C'era una volta in America

This is, for me, one of the finest examples of cinematic art. It isn't a simple, cut-n-dried 90 minute little package that gets wrapped up with a pretty bow at the end. You get pulled in by the enigmatic opening that unwinds the threads of the story to be found later. For many people having half an hour of purely visual story telling, of stories that are only mysteries at that point, before anything becomes truly linear is difficult to follow and discourages to many people. Our own memories are only snippets that only become linear as we concentrate on scenes from our lives. Once Upon a Time in America is like that as we follow Noodles through the `significant' part of his life - the times that formed him. When the story actually starts, we meet the girl that he always loved but could never have.

David `Noodles' Aaronson (DeNiro) was a kid on the very mean streets of Brooklyn when organized crime was born in America and he grew into and out of it. That's the simplest synopsis of the plot. The reality is that this isn't a movie about gangsters. Being a gangster is the easiest way for Noodles to survive and get ahead, but it also alienates and ruins his one love. Whenever he is close to giving himself to Deborah he always gets pulled back into the gang, in some form or another.

DeNiro's portrayal is of a gangster, through and through, who also has a conscience that, while not preventing him from being a ruthless killer, rules his life with regret, remorse and guilt. Leone takes a bit of poet/historic license by showing the Brooklyn Bridge being built in the background (the bridge had been built 40 years before), but it symbolizes Noodles' own growth. When the bridge is just pilings and incomplete towers, Noodles is just forming his future. By the time the bridge is complete, Noodles is nothing but a gangster and the bridge is majestic. When he returns 35 years later our view of the bridge is from under a freeway -- the world has moved along, but the bridge and Noodles are just as they were.

The length: If you're looking for a brief distraction that you'll barely remember 30 minutes later, this isn't the movie for you. However, if you are prepared and able to be undistributed for the nearly 4 hours that this film uses to compress a lifetime -- you will be rewarded with many facets of thought and examination.

Make sure you watch the 220 minute version which is perfect. The butchered 139 minute version should never have been released and the added faded clips in the much longer 269 minute version aren't worth it.

It's not an easy watch. The story builds patiently and jumps back and forth in time, spanning three generations. It's not the usual gangster flick, but a tale of forgiveness, betrayal, greed and nostalgia. The sets, the fantastic score by Morricone, De Niro at the pinnacle of his career.

A beautiful epic swan song by the master Sergio Leone this is.

Because there is an even longer director's cut and a short 130 minute version which was the version initially released in America, and is incomprehensible.

The film traces the lives of four Jewish gangsters from a New York City ghetto through 60 years of 20th century history in an odd way. It focuses on three time periods - 1920 when the gang is in their teens, 1932-1933 as prohibition ends, and 1968 when Noodles (Robert DeNiro) returns to New York as an old man after he gets a letter saying his true identity has been uncovered. Noodles has been living with regret this past 35 years, because he feels responsible for his gang having been killed by the police back in 1933. He wonders if someone is planning to settle an old score with him.

The Godfather this is not. There are no family ties binding any of these characters together, and they are extremely unlikeable and only vaguely characterized. Only Noodles is humanized even a little bit, and then he ruins that by turning out to be a rapist as well as covering the requisite thief/murderer territory that comes with being a gangster.

What does it do right? The cinematography by Tonino Delli Colli captures the gritty vibrancy of New York's Lower East Side, the glitz of the Prohibition era, and the melancholic decay of the 1960s. There is great attention to period detail, from costumes to production design, immersing the viewer in each era. Then there is that memorable score. As for the acting, De Niro shows the versatility that he always does, and James Woods as Noodles' best friend and gangster ally Max plays the part as ambitious and cunning. Plus Woods always injects just a little bit of crazy int his performances.

What did it do wrong? Leone's last film has the same problem with editing that Scorsese has had with his later films. It's just too long and has lots of side stories about union bosses and strikes that add nothing to the narrative. Finally, there are a total of two rapes in this film, with one of them actually being played for laughs. Leone did this in "Duck You Sucker" and caused me to lose all sympathy for Rod Steiger's character as a result. Does Leone not get how such crimes are received in the United States?

Overall this film actually transcends the gangster genre. It's not about family or the gangster lifestyle. It's about the passing of time, guilt/regret, memory, friendship and growing old. It's also just as much a mystery as it is a mafia movie, as there is much debate as to whether or not anything that happens in the 1968 segment is even real or is it a heroin induced dream of Noodles as he tries to forget his part in the death of his friends by getting doped up in an opium den. I'd say - You decide. It could go either way.

