damn much fun. It has an awesome soundtrack, amazing (especially for me) cast, and I love the way the story is told, not in a linear fashion so much as it being the story of one relationship, cut up into lots of little moments to try and help Tom see where everything went wrong. I also enjoy the fact that it doesn't necessarily ask you to hate Summer (like so many films with this same subject matter would do), so much as to look at both parties in the relationship and see the flaws in both of them. Summer is, in a way exonerated for her non-commital attitude to their relationship by the sensible words of a blind date Tom has at one point in the film,
Alison: Can I ask you a question?
Tom: Yeah
Alison: She never cheated on you?
Tom: No, never
Alison: Did she take advantage of you in any way?
Tom: No...
Alison: And she told you upfront that she didn't want a boyfriend?
Tom: Yeah...
Tom fails to grasp the idea that, his disappointment over things not working out with Summer are at least in part because of his refusal to really listen to what she was trying to tell him, and I think that Alison's inferred point here (well, in that case, get over it!) is completely justified. It is also completely ignored.
More than anything, what I really like about this film is the little bits that really just make me grin and leave me really cheerful, quite aside from the whole mess that is Tom and Summer's association with each other. I love the part when they go shopping in Ikea, playing house and really enjoying themselves, mainly because it echoes my very first visit to Ikea (only 2 years ago- yesterday, in fact!) and because of how much I adore Ikea (a lot, in case you hadn't guessed!) I also love Tom's little sister, and her street-smart ways- she seems so much more mature and able to handle things than Tom is, and she's only 12 years old! The 'penis game' that they play in the park is also a favourite moment of mine, since it inspired a similar game that amused me and my housemate during exams last year, where I decided to shout 'vagina' out of her window to poor unsuspecting passers by... It was a lot of fun when you're avoiding doing anything actually useful! I also just love Zooey Deschanel, in any role she has ever played pretty much, and considering that she stars alongside Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who I still harbour affection for from 10 Things I hate About You; there was very little chance that I wasn't going to like this film. Oh yeah, and there's also this:
Summer: I named my cat after Springsteen!
Tom: Oh yeah, what was his name?
Summer:...Bruce...
I have already mentioned the greeting card company, and it is a pivotal part of the film. It serves as a way for Summer to provide inspiration for Tom, in suggesting he should be an architect if that's what he really wants to do, and it allows for one of my favourite jokes of the film, "I figured, why make something disposable, like a building; when you can make something that lasts forever, like a greeting card?" How can you not find someone who says that adorable?! Apart from this though, Tom's monologue towards the end of the film really summed up what is wrong with the greeting card industry, and while it comes from a heartbroken place, he still makes some really interesting points about the nature of cards versus what we are actually feeling, and I for one happen to agree with him. Here's an exert of what he says:
"Why do people buy these things? It's not because they wanna say how they feel, people buy cards cause they can't say how they feel or they're afraid too. We provide the service that lets them off the hook. You know what? I say to hell with it. Lets level with America at least let them speak for themselves right I mean look, look. What is this, what does this say? "Congratulations on your new baby." How bout "congratulations on your new baby, guess that's it for hanging out, nice knowing ya." How bout this one? With all the pretty hearts on the front, I think I know where this ones going. Yup "Happy Valentines Day sweetheart, I love you." Isn't that sweet? Ain't love grand? This is exactly what I'm talking about. What does that even mean, love? Do you know? Do you? Anybody? If somebody gave me this card Mr. Vance, I'd eat it. It's these cards, and the movies and the pop songs, they're to blame for all the lies and the heartache, everything. We're responsible. I'M responsible. I think we do a bad thing here. People should be able to say how they feel, how they really feel, not you know, some words that some stranger put in their mouth"
You see?! I think this film is worth seeing for this scathing attack on the greeting card industry if nothing else, and there is a lot else to recommend it too. I'm not going to tell you if Summer and Tom end up together or not, because that would completely ruin it for you, but suffice to say, everyone ends up in a pretty good place by the end, older, wiser and better equipped to deal with things than ever before. And no one is out being a whore for the greeting card industry, which is all you can ask for in the end, really!
It's really really difficult for me to talk about Angels in America without either a) rambling, b) gushing, or c) being filled with an incredible rage for the characters I don't like (namely, Roy and Louis). So, with this in mind, I'll try and keep this review/revisit as succinct as possible. But it's not going to be easy!
