One of the worst pulled-off heists ever in film!

To get money for his gay lover’s sex-change operation, Sonny (Al Pacino) — who’s married with kids — teams up with Sal (John Cazale) to rob a New York bank on a scorching-hot summer day. The stickup goes awry when the press gets wind of the circus sideshow-esque story.

To actually know that this is actually happened is a lot more upsetting than what this movie gives us. To actually think that this whole hold-up went for almost a whole day is pretty sad, but also cinema gold!

The one great thing about this film is its wonderful and easy-minded direction from one of cinema’s best, Sidney Lumet. He does a great job at balancing together suspense, violence, humor, and a great little character study. At the beginning we just think of these people as horrible and evil criminals. But by the end, we start to understand that they are just like people same as you and me, that were put into a situation that only took crime to get out of.

This is structured like a typical heist film, but its really a portrait of a scene of a community that all comes together around this horrible incident. The writing is rich with wonderful characters and one of the main anti-establishment works of the generation. The writing shows how this man Sonny has love and compassion for other people, and is really not a horrible guy.

The film breaks down all the stereotypes that all these mad-men that create hold-ups are crazy killers. This shows they are not and most likely shows how the media swerves around it looking for the best story they can make out of the actual facts.

The one thing that threw me off a lot was that by the end of the film, I felt like it dived more into the homosexual stereotypes that were around in the 1970s. It wasn’t that this was horrible, it just felt like it wasn’t quite needed if supposed to be treated so huge after all.

Pacino, honestly gives one of the better performances of his career here. He makes this highly original character into someone just totally and utterly believable. You feel the pain and aggression he feels, and I related to him so much more than I what I thought I would have. The supporting cast does a great job with Chris Sarandon, John Cazale, and Charles Durning.

Consensus: Dog Day Afternoon shows an anti-establishment look on a real life event, and makes it more genuine, and heartfelt, backed by an amazing performance from Al Pacino.

9/10=Full Pricee!!!

Después de la tormenta siempre vuelve la calma, y después, otra vez, la tormenta.

The Conversation has remained the overlooked classic of Francis Ford Coppola’s plethora of triumphs. Henceforth it remains largely forgotten among the mainstream. Like the film’s status, it carries on quietly throughout maintaining a certain level of suspense and mystery which keeps on building up towards an abrupt and in many ways, a shocking ending.

Coppola is able to craft his way through another one of his great classics here. The Conversation is just perfectly edited together and is extensively gripping and encompassing throughout. His directing and creativity takes the audience to another world that most and almost all of us do not know and are not aware about. This being the world of security, surveillance and spies. The Conversation though is not an ordinary spy movie, it is a very realistic psychological portrayal and displays the effects of knowing and pursuing the truth. Instead of this movie becoming a complete let down it becomes better and better as it carries on. Along with the cinematography and music Coppola makes the audience feel how remote and controlled our society is and yet how wide open and chaotic it can be. Coppola did not just show it, but was able to actually give the feeling of it.

As well as his directing, once again Coppola uses his writing to keep the audience very much engaged into the movie. The writing in this movie ranks up their with his other screenplays such as The Godfather series, Apocalypse Now and Patton. The dialogue is brief but yet it is consuming enough to leave a certain mystery and openness to the film that is necessary in perpetuating the film forward.

The acting was a bit of surprise and better than expected. The Conversation displays how and why Gene Hackman is and considered a prime talent. He is not just an actor who plays the emotional passionate fellow, rather he is a quite versatile actor who has at certain times appeared to really limited himself instead of his abilities limiting him. He was perfect for this film. The supporting cast was great as well. Robert Duvall who always likes to give a good cameo was good and developed a bit of a role towards the end. Harrison Ford who I wish actually had some more screen time was very convincing as a manipulative high-ranking executive.

The ending of The Conversation was a fine way to finish the film. It shows how our fears can consume us and alter our lives. It displays how if our fears consume us we lose the feeling of life itself. As a result of this, The conversation remains Coppola’s hidden yet wonderful masterpiece that should be seen by any wanting to watch a good and well done American film.

