Will Adams Blog

I’m blogging through the AFI top 100 you can read the others by clicking here.

This is the first movie I’ve blogged about which is a second viewing for me. To Kill a Mockingbird is a truly great American film based on one of the contenders for “The Great American Novel.” I say this to be clear about my reverence for this film and it’s source material. There is no doubt that it is fantastic nor is there any doubt that it is of great value.

I want to be clear on that before asking a rhetorical question. Is it possible that one of the greatest films of all time is a bit over-sold? I had seen bits of pieces of the film growing up, but I first recall watching it in its entirety when I was in 10th grade after reading the novel.

Interesting that the book was rejected upon Harper Lee’s first attempts at publication for being a series of stories rather than a single narrative, as I must say the film feels like a series of stories that are thematic rather than narratological in their purpose. This isn’t to at all invalidate this style of story-telling, but I will say it is rare in film. Even as I was writing my thesis project I was often encouraged to weed out not only scenes, but even individual lines that didn’t serve the narrative. I’m saying this in part to recognize that To Kill a Mocking Bird is format breaking and perhaps id the book had not already been very successful at the time of the film’s production, a script written as this was wouldn’t have been released.

These essays were never intended to be a complete analyzing of any given film’s values and detractions, but rather some brief observations at this stage of my understanding of the medium. I say this because I want to suggest that to Kill a Mocking Bird a fantastic story, but an imperfect film. To nit-pick there are plenty of obvious continuity errors in the courtroom scene that wouldn’t cut the mustard in even the smallest Indie Film festival today. I found it hard to believe in the way this narrative is crafted that the Atticus we’re presented throughout the film wouldn’t struggle more with the choice to let Boo go if he did suspect him of having murdered Bob Ewell.

These are small issues in the broad scheme of the film, but I consider them as I recall the criticism I received while working through my own screenplay.

Having said this there can be no doubt that the film’s story is anything but incredibly important and laced with difficult truths about an era of American life that is full of shameful happenings like the one depicted. It is especially interesting to think about in referencing to the release of Go set a watchman the initial draft of To Kill a Mockingbird in which Atticus was originally a segregationist. Because Watchman takes place many years after the events of the final draft Go Set a Watchman wrongly (IMO) gets labeled a sequel when the Atticus in Mockingbird was a further evolution of the character seen in Watchman.

I’m Blogging through the AFI top 100 you can see the other entries by clicking here.

The first silent film I’ve watched in this little experiment, is the German Sci-Fi masterpiece Metropolis. I say “masterpiece” as that’s the prevailing wisdom, though the film isn’t perfect.

First the interesting thing about this movie is there are no original cuts remaining of the film. Between WWII and continual re-editing of the movie (which was not popular at the time) most of the versions we have today are missing large portions of the film. In 2008 A 16mm version of most of the film was found and used with higher resolution copies to created a version that’s considered to be 95% restored. This is the version you can see on Netflix currently. as the title card that the beginning explains, portions of the film look damaged because they’re from the Argentina reel and other portions which are still omitted are described by title cards.

The movie had a rather inauspicious start. Film critics at the time didn’t like it. (yes, hard to believe, but there were film critics in the 20s) One described it as “A visual masterpiece with feet of clay.” Others said that it was overly philosophical and self-important. Interesting that even this early in film history there was a dividing line between cinemaaah (pushes glasses up the bridge of nose) and movies for the masses. In my own opinion I do think this movie was cutting edge, which may have weirded some people out, but I don’t think it would be accurate to call it “ahead of it’s time.” Considering most of the special effect methods used had all been used in other films. However, one way it may arguably have been ahead of its time was its two-hour length. At a time when most “feature” films were only an hour and a half, this movie had the guts to go over two hours – which actually garnered much criticism at the time, but in all honesty two hours is pretty long for a silent film. Despite the bap press, one person who did like it was Hitler’s head of propaganda. Joseph Goebbles said thought it was a great social justice piece. So if you like it, just keep that in mind. (You win again Godwin!)

Nevertheless the film is a marvel. It’s a technical achievement that at least deserves respect due to its use of matte paintings and miniatures to create a fairly cohesive and visually impressive spectacle. The story is about the son of the futuristic City’s “master” who falls in love with a woman from “the depths” where the workers for the city all live. Because of her he hears the plight of the workers and tries to speak to his father. Later he goes to the machine halls himself and takes the place of a worker. Eventually the father has the woman Abducted and replaced with an evil robot version of herself that incites riots. As crazy as it sounds, I would actually love to see a modern reinterpretation of the same story.

Silent film is such a different medium than modern film. The reality is heightened in much the way it might be for a stage play. The acting is exaggerated to the point of appearing silly. Because so much depends on title cards there can’t be too much depth in the dialogue. While this doesn’t negate the achievement of these films at their time, I believe it is a little absurd to compare them to films of today which have the advantage of full sound, color, modern acting techniques, and greater visual sophistication provided by modern filming methods and effects. Yes, I dare say it: movies have gotten better since 1927. I say this not as much for the benefit of my readers, but more for those film snobs who will bring up Metropolis as the greatest Sci-Fi film of all time. It’s an achievement for its time, but it is crazy to act like we haven’t GREATLY improved upon it since then. I’m quite certain that the movie’s creators would agree if they could see even the original Star Wars, The Matrix, or even most of the comic book movies of the last fifteen years.