Being, as it is, written by a gay man, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Angels in America rather predictably deals with the issue of AIDS, and it's effect on two men in particular, Prior Walter (played so fabulously by Justin Kirk in the HBO version) and the real life villain of the piece, Roy Cohn (the always amazing Al Pacino). To say that this is just a play about AIDS, however, would be such a gross understatement that anyone who said such a thing to me would instantly find themselves on the receiving end of a cold shoulder. In fact, AIDS is about the last thing mentioned in the play (I think the term AIDS is only used about once or twice, and then it is by a doctor), and there is a far greater focus on politics, religion, human progress, self-discovery, self-hatred, and love than there is on sickness.
Beginning with politics. Louis, Prior's boyfriend, is extremely focused on politics and especially political labels, often to the detriment to his character, in that he exists within ideas rather than the real world, which is perhaps one reason that he finds himself unable to deal with Prior's illness.
"Maybe... this person's sense of the world, that it will change for the better with struggle... maybe that person can't, um, incorporate sickness into his sense of how things are supposed to go"
It seems a poor excuse for not being there for someone that you love, but it is enough in the end for Louis to leave Prior all alone, for which he continually beats himself up, but still lacks the strength to go back to him. Prior recognises this weakness in Louis as being related to his inability to see the world as it really is, rather than an idealised version of how he wants it to be, and this means that nothing Louis does ever seems to be sincere;
"You cry, but you endanger nothing in yourself. It's like the idea of crying when you do it. Or the idea of love."
Whether or not Louis is capable of love is up for debate, but it certainly doesn't seem like yours or my idea of love- he claims to love Prior and then leaves him when he needs him the very most. This is about the most self-loving thing you can do, and certainly explains Belize's attitude towards Louis throughout the play, in his lack of sympathy at Louis's self-torture;
Louis: I'm dying
Belize: He's dying. You just wish you were.
Louis meets Joe Pitt (Patrick Wilson) mostly by chance, since they work in the same place, but is drawn to him because of his equal levels of self-hatred and inability to act as he wants to. Joe is a repressed homosexual, married to Harper (Mary-Louise Parker), an agoraphobic valium addict who is the voice of both doom and hope at various points in the play, and whose problems are in no small part related to Joe's own. He is married to her because it is the right thing to do, but he wants something so different, and doesn't know how to get it without breaking himself apart. His anguish over having to be something he isn't is so clear;
"Does it make any difference? That I might be one thing deep within, no matter how wrong or ugly that thing is, so long as I have fought, with everything I have, to kill it. What do you want from me? What do you want from me, Harper? More than that? For God's sake, there's nothing left, I'm a shell. There's nothing else to kill."
It seems so tragic that Joe can't even accept who he is, especially in a play where so many of the men are so open and honest about their feelings and about who they love (in fact, apart from the doctor, all the men in the play are gay). Tony Kushner said that in Joe he was trying to create a Republican character that he actually liked, but he didn't quite succeed. I like Joe an insane amount, and far more than I like Louis, because he just seems so broken and sad, until he learns who he is when he meets Louis. His ending, I feel, doesn't necessarily reflect what he has learnt about himself, and I think it was kind of unfair of Kushner to make Joe act like this (if you want to know what I'm talking about, you're going to have to read this play. Seriously, I don't know why you aren't already!)
And then there's Roy Cohn. Accurately described as being "like the polestar of human evil" he acts as both a surrogate father for Joe and a tormentor of Belize, as well as having basically no redeeming features as a human being at all. It is, I suppose, Joe's association with Roy that is his least attractive attribute (and Louis certainly sees it this way), but while it allows Kushner to get all the hate he feels for him out of his system, the parts with Roy and his pain are, I find, the least interesting in the play because I can't get up any sympathy or really any feeling for the man at all. Other than wanting him, rather badly to leave Joe alone.
It occurs to me that I haven't even mentioned the angel yet, and this is what I mean by getting carried away by Angels in America. There are so many major characters, and so much context and symbolism and so many issues that it is almost impossible to get through them all. The angel is pretty important though, so I'll tell you about her now, or rather, I'll tell you some more about Prior. If you question whether or not the whole angel element of Angels in America is all in Prior's brain, then you kind of miss the point of the angel all together. I don't think it matters whether the angel is real or not, because it is what she represents, and what she makes Prior realise, that is important. Belize is of the opinion that she is a manifestation of Prior's loneliness and sadness;
Belize: Abandoned.