Hay varias razones por las que Tarde de perros (Dog day afternoon, 1975) es una película diferente y, en consecuencia, ha pasado a la historia. Motivos que hacen que sea mucho más que una simple cinta de “atraco a un banco”.

En primer lugar, está basada en hechos reales. Este detalle, hoy en día, es quizás poco relevante:  después de 34 años se ha reducido considerablemente el porcentaje de espectadores que puedan recordar el verdadero atraco, y aún así, serían en su inmensa mayoría estadounidenses y, especialmente, neoyorquinos. Lo verdaderamente trascendente de esos “hechos reales” son las particularidades de los hechos en sí: un ladrón, Sonny, casado y con dos hijos, veterano de Vietnam, que decide robar el banco para que su amante, Leon, que se ha casado con Sonny vestido de mujer, pueda someterse a una operación de cambio de sexo. Tengamos en cuenta el contexto: 1975; la cuestión, entonces, era mcho más sensible; los productores, el director, Sidney Lumet, el propio Al Pacino, estaban genuinamente preocupados por la reacción del público. ¿Un atracador gay? ¿El botín para algo así, tan alejado del estándar de, simplemente, forrarse, huir al extranjero y darse la gran vida?

No adelantemos acontecimientos. El leit motiv del atraco no se revela hasta bien avanzado el metraje. Sin embargo, la cinta ya ha dado sobradas muestras de ser algo especial. Otra de las razones: Sidney Lumet. Lumet ya sabía lo que era firmar una película cuasi teatral con Doce hombres sin piedad. Salvando las distancias, Tarde de perros suponía un desafío similar. Lumet ensayó varias semanas con el grupo de actores que estarían encerrados en el banco (Pacino, su socio, Cazale, y los rehenes); les animó, en contra de su habitual proceder, a improvisar, y esas improvisaciones se plasmaron en el guión definitivo: improvisación bajo control, por así decirlo. El resultado es de una veracidad apabullante.

Desde luego, hacía falta un fuera de serie para soportar el peso de una función así. Al Pacino había demostrado serlo en las dos primeras entregas de El Padrino, que le catapultaron directamente al estrellato. Exhausto tras su segundo retrato de Michael Corleone, su participación en Tarde de perros se convirtió en un tira y afloja con amenaza de darle el papel a Dustin Hoffman incluida. Por suerte, Pacino dijo que sí. Hablamos del Pacino de los setenta, de un loco del Método, del actor probablemente más intenso de la historia del séptimo arte, de un animal de la interpretación. Lejos de la sobreactuación en la que terminó cayendo, aquí Pacino se merienda la pantalla de cabo a rabo sin caer en excesos; su rol de Sonny Wortzik es, sin duda, uno de los mejores que ha dado el cine: tan patético como tierno, impotente ante el deseo de contentar a todos, sus planes siempre fallidos, un corazón demasiado grande para triunfar en el crimen. No sólo eso: Pacino, además, arrastra consigo al malogrado Cazale y al resto del reparto, haciéndoles mejores; punto y aparte merece su conversación telefónica con Chris Sarandon, que interpreta a Leon. Impresionante.

Por supuesto, está el guión de Frank Pierson (merecido Oscar), digno de estudio por su asombrosa capacidad para diseccionar algo tan complicado como un atraco donde se desarrollan varios dramas al mismo tiempo: dentro del banco, con los rehenes, fuera, con el policía que lleva a cabo la negociación, y simultáneamente, la prensa, con su histeria por contar el acontecimiento segundo a segundo, y los curiosos, retenidos a duras penas por los agentes. Un guión con sólo dos disparos y de una comicidad tan maravillosa como inesperada, siempre con ribetes trágicos o patéticos, capaz de imprimir a cada personaje esa finura en los ragos que aborta cualquier posibilidad de caer en el tópico, en el trazo grueso. Sin establecer jamás juicios éticos, sin pretender sermonear: en ningún momento se atisba la tentación de la moraleja. Y todo ello, en un día, el tiempo que transcurre la acción.