Having said all this I don’t want to take away from the impressive feat that Metropolis was at the time of its production. There was nothing quite like it and it took risks. It successfully Biblical passages (though some of it was more appropriating Biblical imagery than it was actually using real passages.) It’s plot is thought out, even having foreshadowing and symbols throughout. As a fan of sci-fi I respect it, if for no other reason than it helped pave the way for other speculative fiction in film.

I’m Blogging through the AFI top 100 you can see the other entries by clicking here.

The Godfather Part II was the first successful sequel. Yes, bond movies had come before it, but we all know that the Bond films have virtually no connection to one another aside from their protagonist. This was the first movie that enjoyed enough success and left enough open to create a follow up, which many argue is superior to the original.

This also makes the Godfather Part II unique on the AFI list: it’s the only sequel to make the top 100. What is interesting to me is that despite the general assertion that part II is the best of the trilogy, the original Godfather is ranked higher. Originality is often given more credit in film value than over all quality.

The Godfather Part II has one issue for me. It is three and a half hours long. This meant that I couldn’t watch it in one setting. The reason for the length of the film is that it is essentially two films in one. The A plot continues the story from the first film, following Michael Corleone as the new head of the Corleone family. The B plot follows the story of the young Vito Corleone, the now diseased “Godfather” when he first came to the States and started his “Olive Oil Import” business.

The Story of Vito is pretty straight forward and, assuming you’ve seen the first one, you know how it ends up so while it isn’t uninteresting it lacks the raw drama that the story of Michael does, where we’re not sure who will go to jail, who will live, and who will die. Both are, of course, well acted, well written, and masterfully directed. I hope to never watch it again any time soon. I just heard from a friend last week that he watches the Godfather films every year. More power to him. I don’t particularly enjoy watching the decent of men further into organized crime. I believe that the appeal of the films to most men is three fold: Power – there is something interesting about watching powerful men who cannot be beaten that appeals to the average man. Family – father issues, dealing with siblings, murdering your brother-in-law – all things that men can relate to. And a third thing that I assume exists, but whatever it is it escapes me. But I’m sure there is something else that appeals which I’m not given to understand.

Goodfellas is one of the films that I’ve studied the most without ever having watched all the way through. Goodfellas and the Godfather are referenced a great deal in pop culture – to the point that I spend a great deal of the time watching both saying “oh that’s where that’s from.”

The movie’s cinematography was somewhat groundbreaking. Many scenes take advantage of Steadicam motion for at least a portion of the scene and a few scenes are comprised entirely of one long shot. While this wasn’t the first time these techniques had been used it was the first time they had been used this well and to this extent.

The interesting thing about this being on the AFI top 100 is that the movie relies heavily on narration throughout the film, which is a big no-no in screenwriting. Narration is seen as a shortcut wherein the person is often telling instead of showing, but in this case it’s totally necessary for the expediency of the plot which covers a lot of ground, and they do a good job of showing and telling whenever possible.

Like many critically acclaimed movies, this movie’s plot is not terribly straightforward. Most popular, blockbuster movies have a clear objective, a singular clear conflict which, once resolved, resolves the plot. Many of the AFI top 100 have multiple smaller conflicts that resolve far before the movie is over. It’s less about a singular conflict and more about the events that shape the characters. Goodfellas is about the characters, who are played masterfully by the top-notch cast which is why it’s held in such high regard.

The story is odd because at it’s core it’s about a guy who seems to enjoy the perks of being a gangster, and oddly his wife is attracted to him because of the lifestyle, yet it comes at high costs with threats to his life and jail time. When he’s forced to leave the “Goodfellas” he still misses the adrenaline rush of organized crime. While not as laborious as others this film isn’t exactly what I would call it entertaining, though for those with a taste for a great deal of yelling, cursing, violence this might be more up your alley. I was shocked to find out at the end that this is true story about a real man who really went into witness protection. Like all movies on this list it’s well acted and well written, but like many movies on this list I could live without ever seeing it again.

I’m embarrassed to say that this was my first viewing of the Godfather. Yes, I know I should’ve watched ut years ago. My dad wasn’t that into gangster movies and I wasn’t begging to watch them, then I just never got around to it. It wasn’t that I didn’t know it was a good movie or that I wasn’t interested, I knew it was going to be a heavy movie and most of the time whenever the opportunity arose I wasn’t in the mood to live through that.I’m sorry. Now that I’ve gotten through that I get to entreat you to the thoughts of a person who has an MFA and just watched the Godfather for the first time.