Prior: Yes.
Belize: I smell a motif. The man that got away.
Prior: Well, it occurred to me. Louis.
But then again, we have to consider that Hannah (Meryl Streep), Joe's mother and Prior's random friend has also seen and remembered the angel;
"I have to go home now. I had the most peculiar dream"
In the HBO version, this dream takes the form of Emma Thompson and Meryl Streep kissing, and Meryl Streep having an orgasm. It is amazing. But anyway. What the angel really does is set up the need that Prior feels to continue living, even though he is in pain, and even though he is unhappy, he still wants to continue onwards, and just keep on living. This is the ultimate thing I always take away from the play, the feeling that, although life can get truly awful and unbearable, we still desire and need and take more and more of it,
"Bless me anyway. I want more life. I can't help myself, I do. I've lived through such terrible times and there are people who live through much much worse, but... You see them living anyway. When they're more spirit than body, more sores than skin, when they're burned and in agony, when flies lay eggs in the corners of the eyes of their children, they live. Death usually has to take life away. I don't know if that's just the animal. I don't know if it's not braver to die. But I recognise the habit. The addiction to being alive. We live past hope. If I can find hope anywhere, that's it, that's the best I can do. It's so much not enough, so inadequate but... Bless me anyway. I want more life."
And, as a viewer or reader, we want Prior to have more life too, because of the incredible strength of spirit he shows throughout, and because we love him correspondingly to how much we dislike Louis. Which, in my case, is clearly a lot.
I'm nearly done with boring you to death now, but just remember, "I want more life" and you'll be fine. Anyway, the HBO version of Angels in America is absolutely stunning in my opinion, and I encourage and implore you to watch it if you really can't deal with reading plays (like some people I know). Pretty much my only complaint about it is that it leaves out not just one but two scenes between Harper and Prior, a pairing so excellent that Showtime gave them their own TV show. There is, I suppose, no really vital information passed between them in these two meetings like there is in their first (that Joe is gay), but there is a beautiful piece of narrative symmetry in their final meeting that I think could really have just stayed in there. But far be it for me to question Mike Nichols (on a similar note, I would in no way consider Al Pacino, fabulous as he always is, to have been the lead actor in Angels in America- I would have had to give the Golden Globe Emmy to Justin Kirk!)
But these are just tiny, minuscule complaints, that in no way affect how much I love Angels in America. Even the characters I don't like, I like them because they are part of this absolute masterpiece of writing, and it is about the only play that I have enjoyed reading just as much as seeing it in a physical form. If all this hasn't convinced you to read or watch it, then I don't know if there's much more I can say about it to you- but it is absolutely one of my favourite things in the world. So go! Explore the wonderful, weird, heartbreaking, uplifting, evil and then good world of Angels in America. You won't ever regret it (and if you do, you can blame me.)
I just finished reading To Kill A Mockingbird for about the millionth time, and I found myself, as I am want to do lately, copying out important, meaningful and moving quotations from the book, in a way I haven't done since I first read it when I was 16, for my GCSEs. Even that experience (having to read it rather than just reading it for pleasure) didn't put me off the spectacularness that is this book. Since I'm pretty sure the majority of people will have already read, loved and analysed this book to death; I'm not going to give you a regular book review, but rather a look at the things To Kill A Mockingbird have specifically taught me (as I learn along with Scout) and through this why the book means so much to me, all with the help of those trusty quotations I wrote down as I read. So, here goes!
1. You should outwardly conform so that you can basically do what you want
This is something that Atticus avidly does, as he holds so many unconventional views for 1930s Alabama, but still remains a vital and loved part of the town. Until he does something that nobody wants him to, of course. This wisdom he passes onto Scout, as makes a bargain with her- she goes to school, and they can carry on reading. I think this is quite an important piece of information to have, since it's all about compromise- as long as other people think you're doing what they want you to, then you can pretty much do as you please!