Tarde de perros es una película que se gana a pulso los galones de mítica. Otras lo han conseguido con menos argumentos. El mejor Pacino podría bastar. Sidney Lumet a los mandos podría bastar. Unos hechos reales y, al tiempo, totalmente fuera de lo común, también podrían bastar. Su grandeza es que reúne esto y más.

Sonny (Pacino) y Sal (Cazale) se plantan un banco de Brooklyn para llevar a cabo un atraco. Su tercer socio les abandona a las primeras de cambio y pronto descubren que en el banco hay sólo unos pocos miles de dólares. Para cuando quieren escapar ya tienen allí a la policía, al FBI y lo mejor de todo, a las cámaras de las principales cadenas de televisión del país.

Partiendo de esta premisa Sidney Lumet mantiene al espectador enganchado durante 2 horas en las que se alternan momentos de suspense con grandes dosis de humor.

Por increíble que parezca, la película está basada en un hecho real. Pulsando aquí se puede ver la noticia en el periódico Daily News del 24 de agosto de 1972. (Ojo, puede considerarse un “spoiler”).

¡Ahí queda la recomendación!

Attica, Attica!

Gisterenavond nog eens alles stilgelegd, uitgesteld en geannuleerd om te kunnen kijken naar Francis Ford Coppola’s The Conversation (1974), nog steeds een van de films die me het meest dierbaar is. Samen met Dirty Harry en The Taking Of Pelham 123 waarschijnlijk ook de seventies-film die ik het vaakst heb gezien. Er zijn er die beweren dat de film helemaal geen klassieker is, dat hij zelfs naar Coppola’s normen (The Godfather-cyclus en Apocalypse Now blijven ’s mans kleppers) niet echt overtuigend is, maar zij dwalen. Het mag dan wel kloppen dat Coppola tijdens de productie van The Conversation al met z’n hoofd bij The Godfather II zat, maar dat maakt het voor mij enkel nog intrigerender. De hele film straalt een zekere labiliteit uit, niet in het minst door Gene Hackmans genuanceerde vertolking van afluistertechnicus Harry Caul, een depressieve, wereldvreemde obsessieveling die willens nillens bij een misdaad betrokken wordt en het slachtoffer wordt van zijn eigen kunst, een opgejaagd stuk wild dat altijd en overal gadegeslagen wordt, geen privacy kent en uiteindelijk helemaaldoor het lint gaat. Het is een film over obsessies, verantwoordelijkheid, eenzaamheid en paranoïa, prachtig vormgegeven, indirect, wat mysterieus en met een sfeervolle jazzsoundtrack. Er is maar één scène die me niet bevalt en dat is een droomscène. Ik heb een grondige hekel aan droomscènes, zeker als ze zo’n duffe, symbolische functie dienen te vervullen. Maar voor de rest een volbloed meesterwerk.

Maar er is ook John Cazale, en zijn verschijning deed me opnieuw denken aan zijn onvergelijkbare staat van dienst. De acteur overleed einde jaren zeventig aan de gevolgen van botkanker. Hij had slechts vijf films op z’n cv staan, maar als je ze even onder elkaar zet, dan is een gemurmeld ‘what the fuck’ wel op z’n plaats:

The Godfather
The Conversation
The Godfather II
Dog Day Afternoon
The Deer Hunter

Zijn rol in The Conversation als Stan, Hackmans collega, is waarschijnlijk z’n minst opgemerkte, maar ook daar kan je niet naast de intrieste kop kijken. De kerel slaagde er als geen ander in om het breekbare loserschap uit te drukken, wat hem vooral in The Godfather, waar hij op onvergetelijke wijze gestalte gaf aan Fredo Corleone, tot een klassieke performance dreef. Ik las onlangs dat op de voorbije editie van het Sundance filmfestival een documentaire over Cazale werd gepresenteerd (I Knew It Was You, verwijzend naar een van de klassieke momenten uit The Godfather II), maar van een DVD-release is nergens sprake. Wie meer informatie heeft (of de film zag) mag het altijd laten weten.