Just like the rest of these movies no one needs me to tell them that the Godfather is an excellent movie. I suppose that what I was the most surprised at was how much I found the movie to be enjoyable. I say that because many (if not most) of the movies on the AFI top 100 are laborious dramas where the plot is secondary to the characters and acting trumps intrigue. The Godfather has a clear plot that meanders a bit, but doesn’t get lost in the weeds too much. Despite its long runtime it manages to keep interest and made me want to keep watching.

I’m also embarrassed to say that aside from the original Superman that this is the first film I’m watched featuring Marlon Brando. I’m eager to get to the others on the list that have in the lead. But I’ll talk about him more when I get to those films. The true feature character of The Godfather is young Al Pacino starts the film trying to deny “the family business.” But ends the film having dawned (pun intended) the title of “Godfather.” It’s the story of generational sin. It speaks to the reality that many people live with; the seeming impossibility of avoiding becoming your father, or at least grappling with his sins.

The drama of the movie and the characters are all fantastic, but the thing that makes the movie truly great are the moments of dissonence with that drama. “Leave the Gun, take th cannoli.” being spoken simply after disposing of someone. Or a scene wherein the senior Don plays in the garden with his grandson as if he were a normal grandfather. It’s this combined with the drama, the acting, the dialogue, and the excellent cinematography that make this movie so unusual.

I’d heard of the film Raging Bull, knowing that it was critically acclaimed, it starred a young Bobby DeNiro, and it was about a boxer. I’d seen a few clips from the film, but I’d never really known much about it. I was surprised to find out that it was based on a true story – not just a true story but on the main character’s autobiography.

This is another film (one of many in the AFI top 100) that is in the category of movies about a tragic male lead. Movies like this feature someone who has multiple flaws, in this case it is the famous boxer’s pride and paranoia. The story is a sad one, about a guy who never really found any sense of contentment. He alienated his brother, beat his wife, and took the fall multiple times due to pressure from power the be.

The film was shot in black and white even though it was released in 1980. While not unheard of, it’s rare enough that you have to sit up and take notice of anyone who chooses to do it when the option for color is standard. The cinematography is impressive to say the least, with one of the most famous push-pull shots in cinema history during one of the fight scenes.

The film is never what I would describe as “entertaining” or “enjoyable” but it is well acted and apparently truthful. I would also put it in a category as “these people just need Jesus.” I know it’s boring and cliché of me to say, but the people in the story would all have had much more easy, enjoyable lives – albeit more boring ones – if they’d submitted their lives to Christ – it’s not the first time I’ve said that about a film and it won’t be the last.

DeNiro’s performance is the most impressive part of the film – he plays a character through multiple life stages which is always challenging, and always powerful when a single actor can successfully play those different season of life. The details of the plot are mostly forgettable and the movie’s black and white color scheme makes it all tend to blend together. Having said that, there’s no doubt that it’s an impressive feat.

I’m blogging through the AFI top 100. You can see all of them here.

So, according to the American Film Institute Citizen Kane is the best film of all time. That’s a pretty heavy burden for any film to carry. It’s also perhaps why I haven’t gotten around to watching it until now. I wanted to reserve a time where I could devote my attention to the film and appreciate it for all its worth. I don’t even like to pick a single “favorite” film of my own. The biggest problem with Citizen Kane is it’s label. I can see that it’s a phenominal film, but for most of the movie I found myself having a hard time not repeatedly asking “Is this really the best film of all time?” Regardless, it is undoubtedly a remarkable film. Any movie that spans the lifetime of a larger-than-life character is an ambitious undertaking. Capturing the whole of the human experience in less than the span of a work day is something we take for granted in the film world, yet it’s no small task.

The movie of course tells the story of Charles Foster Kane who was a millionaire media mogul turned failed politician played by Orson Welles who also wrote, directed, and produced the film. It is dangerous for a director to write, direct, produce, and star in their film – as it’s possible they’ll become insulated and not hear the feedback necessary to make adjustments. More often they turn out less like Citizen Kane and more like The Room. Every aspect of this movie is admirable, but perhaps the most impressive thing is the performance of Orson Welles himself, who really does appear to be a man at many stages of life from the ideals of young adulthood to the unrest of middle age to the jaded disappointment with his life in old age.

This film is about a man who gained everything and died wealthy and largely unhappy. The movie starts with his death and his famous last word “Rosebud.” The movie then tells the sad progression of his life through interviews with his business partners and wife. The entire time the reporter who is doing the interviewing is trying to find out the significance of this final utterance, and yet, no one seems to know what “Rosebud” means. If you, like me already knew the ending of the movie it’s hard to imagine what it was like for those who hadn’t heard the original meaning of rosebud.

Ultimately we’re left with many potential takeaways. One of them is the simple reality that money cannot buy happiness. Though, I’m sure Daniel Tosh would be quick to point out that Mr. Kane never own a wave runner. Toward the end in a scene where Kane tears apart a room full of expensive possessions, we see what money and self focus earn a man and a yearning for the simple days of his youth. Something many Americans can identify with, which is perhaps why this has earned its place as the number one film of all time.