Showing posts with label The Godfather: Part III. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Godfather: Part III. Show all posts

Sunday, October 27, 2024

Oscars 1990: Best Director

History has a way of repeating itself. In 1980, Martin Scorsese was the critical favorite for Raging Bull, expected to win until leading man Robert Redford made his directorial debut. In 1990, Scorsese was the critical favorite for GoodFellas, with everyone making jokes at the expense of Kevin Cosnter, a leading man making his directorial debut...until they actually saw Dances with Wolves. Once people saw the film, they knew the inevitable was to occur:

 

My ranking of the nominees:

Tuesday, October 22, 2024

Oscars 1990: Best Supporting Actor

1990's Best Supporting Actor race is full of surprises. The first is Al Pacino's nomination for the comic strip adaptation Dick Tracy, where he goes big as gangster Big Boy Caprice. Pacino being nominated wasn't the surprise - the Golden Globes so honored him earlier - it was the fact that he got in for Dick Tracy and not in Best Actor for The Godfather: Part III that shocked.

The bigger surprise was the winner. Before there were 105 "precursors," common wisdom still held that the New York Film Critics held a lot of sway with Academy voters; this year's winner was Bruce Davison in Longtime Companion. He also won the Golden Glove and the Independent Spirit Award for Best Supporting Male. The only thing he didn't win was the Los Angeles Film Critics Association Award, though he was named runner-up to Joe Pesci in GoodFellas (Pesci was reportedly runner-up to Davison's NYFCC win). If you wanted to win your Oscar pool, you were predicting Davison.

And you would have lost:



Well, here's how I'd rank 'em:

Sunday, October 20, 2024

Oscars 1990: Best Picture of the Year

And now we come to our Oscars week, beginning with Best Picture of the Year - after all, I've reviewed every other movie I watched this year, why not review the Big Five?

These were the Big Five of 1990:



And these are my takes, counting down from my fifth choice to my top choice:

Thursday, October 17, 2024

1990: All I Want for Christmas

Francis Ford Coppola was done with The Godfather. He felt he had told the Michael Corleone saga from beginning to end with both The Godfather and The Godfather: Part II. Paramount Pictures was not done with The Godfather. They felt there was more money to squeeze out and went about trying to develop a third chapter as early as 1978. Many writers and directors and even producers later, they were still nowhere. Fortunately for them, neither was Francis Ford Coppola, in need of a profitable hit as a director and writer after the one-two punch of One from the Heart and The Cotton Club. His sister Talia Shire talked him into hearing Paramount out (hey, can't blame a broad for trying: after all, she was nominated for The Godfather: Part II). Reuniting with most of the original cast and Mario Puzo, Coppola began work on the film in 1988.


The movie finally hit theaters Christmas Day 1990. Like Awakenings and Dances with Wolves, it was never #1 at the box office, but it wasn't a flop, either. In its first day, it made $6 million, the highest-ever for a Christmas Day release until 1997's Titanic. And because they were relatively frugal in their budget, they were able to actually make a profit by the end of its run, grossing over $136 million. Critics were mixed-to-positive in their reviews, while the usual awards season gong-throwers - the Hollywood Foreign Press, the Directors Guild, the Academy - welcomed back their old friends with open arms. The Godfather: Part III wound up tying with Dick Tracy for the second-most nominations: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor (Andy Garcia), Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography (the only time Gordon Willis received such a nomination for his work on the series, if you can believe it), Best Editing, and, surprise surprise!, Best Original Song ("Promise Me You'll Remember"). The film was a hit and it was getting awards: everyone's Christmas wishes were coming true.

There is only one more Christmas Day release to discuss but, too, I've an oversight to correct: a movie that came out earlier in the year that I forgot to place in its proper month. Fortunately, it has Santa right in the title:

Wednesday, October 2, 2024

1990: Back to the Well

We live in the age of the legacy sequel. Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F, Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire, The First Omen, Alien: Romulus, Twisters, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, Apartment 7A: these are all from this year alone, all dependent on the audience's memory of specific plots, imagery, and often even characters of films released before the turn of this century. Nostalgia is in! Some say it's because audiences miss the films of old, we're chasing the high of our youth - certainly making a semi-sequel/remake to 1996's Twister suggests this.



Now, obviously, when I looked at the Oscar nominees of 1990, I knew I would get to revisit the legacy of The Godfather thanks to The Godfather: Part III, which revisits characters introduced to audiences in 1972's The Godfather and last seen in 1974's The Godfather Part II. What I did not expect was to run into three more films following up with icons of early-70s cinema.


It began in August with The Two Jakes, a follow-up to 1974's Chinatown. The original's Oscar-nominated star Jack Nicholson, Oscar-nominated producer Robert Evans, and Oscar-winning screenwriter Robert Towne all reunited for the sequel, with Nicholson pulling double duty as director. Joe Mantell, Perry Lopez, James Hong, and Faye Dunaway (via voiceover) all reprise their roles from the original; joining the ensemble are Harvey Keitel, Meg Tilly, Madeleine Stowe, and Eli Wallach, who also has a significant role in The Godfather Part III. It's an interesting movie, especially if one is familiar with Chinatown's production, particularly how director Roman Polanski helped shape it into the coherent, suspenseful narrative we all know and love. The Two Jakes is awfully vague by comparison. To many, that's a sign of weakness: the plot's confusing, the threads go nowhere, the pace is ponderous, there's lousy voiceover, my God, how could this be Chinatown! Well, it's not Chinatown, it's The Two Jakes, and it's about an older, wearier Gittes seeing echoes of the past even as its signposts are developed into oblivion. Its constant callbacks to Chinatown can be frustrating...or they can, like Agatha Christie's final Poirot novel Curtain, serve as a reminder that we are doomed (fated?) to return to the places and people most significant to us, that, as Paul Thomas Anderson would say in 1999's Magnolia, "We may be through with the past but, the past ain't through with us." It's an untidy film, but, it's haunting enough to justify any supposed cash grab.