NP: David S. Ware Quartet – Live In Vilnius

Dog Day Afternoon | Sidney Lumet, 1975

The bank robbery is surely one of the more exciting filmic concepts to have graced our silver screens since the dawn of cinema. We’ve seen it from all angles and with conclusions ranging from bold to bloody, but few I’ve ever witnessed have matched that conjured by an in-his-prime Sidney Lumet for the 1975 effort Dog Day Afternoon. Based upon the true-ish story of a one John “Sonny” Wortzik, the film is an account of a single man’s desperate attempt to steal from a local bank one balmy summer afternoon in downtown Brooklyn. Sonny is played by a bright-eyed Al Pacino and accompanied by a somewhat sociopathic character named “Sal” (John Cazale) – the dangerous partner in this foolhardy duo. Unlike most bank heist movies Dog Day Afternoon focuses not upon the preparation or the getaway, but upon the real-time happenings both inside and outside the bank. Here Lumet is more interested in the social implications of such a situation: how the bank workers respond to such a predicament and how the curious gathering of New Yorkers reacts to this new, almost televisual personality. I’m unsure exactly how much truth there is in Lumet’s take on this supposedly true occurence, but it’s clear that such an incident simply couldn’t have happened outside such a city or outside such a time in history – it is this setting and the specific anti-establishment feeling Lumet is able to evoke that set Dog Day Afternoon apart from the rest.

Al Pacino hands in a masterful early performance here, riddling his Sonny character with inadequacies so as to create the image of a young man on the edge; the constantly wet lips, occasional flicking of the eyebrows and unrelenting pacing not only humanises this so-called villain of the piece but also encourages some kind of sympathy. Even before the rowdy crowd has sided with Sonny and his plight, we find ourselves standing firmly in his corner. Dog Day Afternoon, as previously stated, does well to truly capture the seventies climate authentically, and a large part of this can be attributed to Lumet’s important use of sexuality. For such an intriguing protagonist Sonny’s breezily-revealed homosexuality should surprise us, but Lumet chooses not to dwell on this, and instead focuses upon the effect this revelation has on those looking on. In this sense, Dog Day Afternoon was far ahead of its time. Not only does it turn a given and well-worn genre on its head, the film flirts with topics and themes that wouldn’t be properly traversed until decades later. To maintain such tension for so long is difficult enough, especially when one doesn’t allow oneself much more than a single street upon which to shoot. In truth the film does sag slightly towards the middle; an almost unavoidable hill considering the stalemate played out narratively. This doesn’t damage the momentum however, and allows Dog Day Afternoon the run-up it needs to deliver an explosive and poetic finale.

Our Rating:

a name & face as memorable to me as anyones. had no idea he died before the release of the deer hunter. left behind:

the godfather
the conversation
the godfather: part two
dog day afternoon
the deer hunter

thats like dylan checking out after highway 61 revisited.

Francis Ford Coppola’s “The Conversation” is really about two conversations; one between a couple (Cindy Williams and Frederic Forest) in a crowded square and one between Harry Caul (Gene Hackman) and his conscience. Harry Caul is a freelance wiretapper- a man paid to listen in on secret conversations, but he’s not concerned with what is being said but rather the quality of the recording. In fact it seems as if he’s not concerned with anything except his recordings. Gene Hackman plays him as a lonely, curious, seemingly emotionless man focused on one thing and one thing only: his job.

