Last Tango in Paris (1972)

2/5

Last Tango in Paris is something of a bizarre movie to me. The plot follows Marlon Brando as Paul, a recent widower after his wife's unexpected suicide, and Maria Schneider as Jeanne, a young girl in Paris. They randomly meet in an apartment up for rent, have rough sex bordering on rape, and agree to continue seeing each other without ever knowing the other's name or past. I'll be the first to admit that I don't "understand" this film, although I consider it a fault of the film and not myself. It was too impenetrable; it was as if it didn't want to say what it was about and purposely stayed away from revealing its meaning. Why?

Another thing about the movie I didn't understand was the prevalent nudity and sex. Usually I don't mind it when I see the purpose of keeping it in, but I saw no real reason for its gratuitous excess in this film. It certainly wasn't realism, because the compositions and camera movements were so set-up and planned that the movie as a whole didn't feel realistic in the first place--any realism by having a girl stand around naked was immediately lost and crossed the fine line from art into pornography.

Bertolucci has this amazing visual flair that I love to watch, but it just wasn't good enough to outweigh my distaste for the rest of the movie. The music was fantastic as well, although it came in and out at strange places and volumes. There were some very powerful moments in the movie, but they were few and far between and weakened by the meandering story. Really, I'm very disappointed with Bertolucci after this film. I don't recommend this to any but the most hardcore of Bertolucci fans.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0070849/

The Godfather (1972)

5/5

The Godfather. What can be said that hasn't already been said? This epic saga is an unforgettable foray into treacherous deception and shifting loyalties that many have termed the best film of all time. I cannot disagree with that claim. I can remember every scene of this movie; every frame burns itself into your brain. It is beautiful, it is heart-breaking, and it is amazing.

On this viewing, I paid more attention to the subtle acting of the piece. Pacino's typically flamboyant "overacting" is here perfectly underplayed. He never yells, and is more fierce in his softness. He is emotionless and business-like, and is all the more terrifying for it. "Don't ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever." Brando's fury is evoked in brutal glances (when Sonny speaks at the first Sollozzo meeting, watch Brando's reaction), his sadness in lowered eyelids and sagging weight (I can never forget his breakdown in the mortuary). His character is explored by his reactions: "I want no inquiries made. I want no acts of vengeance." His choice of words as essential as his delivery. Vito Corleone's business success has been due to never showing weakness, and it almost prevents him from weeping for his lost child.

My focus on minutiae exposed me to the extent of the plot's byzantine twists and turns. Coppola intercuts three different scenes together. He fast forwards, showing the plan while the characters are simultaneously discussing it. I had never noticed before just how confusing it could get because I was always utterly enraptured by it. The cinematography is spellbinding. I hadn't before realized how stylistically similar The Godfather was to film noirs. Deep shadows clothe faces and envelop bodies. Profiles and silhouettes present themselves. A chiaroscuro sepia ages the film well, emphasizing lighting over color. Off-kilter angles at tense scenes increase suspense. And unbelievable composition, framing, and movement all glued together with exceptional editing. Never have dissolves been used so effectively and so unobtrusively. The choices of when to cut and when not to (a perfect example is the first shot of the film) are intelligently made. The score by Nino Rota is so utterly absorbing; it is without a doubt one of the best ever put alongside film.

I love how every scene has a purpose, how themes are revisited and reversed; I find it sublimely poetic. Every character requesting something in the first scene must eventually repay their debt. Bonasera's story in the beginning has a truthful core and false embellishments, while Michael's denial at the end is a lie at heart but honest in motive. Analytically, Michael, Sonny, and Vito form a perfect trifecta. All business, all personal, and a combination of the two. I could go on for hours about this piece and its thematic merits, but a blog is neither the correct medium nor does it have the professional air. I would just like to end this review expressing my reverence for the film as entertainment and also as art. It must share the title of best film with The Rules of the Game.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0068646/

Frenzy (1972)

4/5

Frenzy sees Hitchcock return to London to follow the story of the necktie murderer and, of course, the man falsely accused of it. It doesn't have the same feel and texture as most of Hitchcock's films. It is more "adult," both in language and content. The film is grittier and more graphically violent, darker yet at the same time funnier. The mood is closer to British gangster films like Get Carter and The Long Good Friday. It was extremely shocking to see nudity in a Hitchcock film, as well as the graphic depiction of rape and murder. But it is not all gloom and doom, as this is by far, hands-down, his funniest film. I was laughing nearly the entire time. My favorite parts involve the police chief and his "gourmet" cook of a wife, but a close second is the scene in the potato truck with the victim experiencing rigor mortis. This movie could have been directed by the Coen brothers and would have fit in their oeuvre very comfortably.

Many scenes are surprisingly experimental for a man so near the end of his career. He lets his camera sit outside, watching the exterior of a building, as a new victim is found. We watch in silence, waiting for her scream. Another time, the camera backs out of the murderer's apartment after he takes his next victim inside. It goes down the stairs and backs out the hallway until it retreats to the streets of London. In both these scenes, we know what is happening, and Hitchcock lets our brains fill in the gaps, involving us and even implicating us. Another shot that has now been replicated numerous times shows a woman coming out of a pub, emotionally distraught, and the sounds of the streets of London fade out for several seconds until her introspection is cut off by a man who appears behind her, seemingly out of thin air.

As in nearly every Hitchcock film, it was technically outstanding. The editing, the music, and the acting were all spot-on. But there were also some problems with the movie. It seems to have no center or focus because of how it's told. For about thirty minutes in the middle of the movie, we follow the travails of the true murderer instead of the man accused of it. Why? Hitchcock uses this scene to generate tension, but it is not a tense moment for the person we sympathize with. Interestingly, we don't want him to get away, but to get caught. Additionally, there are several minor characters who disappear halfway in and whose motivations are never explained. These are rather minor quibbles with a great film, a film that is perhaps Hitchcock's most graphically violent and darkly comedic. Watch it. If you like the Coen brothers, Get Carter, or The Long Good Friday, you will enjoy this movie immensely.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0068611/