... Directors of all time. Let's start with a story. Many years ago, when your grandfather was still a boy, a failed, beaten-down actor named Clint Eastwood packed up his horse and saddle (speaking metaphorically here), left Hollywood forever (or so he thought) and headed out to Europe to pick up cash wherever he could. He ended up doing a film in Italy for an almost-unknown director named Sergio Leone and an almost-unknown sound guy named Ennio Morricone. The film was (as history would later record) an "Italian Western," that is, as the iconic western drama was all but disappearing in the US, it was being "re-imagined" by Italian writers and directors, and then filmed in Italy, using mainly Italian actors. On the set, Eastwood spoke in English and everyone else spoke in Italian. (Dubbing later fixed all that). Filming now over, Eastwood took his cash and left. Weeks later, in a bar in another part of Europe, he overheard mention that a certain film was the leading box office attraction on the continent. The name sounded familiar but, frankly, during production, a final name for the film he'd just done had not even been selected. He investigated. Yes, this was the film he had just completed, now titled A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS. The rest is history. Sort of. Two sequels were done with Eastwood playing the same character. Monster hits.

By this point the critics began to acknowledge not only Clint, but also the man behind the camera, Leone, who was one of the most promising directors of the era. HE DID THINGS WITH THE CAMERA THAT NO ONE HAS DONE BEFORE OR SINCE, especially his use of closeups, especially his ability to match powerful emotional orchestrals to key scenes. The fourth film in the series, done by Leone but by this time lacking Eastwood, was ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST. (Eastwood meanwhile had returned to America as a major celebrity, formed his own production company, Malpaso, and over time became a director as well as the #1 box office star. Over the course of his career, Eastwood subtly voiced his distaste for Leone's work by scrupulously avoiding all Leone's trademark camera angles, even in his westerns!)

Back to Leone. While he lent his name to a handful of oddball productions, the last passionate work he left behind as his legacy was this film. OMG. What a film. Showcasing not only Leone's talent behind the camera, but also his musical magic as well as his ability to tell a complex tale like no one before him. It was by and large produced in obscure locations in NA, and the performances of the players, especially James Woods, and also de Niro, could possibly rank even today as the best they have ever given. (Also a performance from a young and charismatic Jennifer Connolly that by itself is worth the price of the ticket)

The film is magical. But here is the catch. Very few people have ever seen it. Even people who "think" they have seen it, really have not. The studio behind the film went berserk when they saw the length and, fearful of losing dollars when they could be changing reels and selling more tickets, they brought in a butcher to shorten it. Now maybe the new editor was not a butcher by trade, but he was sure one by disposition. The late Roger Ebert said that, in his career, this was the most abusive re-edit he had ever seen. The actual film, the one that Leone left, was not seen until years later when the director's version surfaced. It is astounding. It is magical. It is one of the best films ever made. It is a must see. ((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))

Oh, how to feel about this movie?

I was mostly riveted by it, let's get that out of the way. It's gorgeous to look at with those Sergio Leone compositions, and gorgeous to listen to with that Ennio Morricone score. Like so many of Leone's films, it has a plaintive, nostalgic glow to it that makes you ache emotionally without even knowing exactly what you're aching for.

And there's where I get conflicted with this movie. The character created by Robert De Niro is a repulsive human being. He murders, he rapes. The film cannot be forgiven for the way it handles rape. In one instance, the woman treats it like it was a naughty prank and comes back to fondle the rapist and his buddies in a scene played for laughs. In the other instance, the film at least has the decency to make it seem like something traumatic to the woman, but that woman is Elizabeth McGovern, who reappears later in the film and acts like she's full of regret over the relationship she and De Niro were denied, despite the fact that that relationship consisted almost entirely of him just stalking her and then taking her against her will in the back of a car when she tells him she's leaving for California to become an actress. We follow Robert De Niro both as a young man and as an older man looking back ruefully on his life, but we don't sense that he regrets any of the things he actually did. He just regrets what he lost. It's like he's sad that his days of murdering and raping without consequence are over, and that elegiac Sergio Leone tone left me wondering, what exactly are we supposed to be feeling nostalgic about?

So I guess I understand both people who think this movie is something great and those who think it's reprehensible. I guess it's proof that things can be many things at once.

Grade: A.