2. You should be empathetic towards others
This is something I probably already knew, but Lee just distills it into the perfect sentiment
"'You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view... until you climb into his skin and walk around in it'"
This is something that constantly helps Scout understand the world around her, and as she becomes confused about why people act the way they do, she is able to look back upon this and be empathetic to their circumstances. She most notably does this with Boo Radley:
"Atticus was right. One time he said you never really know a man until you stand in his shoes and walk around in them. Just standing on the Radley porch was enough."
It is perhaps this more than anything that enables Scout to get through the whole awful summer, as she has to really consider why people are acting the way they are, even when there is no logical or rational reason for them to do so.
3. Guns are evil
"'[Atticus] told me havin' a gun around's an invitation for somebody to shoot you'"
No novel has formed my beliefs about gun control like To Kill a Mockingbird. This is, in a nutshell, my own theory on guns- if nobody has them, then nobody can get hurt. This is a far better attitude to have, in my mind, than believing that if you don't have one then everyone else will, and so it is kill or be killed. That really doesn't seem to lead to a very peaceful society now, does it? Especially if you haven't considered things from somebody else's point of view...
4. What courage really is
"'I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It's when you're licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do. Mrs Dubose won, all ninety-eight pounds of her. According to her views, she died beholden to nothing and nobody. She was the bravest person I ever knew'"
Atticus' perception of courage should come as no surprise, since he models his own actions on those of Mrs Dubose (without her cantankerousness, cruelty and racism, of course). But this is really something to consider- you're not really brave when you're doing something that you know you will be able to do, but rather when you do something that you know is going to be extremely hard and you doubt you will be able to win. I think this is something that everyone could do with remembering every once in a while.
5. Forced womanhood is not cool
Scout seems to be pretty much the ultimate literary tomboy, so when Aunt Alexandra moves in and tries to start dictating her actions, it was never going to be good. I absolutely love this line
"I felt the starched walls of a pink cotton penitentiary closing in on me, and for the second time in my life I thought about running away."
The thing is, Scout is relatively lucky- most girls have these walls imposed upon them pretty much since birth, but then again, having them forced upon her now when she can understand what is happening must be pretty upsetting. She also has good, solid reasons not to want any part in the world of women
"Ladies seemed to live in faint horror of men, seemed unwilling to approve wholeheartedly of them. But I liked them. There was something about them, no matter how much they cussed and drank and gambled and chewed; no matter how undelectable they were, there was something about them that I instinctively liked... they weren't-
'Hypocrites, Mrs Perkins, born hypocrites'"
I can't even begin to tell you how much I like this witty little bit of wordplay, but it also happens to be the truth- the white women in this novel (with the exception of Miss Maudie and Aunt Alexandra) do quite often contradict themselves, whereas the men seem to be upfront and say what they are actually thinking (even if this takes the form of a mob). It's really no wonder Scout doesn't want girl-ness forced upon her in this society.
6. It is important to protect the innocent
Atticus tries to protect his children from the horrors of the trial, he tries to protect Tom Robinson in his innocence, and he tries to protect the mockingbirds from his children's guns. Mockingbirds need to be protected because
"' Mockingbirds don't do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don't eat up people's gardens, don't nest in corncribs, they don't do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That's why it's a sin to kill a mockingbird.'"
This clearly becomes a symbol of why it would also be a sin to kill Tom Robinson, and this is in fact clearly stated later on in the novel (I love books that make it easy for you!)
"He likened Tom's death to the senseless slaughter of songbirds by hunters and children"
And this is certainly the case- Tom never did anything but tried to make Mayella Ewell's life a little bit easier, and in return she (with not a little help from her father) took his life away from him. It's so entirely tragic, and really drives home the point that what is innocent in this world needs to be protected, and this in turn makes us all the more grateful to Atticus for being the one to try and do it,
"'Whether Maycomb knows it or not, we're paying the highest tribute we can pay a man. We trust him to do right. It's that simple."
7. Prejudice is absolutely wrong and abhorrent
Yeah, I knew this before I read the book. But it really drives it home, so many times, and in so many different ways. It makes it clear that any assumptions based on race are logically incoherant
"'the evil assumption- that all Negroes lie, that all Negroes are basically immoral beings, that all Negro men are not to be trusted around our women, an assumption one associates with minds of their calibre. Which, gentlemen, we know to be a lie as black as Tom Robinson's skin, a lie I do not have to point out to you. You know the truth, and the truth is this: some negro men lie, some Negroes are immoral, some Negro men are not to be trusted around women. But this is a truth that applies to the human race and to no particular race of men.'"