One week after The Two Jakes debuted, The Exorcist III hit theaters. The second sequel to 1973's The Exorcist also saw a change of directors: instead of William Friedkin, William Peter Blatty helmed, his first time since 1980's The Ninth Configuration. Blatty, author of the original 1971 novel, producer/writer of the original film, and winner of the 1973 Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay, adapted his own sequel novel, Legion. This one has Lt. Kinderman, a cop who played a supporting role in the original's events, taking center stage as he investigates a series of murders that don't just mimic the M.O. of an executed serial killer - they may be the work of his demonic spirit possessing another. George C. Scott takes over for Lee J. Cobb in the Kinderman role. As the number indicates, there was already a sequel to The Exorcist - 1977's The Heretic - but Blatty makes sure that we forget that film ever existed, never references it, pretends it didn't even happen. Hell, even the III and the climactic exorcism were both forced on him by an insistent studio: he wanted to maintain the Legion title, more fitting for the nature of the forces of evil Kinderman is up against (indeed, that's the title of the Director's Cut released by Scream Factory in 2016), while the exorcism feels as tacked-on as it is. When it's about a policeman trying to reconcile faith with his job - not just the existence of demons in a grounded world, but even the possibility of a caring God in a world so full of suffering - it's downright moving and scary.

(Where was Friedkin in all this? Making The Guardian, about a nanny who is actually a kind of part-tree Druid nymph who sacrifices her charges to an ancient arboreal deity. It sounds mad but, sadly, is actually quite dull. Just as an exorcism was shore-horned into Legion, supernatural forces were shoe-horned by the studio into Friedkin's film. It's not great. It's not even good.)


Jake Gittes without Roman Polanski, Kinderman without Friedkin: at least Peter Bogdanovich got to return to the director's chair for Texasville, his followup to 1971's The Last Picture Show, both based on books by Larry McMurtry. While the first film is an ensemble piece (albeit with Timothy Bottoms and Ben Johnson at the center), the second is very much through the eyes of Jeff Bridges' Duane. All of these legacy sequels deal, in some way, with weariness, regret, and generally looking around at the world twenty years later and going, "Is this all there is?", with each one giving a different answer - or taking a different tack in how they answer. Texasville, because it is focused on a small town full of the same people who'll never leave, is more poignant, more effective in this regard than the others because...well, because the stakes are so small. No demons, no criminal conspiracies, just people living, getting older, reevaluating their choices. Like the movies above, this was a box office failure, a fact that, according to IMDb, sabotaged early Oscar buzz for Annie Pott's performance as Bridges' wife who, somewhat too understandingly, befriends his old flame Jacy Farrow (yes, Cybill Shepherd, absolutely glorious). Its reception is so unfair, but so is Bogdanovich's reaction: he believed his vision was compromised, and there are cuts that run thirty minutes longer, with Criterion's recent release including a black-and-white version (The Last Picture Show was black-and-white as well, but Texasville was released in color); I haven't seen these versions, but the latter feels like even Bogdanovich may have missed how The Last Picture Show works as bilious nostalgia while Texasville is reality hitting you in full color, finding beauty without silver and shadows to lean on. I love this movie, I love it more than I do The Last Picture Show, and I think that flick's a bloody masterpiece.

Texasville and The Exorcist III began as novels, their original creators driven not by the easy buck but by the need to express their own conflicts within their lives. The Two Jakes, as documented in The Big Goodbye, The Kid Stays in the Picture, and Easy Riders and Raging Bulls, was a reunion among friends (Towne, Nicholson, Evans), seeking to recapture that moment when they were all on top of the world, together. All three flopped, and The Two Jakes has not benefited from any critical reappraisal. So, it's funny that the one legacy sequel to make money, get nominated for everything, and even get a re-release just last year, is the one whose entire creative team (to go by reports) was either cornered into it or just did it for the check. 


That would be The Godfather: Part III, in which Al Pacino returns as Michael Corleone, trying to go legit but unable to escape the consequences of his actions or the ghosts of his past. Writer-producer-director Francis Ford Coppola refused to do it until the studio told him it was happening whether he participated or not, so he might as well preserve his legacy...albeit at a discount price. Robert Duvall, nominated for his performance as consigliere Tom Hagen in the original The Godfather, did not return for Part III because the studio also tried to shortchange him. Pacino did the movie but thought it betrayed the character of Michael Corleone by making him too sympathetic. We'll discuss it much more when we get into the year's Oscar nominees. 

It's funny that legacy sequels then were not the guaranteed moneymaker they are now. Maybe it was because this was an era where they didn't have to bank on nostalgia to market films to adults. After all, this was the year with a particularly infamous innovation for cinema: the NC-17 rating. But we'll get into that tomorrow. 

You May Also Enjoy:
Like us on Facebook