Once Upon a Time in America

Sergio Leone's filmmaking career concluded with the film, Once Upon a Time in America, a film that's different from everything else I've seen by him, for a number of reasons, most notably the fact that this film isn't a Western. Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West was unquestionably a masterpiece, a film that took full advantage of the medium and featured images that just popped off the screen. It was a completely unique film, like nothing I've ever seen before.

The major problem I had with 'America' was that it felt like I'd seen this film before in a whole bunch of other films. The prohibition era child gangsters struggling to rule a town reminded me a lot of Godfather II, a bit too much. That part of the film, while well made and interesting to watch, just felt too much like something I'd seen before. That's my main problem with the whole film, it feels like a slight variation on stuff that had already been done flawlessly in The Godfather. The style of the two films are very similar, and they're both good, but The Godfather was released first, and I saw it first, so 'America' comes off as a bit of a retread.

But, stepping back a bit, the film is nearly four hours long, one of the longest mainstream movies ever made, and that means that you're forced to approach this movie in a different way than you would a normal length film. Because it's four hours, you get more the sense of going to a world than of watching one story. You see snippets from the life of Noodles, but the narrative is largely episodic, most of the tension comes from trying to figure out what Noodles mission in 1968 is, and seeing what caused the death of Noodles' gang.

The film was never boring, but considering how long it is, I expected a bit more to happen. I admire the creation of a world, that's one of the best things that film can do, but Noodles is a nonentity as a protagonist, and things just happen, there's not much dramatic tension. This is quite different from 'West,' where the tension built up about the Harmonica/Frank confrontation becomes almost unbearable and you're desperate for them to act. Here, you're watching stuff happen, but you don't feel that much stake in the narrative.

So, Leone moves away from a traditional narrative, and instead uses a film to show the life of Noodles as he and Max move from street level child gangsters to prohibition era bootlegging gods. The story of Noodles is a device to show us an overview of the way organized crime and the government have interacted over the course of American history. In the early days, blackmailing a cop can get you the run of the streets, in the 20s, intimidating the police can break up strikes and help gain favors from politications, and by the end of the film, Max has ascended from gangster to politician, not to mention presumed head of the 'legitimate' carting industry. So, as America grows up, its gangsters become its leaders.

But, Noodles never wanted to be anything more than a street level gangster, and that's why he's a powerless old man at the end of the film. He never saw more than the cash in his hands, while Max had vision, his alliances eventually landing him a government position. But, at the end of the film, it's Max who's unhappy, not the powerless Noodles. However, by refusing to kill Max, Noodles for once claims the authority in their relationship.

The film has some very cool visual moments. I loved the scene at the beginning of the film where we start in the 30s with Noodles buying a bus ticket, and then the song 'Yesterday' starts playing and we jump to the 60s in one cut. Really strong use of music. Reading reviews online, a lot has been made of the unique chronological structure. Now maybe at the time it was groundbreaking, but to me, it seemed fairly conventional. We've got a framing device, with the old Noodles, and then he flashes back to different points in his life. It's not particularly confusing, but again, this may be something that's become more popular in recent years, and at the time was very bold. I love multiple time line jumping around, as in a film like The Hours, so I wish the chronologies were a bit more mixed up than they are.

The most interesting relationship in the film was that between the young versions of Noodles and Deborah. There's the beautifully shot ballet scene, and their whole relationship is a sort of hesitant dance, both of them unafraid to express their feelings, something that's not helped by Noodles allegiance to the gang. Jennifer Connelly, of Requiem for a Dream fame, plays young Deborah, and she's great. Elizabeth McGovern, who plays the older version of Deborah is very weak in comparison.

That whole relationship goes awry in the 30s section of the film with a really odd rape scene. I get why it happens, but the reaction of Deborah to the event just feels off. It should be more traumatic than it is, and the lightness with which it's dealt is only magnified by the scene in which Noodles rapes Carol and she ends up liking it, and later dates him. I've never known anyone who's been raped, but if you consider what the act is, this film treats it as something not that bad, and I can't agree with that, especially when you compare it with a film like Irreversible, where the entire plot is about how bad rape is. Deborah seems pretty cool with Noodles in the 60s, and yes, time has passed, but I still think she forgives him too easily. I'm not saying the film has to give the characters legal or moral consequences about the act, but between each other, there should have been something to show that the act does have gravity.

From reading online, I've seen that a lot of people consider the whole film an opium fever dream or vision of the future, citing the 30s cars at Bailey's mansion and the bookending of the film with scenes of Noodles smoking opium. I'm not sure I agree, and even if this is true, does it really matter? When I watched the film, I assumed the 30s cars was just Noodles remembering his past, not as if he's seeing a vision of something from another time. The film could not be just a dream, because of the presence of the song 'Yesterday,' that song means that either he is legitimately seeing the future, or the time periods are just intercut, which is what I assumed after viewing the film. The film isn't shot in such a way that it couldn't all be real.

I think my biggest problem with this film is the same problem I have with The Godfather, Goodfellas and other 'Golden Age' gangster movies. These films all either outright glorify, or at least seem enamored of the ganster lifestyle the characters live, it's all a nostalgic look back. These films, while all masterfully constructed, don't feel particularly relevant to modern life, something that's made all the more apparent by watching the work that was designed as a reaction to these films, The Sopranos.

The Sopranos is all about destroying the gangster mythology and showing us the mob as violence prone extortionists, leaving a trail of destruction in their wake. But, more importantly, the show gives us fully realized characters, who aren't just gangsters, they're ordinary people who just happen to make their living in an unordinary way. The best genre fiction is that which uses the genre as a way to make ordinary life seem more exciting, something exemplified by Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which turns an ordinary breakup into a world threatening event. The Sopranos gives the conflict between work and family, and the difficulty of dealing with the mythical past of 'the greatest generation' added urgency by making the stakes life or death instead of just happy or unhappy.

Most importantly, The Sopranos creates characters not archetypes. Tony is one of the most complex characters ever created, he's more developed in the first one hour episode than Noodles is over this entire four hour film. But, perhaps Leone never intended to let us understand Noodles, we just observe him. Observation can work, but really caring about a character almost always produces a more interesting work. We want Tony to do good, and are disappointed in him when he doesn't. With Noodles, we don't really care, we're just watching to see the world that Leone created.

So, The Sopranos punctures the gangster mythology and creates real characters with mundane lives instead of mythic figures. This may be symptomatic of the difference between mediums. Film is designed to create icons, heroes who are unequivocably heroic, but with TV, you spend much more time with these people, so you can't have icons, you need to have people, and people are always more interesting than icons.

Seeing The Sopranos shows that you can have fully developed characters in genre fiction, and Leone doesn't pull that off here. That doesn't mean it's a bad film, it just means that you're more an observer than a participant in the film. It's a very interesting four hours, but there's no real tension, and that hurts the film. Still, you have to admire the fact that this guy can make a four hour film that doesn't really examine any characters and still keep an audience entertained throughout. That's a testament to the power of his images and to just how big the film's scope is.