Atticus really pushes the town to try and accept the idea that there is no fundamental between black and white people, and that there are no essential traits that apply to any race, and if you believe that there are then you're pretty ignorant. It is clear that, whilst Atticus does everything he can to try and change people's minds he is still realistic about the time and place in which he is operating
"'There's something in our world that makes men lose their heads- they couldn't be fair if they tried. In our courts, when it's a white man's word against a black man's, the white man always wins. They're ugly, but those are the facts of life.'"
"Tom was a dead man the minute Mayella Ewell opened her mouth and screamed."
The novel doesn't offer any positive conclusions about how to end this cycle of hatred and inequality, and this is perhaps because, at the time the novel is set, there wasn't any visible end to it. All we are left with is the minority of people who desperately wish that things would change for the better.
8. You have to go with what your conscience tells you
For Atticus, it would be so much easier to just half-heartedly take on Tom Robinson's case, give him the absolute minimum defence, and retain the love of the town. It is absolutely impossible for him to do this, since,
"'If I didn't, I couldn't hold my head up in town, I couldn't represent this county in the legislature, I couldn't even tell you or Jem not to do something again."
This, for Atticus, is a moral decision. There is no question that he has to do absolutely everything he can to stop Tom Robinson being prosecuted for this crime, because if he didn't it would haunt him the rest of his life, always hanging over anything else he tried to do. This he does even without approval from the great majority of the town, because
"'Before I can live with other folks, I've got to live with myself. The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience."
In other words, you have to do what feels like the right thing for you, regardless of how popular this decision is, because otherwise, while you have everyone else's respect, you won't be able to live with what you have done yourself. This is what makes Atticus such an amazing character- he always does what is right, not what is merely popular, and as such has gained the respect and love of basically everyone who has read the novel, ever. And, believe me, he deserves that respect more than most characters, and most people in real life ever do.
I watched all three Godfather films in the past three days, which, to be honest, has been pretty awesome. Except for today, when I watched Part III and lost the will to live entirely. I mean, I started watching it trying to avoid thinking that it would be bad (even though I feared it would be), but I seriously couldn't even focus on it because it was just so awful, and, to my mind confusing (although that could just have been the lack of concentration.) It was made worse, of course, by watching the first two films in the preceding two days, which are both just so incredible and amazing that a lot of other films look bad in comparison. And a film trying to be their friend but just not matching up... looks very, very bad. But let's start from the very beginning (a very good place to start, according to Maria. In, I'm guessing, not Michael Corleone's favourite film), with:
The Godfather
The original, and in my mind, the best Godfather film. For a start, Marlon Brando is in it, and I am all about the Brando love (even in A Streetcar Named Desire, when he's all rapey and stuff... seriously attractive), although perhaps not in the physical sense in this film. In fact, the first time I watched it, I kept thinking 'but when is Marlon Brando going to turn up? I thought he was the Godfather!'... and he was! So that was pretty embarrassing. But anyway, apart from my worrying obsession with Marlon Brando, the crux of this film, I think, is Michael's (Al Pacino's) downfall into the seedy underworld of the mafia, from his rather more upstanding place as the returning army hero, lover of Kay (the always amazing Diane Keaton), and all round good guy.
So what changes? I think there are two basic turning points in Michael's thinking of the things his family does. The first comes with the assassination attempt on his father (for, in a move that makes me smile just a little bit, not wanting to have any part of the emerging drugs trade) since, while he has always been realistic and aware of what his family does, this is seemingly the first time it really becomes clear to him that his father is in constant, immediate danger; and that he must do something to protect him. This something leads to him having to go into hiding in Italy (it seems like a giant leap, I know, but I don't want to give too much away!) where something else really awful happens to him and his decision, and I also think his ability, to work within the mafia is cemented. When he goes back to America, there is really very little going on behind his eyes (something Pacino does so so well), and he seems to have lost himself, and his soul, in his new position.