His loneliness is an extension of his job. When you are paid to record conversations without being seen, it’s only natural to be paranoid and that paranoia leads to loneliness. He triple locks his apartment door and has an unlisted phone number (and for good measure, he keeps the phone hidden in a drawer). He has a mistress that he visits on lonely nights. In a wonderful scene we see Harry visit his mistress played by Teri Garr and we realize that even this woman that has shared many intimate nights with him has no idea who Harry is inside. This is a man that triple locks his emotions.

Although Harry is regarded as a genius in his profession, his personal life isn’t as secure as he’d like it to be. His landlord has keys to his apartment completely unbeknownst to him, and his mistress knows that Harry often watches her from a stairwell. He informs his landlord that he’d like the keys to his apartment because there’s no need for him to have any. What about in an emergency such as a fire? Harry responds, “I have no personal belongings to worry about – except my keys.” He is completely shut out of any emotions and feelings to the point that he owns nothing of personal value.

Harry sees this as a strength. His job requires him to listen in on conversations but not be concerned with what is being said. He must be concerned only with the recording. However, his current assignment has struck a cord buried deep inside him. He is being paid to record the conversation of a couple walking in a crowded square. His assistant Stan (John Cazale) assumes it’s because they are being suspected of an affair, but it’s not Harry’s job to assume. When pouring over the recording, he hears something that causes him to begin to listen: “He’d kill us if he had the chance.”

Harry plays it over and over, obsessing over it. We discover later that an assignment years earlier had led to the murder of three people, including a woman and child. Is his current job going to lead to the same? Slowly Harry’s world begins to spiral out of control. He is followed, the tapes are stolen, and he fears for the lives of the couple. He’s tried so hard to avoid feeling anything in the hopes that he’ll be able to press on free from guilt, but this conversation has hammered his conscience. The final third of the movie is so filled with suspense and tension that we think we’re going to snap along with Harry.

Coppola has made some of the greatest movies ever and one of the enduring traits of his greats is the amount of time he takes to set up character and story. Take for example, the wedding scene in “The Godfather,” the trip down the river in “Apocalypse Now,” and the absorption into the world of Harry Caul in “The Conversation.” Coppola knows that the secret to creating a succesful thriller is for the audience to care about the characters. And while watching “The Conversation” I wanted to reach into the screen and shake some feeling into Harry Caul. And at the end when Caul is having a paranoid breakdown, we don’t pity him but we understand him.

Gene Hackman considers this movie his greatest performance and it’s one of the most powerful I’ve ever seen. He’s stoic, nuanced, emotionless, and later he is obsessive, paranoid, and crazed. Hackman’s Caul sits with us and causes us to stop and look around and check our phones for bugs and wonder if anyone is listening. The other performances are strong, as well. Cindy Williams and Frederic Forest play the couple Caul is paid to listen to, and Robert Duvall makes an appearance as Cindy Williams’ suspecting husband. Harrison Ford turns in a great performance as Duvall’s assistant, and Allen Garfield makes a small supporting role memorable as a competing surveillance freelancer. But Hackman’s performance stands out well above the rest.

The acting, along with the directing and editing, make “The Conversation” one of the best thrillers I have ever seen. Coppola and his editors (Walter Murch and Richard Chew) intercut pieces of the conversation with the couple to shots of Caul trying to interpret what is being said which adds to the mystery of the story. The script (written by Coppola) is airtight with sparse dialogue and a surprise ending that I didn’t see coming until it was made clear. And the final scene in the movie is heartbreaking and maddening all at once. Caul has ransacked his apartment searching for listening devices and all that remains are bare walls and floors mirroring his personal life. But he still has his saxaphone – his one link to any emotion and all we can do is listen.

MPAA Rating: PG

Running Time: 113 Minutes

Starring: Gene Hackman (Harry Caul); John Cazale (Stanley); Allen Garfield (Bernie Moran); Frederic Forest (Mark); Cindy Williams (Ann); Robert Duvall (Director); Harrison Ford (Martin Stett); Teri Garr (Amy); Michael Higgins (Paul); Elizabeth MacRae (Meredith)

Directed by: Francis Ford Coppola; written by Francis Ford Coppola; produced by Francis Ford Coppola and Fred Roos. A Paramount Pictures release.

