A Woman Under the Influence (1974)

2/5

John Cassavetes's A Woman Under the Influence is a slice of life tale examining the titular woman and her dysfunctional family life for two and a half hours. There was little plot to speak of, and not that much stuff actually happening. It was just a crazy woman losing her mind without explanation. While it was always interesting to watch, I continually wondered just what exactly I was watching and why. The only reason I started watching it was because Cassavetes is supposed to be the godfather of American independent cinema. I thought that that meant he made his films in a truly independent manner, but as far as I can tell it's because he started the concept of the bizarre, awkward, uncomfortable stories that are "unique" and that I don't care about at all.

This obligatory dysfunctional family is unparalleled--these people are more confusing, more inexplicable, and less realistic than Lars in Lars and the Real Girl. And angrier. There is so much yelling and arguing, it hurt my ears. At the same time, the husband-wife relationship and their inherent difficulties ring true, with genuine family dynamics on display. But do we really need a movie to show us this? The excellent acting by both Peter Falk and Gena Rowlands was a bit exaggerated at times. Add that to over-the-top characters, and the whole thing feels staged and melodramatic. Technically, the movie is a bit more impressive. It looked and sounded really really good. The problem is that, like all indies, this movie had atrociously slow editing--it would meander and linger on unnecessary shots/scenes in the hopes that the audience could find some underlying meaning.

All in all, you can hope to get some meaningful content out of it, but is it really worth all the time and patience you have to put in? Maybe for you, but not for me. (And yet, still I am going to be watching Cassavetes's next movie, The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, so expect another pleasantly negative review soon.)

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072417/

The Godfather Part II (1974)

5/5

Some have named it the best sequel ever made. Some suggest it is better than the first and therefore place it on the pedestal of best movie ever made. No matter what hyperbole you give it, the quality of this film is undeniable. Nearly every scene found me muttering to myself, "This scene is amazing." To quote each memorable line would be to read the script entire. Nino Rota's score is better than in the first. The cinematography has also improved while remaining surprisingly noir. But the acting is definitely the finest moment of this movie.

This film is essentially 3 hours of character development with 20 minutes of violence thrust upon it. Characters like Kay and Fredo were minor in the first one, but essential in this one. And it works because all the acting are tours de force. I actually consider Cazale's acting superior to Pacino's in this film, and De Niro's on par with Brando. This is not an insult to Pacino--one of the most powerfully emotional scenes is in the night club when Michael realizes that his brother betrayed him--but the raw honesty of Cazale's acting is never on display more than when he whines. "It ain't the way I wanted it! I can handle things. I'm smart. Not like everybody says, like dumb, I'm smart and I want respect!" While Michael's reaction is more shocking, I can never forget the way Kay says, "Michael, you are blind." De Niro's Vito Corleone: every aspect of his portrayal is flawless. If I started describing each nuance, I would get too giddy remembering it to finish my thoughts. I love every scene with Fredo, every scene with Kay, and every scene with Vito. Whenever they are on screen, I am entranced.

The decision to intercut Vito's past with the present is well-founded. Though both Vito and Michael are gaining power and influence, we see Vito creating a family while Michael destroys his own, and each is all the more heartbreaking for it. Something in my stomach wells up just thinking about it; everything is so painfully touching. The last murder is outdone by the birthday scene, and is even itself outdone by the final shot of the film. Michael reflecting, pensive. Is that regret for his entire life that we start to see? Is there some redemption?

What surprises me most about The Godfather Part II is how different it is from the first. The first film was much more purposeful in its scenes and set-ups. I feel that this movie wanders, presents scenes as ambiance as a way of setting mood instead of plot points. It works well, but would much be missed if half an hour were trimmed? There was much more flamboyance in this film, overt violence in the streets instead of the underhanded threats in the dark, yelling in rage instead of fuming in silence. I also found editing to be a bit more problematic in this film. There were extremely jarring cuts that should not have been jarring. Not that all of these complaints are mistakes, but I think my preferences lie with the precision found in the first film. Either way, watching one just makes me want to watch the other.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0071562/