There is, of course, far more to this film than Michael's descent into bad deeds, and a stellar supporting cast of both actors and characters, including Robert Duvall as the steady and reliable family lawyer, who also seems to be the only one who gets any work done, but is also eventually shoved out by Michael; and James Caan (always, to me, the dad from Elf!) as Sonny, Michael's hot-headed older brother, who really doesn't know when to stop. I, again, don't want to say too much, but let's just say things happen, people have to be eliminated, and then more things happen, and more people have to die. And it's completely freaking awesome.
And there's also this:
Honestly, it's just so brilliant, I insist you watch it right now! Drop anything you're doing, it's honestly not as important as watching The Godfather.
The Godfather Part II
A lot of people actually prefer Part II to the first Godfather film, and I can see why that could be the case, but for me it just lacks the amazing killer power of Marlon Brando (last mention of him, promise!) It does, however, follow Michael deeper down into the pit of his lack of feeling and cruelty; as well as portraying Vito Corleone's early life and rise to mafia activities in New York City (in this case played by an adorable Robert De Niro, although they wanted Brando [sorry!] to play the younger version of himself, but he refused because of money disputes. De Niro is pretty great here though).
I especially liked the Vito parts of this film, since they followed one story pretty solidly, whereas the parts with Michael seemed to be a bit unfocused at times (there's a whole senate investigation of the Corleone family, but this isn't even mentioned until it's actually happening). Also, De Niro is so adorable that I want to be his wife in early 20th century New York! I especially like the 9 year old Vito's experiences at Ellis Island, since it is a place that truly fascinates me- you could just sail over to America, and as long as you were healthy and relatively smart, you could stay. My attraction to this is perhaps a lot deeper than a mere interest in the way it happened, since my love for America knows no bounds, and it is a LOT harder to get into there now...
Anyway, so with Vito, you see his first experience of mafia activity, his first kill, and the way he sets himself up in business and gains respect almost immediately. Michael's story in this film is a little more complicated, and a lot more ruthless. By interspersing the two stories, you can see how much further Michael seems willing to go than his father to get things done, but then there is also the sense that things have become a lot more complex and frightening than they were in Vito's day. Essentially, Michael is searching for the people who shot through his bedroom, trying to kill him and anyone else who might be in the room. He believes that someone very close to them was involved, which eventually leads to this:
And it seems pretty clear from this point that poor Fredo's days are numbered...
One other interesting point from Part II is the fact that Kay tells Michael that she aborted his baby, because she couldn't bear the thought of her child being involved in the same activities as his father. This whole scenario allows Pacino to do more of his icy staring acting, but it also reminded me of the forced upon fate that I talked about being an issue for Tony in The Sopranos. I also just felt incredibly sorry for Kay throughout the entire film, having to watch the man she loved turn into a monster who just can't understand her anymore. Just, trust me, it's amazing.
And then there was this:
The Godfather Part III
What an error in judgment. The very first thing that struck me about Part III was how bad Al Pacino's voice had become, from all the smoking he had done in the past 20 years (this is something I notice with Johnny Depp too, his voice in Cry Baby is radically different to that in, say, Public Enemies), and I vowed never to smoke. This is about the only good thing that came out of this film. I just couldn't stand Michael's newfound goodness, because there was nothing to suggest why or how he had changed his ways. Sofia Coppola was just appalling, and Andy Garcia, who I normally don't have a problem with, got on my nerves more than a little bit.
I would love to tell you the story of The Godfather Part III, but I'm not ashamed to admit that I stopped paying attention about 50 minutes in to the film (yes, that's how bad). As far as I can tell, it had something to do with the Vatican, and Michael's son wanting to be an opera singer, and Kay finally finding out that he got married whilst in Italy in The Godfather, which was something of a relief for me (no one ever seemed to know about that! What was that all about?!) But the thing is, there was very little connection at all to the other films, the gangsters were all new, Tom was killed off in between films (mainly because Robert Duvall wanted more money, but still), and it was very hard to feel a connection to any of the characters, even to Michael (and I love Al Pacino almost as much as Brando!) It was just like a big sucking, gaping black hole; trying to undo all the brilliance of the first two films, and making you want to forget them as well, as part of your recovery.
Like Sex and the City 2 did for the other film and almost the entire series. The fucker.