Title: The Deer Hunter
Year: 1978
Director: Michael Cimino
Writer: Deric Washburn; story by Michael Cimino, Washburn, Louis Garfinkle & Quinn K. Redeker
Starring: Robert De Niro, John Cazale, John Savage, Christopher Walken, Meryl Streep
Music: Stanley Myers (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscars for best picture, director, supporting actor (Walken), editing and sound; currently #137 on IMDb’s Top 250
Length: 182 minutes
Synopsis: a group of friends, before and after fighting in Vietnam
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Subjective Rating: 2/10
Objective Rating: 4/10 (gets points for concept, characters, dialog and acting)

Unbelievably boring. There’s only about fifteen or twenty minutes in the whole film that have any interest. The audio and video quality are often worse than a home video. I’m shocked that a movie so critically acclaimed could be so poorly made.

Title: Dog Day Afternoon
Year: 1975
Director: Sidney Lumet
Writer: Frank Pierson, based on an article by P.F. Kluge & Thomas Moore
Starring: Al Pacino, John Cazale, Charles Durning
Music: none (except for an Elton John song over the opening credits)
Distinctions: Oscar for best screenplay; currently #164 on IMDb’s Top 250
Length: 125 minutes
Synopsis: inept bank robbers end up taking hostages
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), February 2009
Subjective Rating: 8/10 9/10
Objective Rating: 10/10 c. 3.9/4 (Great)

Continuously suspenseful, but also a lot of fun. Al Pacino plays a likable character for once, which is nice. Sidney Lumet is, apparently, awesome.

Title: The Conversation
Year: 1974
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Writer: Francis Ford Coppola
Starring: Gene Hackman, John Cazale, Frederic Forrest, Cindy Williams
Music: David Shire
Distinctions: currently #201 on IMDb’s Top 250
Synopsis: a paranoid surveillance expert gets too involved with his client
Length: 113 minutes
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), December 2008
Subjective Rating: 7/10 8/10
Objective Rating: 9/10 (1 point off for cinematography)

This is the only movie where I’ve ever been impressed by sound editing.  And the only Gene Hackman movie I can think of off the top of my head where I thought of him as his character rather than Oh Look It’s Gene Hackman. It’s Coppola’s follow-up to Godfather, and probably the best movie he’s made since then (I haven’t seen Apocalypse Now yet, but I have to doubt that it will live up to its reputation). Why had I never heard of it before I saw it?

The documentary about the short life of John Cazale that was saw last week was good. Not great but definitely worth checking out if you have HBO. It will be aired on HBO sometime this summer and they’re showing it in art-house theaters around the country to drum up interest.

The director did a Q&A after the screening and it was fun to hear first hand about the interview he did with Al Pacino. Al and John worked together on Dog Day Afternoon and the two Godfather movies and Al’s enthusiam for John’s talent is evident in his interview. Al (you don’t mind of I call you Al, do you?) could barely stay in his seat he was so excited to talk about working with Mr. Cazale.

And Meryl Streep was interviewed too…she and John were a couple when he was diagnose and then ultimately succumbed to lung cancer at the way too young age of 42.

The highlight of the night was a Lemon Drop cocktail at Swank with some friends. Yum!

Saturday I took my mom’s advice to heart and sampled some gelato. After partaking in a few gelato locations around the city I feel quite confident in declaring Gelato Classico in North Beach the best!

This fabulous gelato heaven opened in 1976 and they’ve been serving up creamy gelato ever since. My favorite flavor is Coppa Mista (a mix of vanilla, chocolate, pistachio and almond – YUM!) and we added dark chocolate to the cup to round out the flavors.

I say we because Bert and I shared a cup. We didn’t share when we toured Italy for 6 weeks back in 2000 and ate gelato EVERY. DAY.

But now we do.

The life of a freelance marketing consultant means the demands on my time tend to ebb and flow.

Today was all flow. Of course a lot of it is self-imposed but, in true Leo fashion, I’m pretty much not willing to give up one single solitary thing.

Alarm goes off at 6am. Cook the oats, make the latte, pack the cycling food. Drive to Half Moon Bay.

Bike hard for one hour. Finally feeling stronger after a weak Sunday and three days off.

Toss the bike in the car and bust a move over to the barn. Drag the horse out of pasture. He’s not happy with me since he *just* got into the pasture!

Quick brush down, tack up and in the arena in record time. A focused and high quality walk, trot, canter 20 minute session. Throw the horse back into the pasture. He doesn’t even look back.

Jump in the car and hustle back to San Francisco. Grab a burrito to go and inhale it, jump in the shower and beg Bert for a ride to BART.

Downtown at 1pm just in time to start my project with Salesforce. Whew!

Now I’m off to catch the bus to see a documentary film with Bert at the Vogue Theater. The film is “I Knew it Was You: Rediscovering John Cazale” and they’re showing it with “Dog Day Afternoon” – a film for which he is well known.

Will let you tomorrow how it was!

p.s. I did take a few minutes with Now Voyager to be zen. Horses have that effect on people. Well, at least on me.

It’s difficult to review older movies sometimes, as the trouble of bringing some sort of new insight and context to the classics is often insurmountable. In the case of one of the most popular movies of all time, that difficulty level skyrockets. That’s why, in cases like these, I embrace the vainness of bringing something new to the table and damn the torpedoes. Talking about great movies should be fun and stimulating, I think.

1972’s The Godfather, directed by Francis Ford Coppola, is based on the novel of the same name by Mario Puzo. Coppola’s film trimmed some subplots from Puzo’s 1969 book and left off the flashback story of Vito Corleone’s early life. The flashback was included in the sequel to The Godfather, of course. Puzo’s massive novel included more texture than the film adaptation, which is often the case. The novel explored the characters in greater depth and offers different motivation for Michael’s behaviour adjustment, with Michael telling Sonny that “They made it personal when they shot Pop.”

At the core of Coppola’s film is that behaviour amendment. The Godfather is a story of change more than it is a simple mafia movie. It grants its characters incredible depth, breaking the mould of similar pictures. Interestingly, Coppola had worried that his motion picture would glorify the characters and the lifestyles of mafia members, but he was able to make a connection to the material after viewing it as a metaphor for American capitalism.

Marlon Brando stars as Don Vito Corleone. He is the head of the Corleone crime family. The Corleone family is the most powerful of the New York families, but their influence is beginning to diminish. The Godfather famously opens with the wedding reception of the Don’s daughter, Connie (Talia Shire), and Carlo Rizzi (Gianni Russo). As is customary among Sicilians, the Don cannot refuse any requests on his daughter’s wedding day so he spends the majority of the wedding day in his office with family lawyer and consigliere Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) handing various requests from members of the community.

The Don’s youngest son, Michael (Al Pacino), has arrived home from World War II service with his girlfriend Kay Adams (Diane Keaton). Michael assures Kay that he is different from his family. Soon enough, however, Michael is tested and must side with his family for the sake of his father’s life. He takes on a critical role within the organization, leading to a departure to Sicily, the death of his brother Sonny (James Caan), and other events that test his character.

One of the extraordinary aspects of The Godfather is the cinematography. The motion picture looks gritty and often shadowy, proposing a sense of realism callously at odds with a more theatrical, enchanting vision. These men are not presented as laudable figures. Instead, through the use of lighting, camera angles, and colours, they are presented as profoundly conflicted souls that act in harmony with their lot in life. The mob is a family and there is a certain set of rules and roles to play.