I did like this bit, but only for The Sopranos reference (I know it's the other way round, but you know what I mean):
and that's about the only nice thing I can say about this film. To be honest, I would rather have watched 3 episodes of The Sopranos, since I would have felt a lot less like stabbing something into my eye, and a lot more content. If you absolutely have to watch Part III, then I'm warning you now, you'd better watch it before, or an extremely long time after the first two magnificent pieces of cinema. I'm going to leave the last word to a younger, better, Michael Corleone. Michael, should The Godfather III have ever been made?
I've only just discovered The Blue Bookcaseso this is kind of a late submission, but I really really loved the question that they asked, so I'm going to answer it anyway, late or not!
What setting (time or place) from a book or story would you most like to visit? Eudora Welty said that, "Being shown how to locate, to place, any account is what does most toward making us believe it...", so in what location would you most like to hang out?
I have read so many novels that have such lush and beautiful settings that I have been instantly transported there, and, more importantly have wanted to stay there. If I had to choose just one, though, it would probably have to be India, a place that in literature seems at once so exotic and strange, but then in an instant can seem exactly like home. I think I have read too much Salman Rushdie recently, but I have also felt this effect from The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy- the childhood the children have seems so incredibly different to my own, but then they just go to the cinema, and everything seems to realign again. It is this feeling that I often seek to find when I travel: to have wonderful new experiences and sensations, but then for it to also feel like home in whatever small way it can.
This week's top ten is characters I'd name my children after. Most of the names I've picked aren't actually names that I think are that great, but since I love the characters so damn much, I'd totally create namesakes for them. Now I just have to find someone to have 10 children with...
Top Ten Characters I'd Name My Children After
1. Atticus Finch, from To Kill A Mockingbird- Come on. Obviously I would name my child Atticus because he is, in a nutshell, the beacon of all goodness and moral sense and wonderful things in the world. And I would also have his children, in case anybody wanted to know that!
2. Daria Morgendorffer, from Daria- I can't even express how much I love and admire Daria, and how much of a role model she is for my entire life (which is probably not a good thing. But oh well!) She also happens to have a pretty awesome name that I would be happy to bestow upon any child of mine!
3. Tyler Durden, from Fight Club- Tyler is also an essentially good role model, although in word rather than deed (blowing things up= not cool). I also just genuinely like the name!
4. Princess Jasmine, from Aladdin- Not necessarily a role model (although she does start out as a princess rather than marrying a man to become one, and is pretty independent for a disney woman) but I do adore the name Jasmine. Although, only if it's spelt the way I have spelt it, and not any other crazy variation (Jazmin? Really?). Apologies if your name is spelt a silly way!
5. Briony Tallis, from Atonement by Ian McEwan- This is a tough one because I love the name but pretty much hate the character. I guess I'd just have to tell my daughter she was named after something else, rather than her believing I hated her forever!
6. Lolita, from Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov- Just for the name, believe me! It is so beautiful, but does have such bad connotations... I'd still go with it though!
7. Heathcliff, from Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte- Such an exotic and romantic name- and I do continue to love Heathcliff in spite of all the bad things he does! Heath Ledger (*wail*) was also named after him, so it's kind of special in that way too (his sister is called Cathy too, which disturbs me just a tiny bit- did their parents want them to have a tragic romance?!)
8. Holly Golightly, from Breakfast at Tiffany's by Truman Capote- Yes, she's more or less a glorified prostitute, and she's kind of a bitch. Nonetheless, I still love her (especially when she's Audrey Hepburn), and I have always loved the name Holly (it was going to be my name, until my mum gave it away to her pregnant sister. Who didn't even use it. Yes, I'm still bitter!)
9. Tom Joad, from The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck- Not the most interesting name in the world, but it's a good solid one, and Tom Joad is pretty special. Also, he's pretty much a communist, which is just spectacular if you ask me. And there's this:
"Whenever they's a fight so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Whenever they's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there . . . . I'll be in the way guys yell when they're mad an'-I'll be in the way kids laugh when they're hungry an' they know supper's ready. An' when our folks eat the stuff they raise an' live in the houses they build-why, I'll be there."
10. Hester Prynne, from The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne- Because she is brilliant, brave and a really quite early feminist. Possibly even better would be calling my child Pearl, because she is a wonderful little nature baby, but Hester is by far a more interesting name. Even if it does remind me of a rabbit, for some strange reason.
So those are my ten. Do you have any characters you love so much you would name your children after them?