The performances are marvellous, becoming more remarkable and nuanced with each time I watch the movie. Brando’s Vito isn’t the main character as he is in Puzo’s narrative, but the performer gives the Don an awful lot of sparkling grain. He is a man that no longer needs to convince others of his power; he no longer needs to play games, to posture, to puff himself up. Vito’s repute precedes him and we are convinced of this for the simple fact that we know better not to doubt him.

A compellingly triumphant period piece, The Godfather earns its stripes as one of the finest movies of all time. Its three-hour runtime sails by like a light breeze, with every moment appealing, every character stimulating, and every event intensely fascinating. It is a story of an elaborate crime dynasty, of conversion, and of baptism by fire. Essential viewing, The Godfather is one of the greatest movies of all time.

10/10

Trailer:

Por Bruno Pongas

Sidney Lumet possui um talento explendoroso como diretor. Algo que chama atenção em algumas de suas obras é o fato de se abordar temas em que a ambientação é praticamente a mesma durante a maioria do tempo; ou seja, sua habilidade lhe propicia grandes obras com espaços e ambientes reduzidos.

Seu melhor trabalho nesse formato é o clássico 12 Homens e uma Sentença, de 1957. A história gira em torno de um julgamento em que 12 jurados tem que decidir o veredicto de um caso aparentemente óbvio. Aqui, Lumet gasta os pouco mais de 90 minutos da trama em uma sala fechada – que passa uma sensação inquietante e caustrofóbica. O mérito de Lumet, então, é conseguir mantêr o ritmo e instigar o espectador durante todo o tempo.

O mesmo modelo – com suas devidas diferenças – é adotado no posterior Um Dia de Cão, de 1975. Na trama, baseada em fatos reais, três criminosos planejam um assalto a banco em um dia quente e sufocante na cidade de Nova York. No entanto, mal sabem eles o inferno que está para acontecer conforme as coisas começam a fugir do controle.

Com um roteiro ágil, Um Dia de Cão consegue segurar o espectador do início ao fim. Por mais que o ambiente seja o mesmo por quase todo o longa, em nenhum momento ele se torna desinteressante e muito menos chato – o que é um grande mérito. Destaque também para as subtramas, que aqui são muito bem construídas e reveladoras – o filme vai muito além de um simples assalto a banco sem propósito nem fundamento.

Os personagens – pelo menos o principal – têm seus conflitos e personalidades muito bem trabalhados, o que ajuda no desenvolvimento da trama em si. Aqui, um ponto de apoio importante é o alto nível dos diálogos – que foram tratados com muito cuidado. Para incrementar, o que dá aquele toque especial é a atuação do elenco, sobretudo de Al Pacino e John Cazale. Pacino se destaca como um homem cheio de conflitos – grande parte deles imprevisíveis e reveladores -, por vezes confuso e deslumbrado com toda a situação, mas com pulso firme para tomar suas decisões e fazer suas exigências. John Cazale – conhecido pelos papéis no clássico O Poderoso Chefão -, por sua vez, nos brinda com um desempenho excelente – que muito me lembrou Anton Chigurh – personagem interpretado por Javier Barden em Onde os Fracos Não Têm Vez.

Em suma, Um Dia de Cão é mais uma obra-prima do genial diretor Sidney Lumet. Ao meu ver, ainda inferior à 12 Homens e Uma Sentença, mas tão angustiante e bem climatizado quanto. Com o longa, Lumet conseguiria na época sua terceira indicação ao Oscar. Ao longo de sua carreira, o diretor foi indicado por quatro oportunidades ao prêmio da academia, mas bateu na trave em todas elas. Em 2007, Lumet deu provas de que ainda pode dirigir em alto nível ao apresentar a trama Antes Que o Diabo Saiba Que Você Está Morto, que conta com um ótimo elenco, encabeçado por Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Minha Nota: 9.0 

Direção: Sidney Lumet
Gênero: Ação/Policial
Duração: 120 minutos
Elenco: Al Pacino, John Cazale, Penelope Allen, Sully Boyar, Carol Kane , John Marriott, Gary Springer, Charles Durning, Chris Sarandon