Once Upon A Time in America

This IS a long movie! I watched it in four parts – about 50-60 minutes at a time. After watching the first part, I was tempted to start writing this, but I decided that I must hold my first impressions in check and not pass any judgements until I’d seen the whole thing. After all – if I were seeing this moving in a cinema, I’d be seeing it all in one sitting – one marathon sitting!

The movie is essentially a gangster tale, set in a Jewish neighbourhood of New York, in the shadow of Brooklyn Bridge. It centres on the life and times of David 'Noodles' Aaronson (Robert DeNiro) from his early childhood growing up on the streets, through to his twilight years. Over this period, he moves from petty crime and “soft-target” violence and theft, through to full organised crime through the Prohibition era. There is a large gap in the film concerning Noodle’s life between the end of Prohibition (when his gang parted company in a dramatic and violent way), and his twilight years, I think in the 1960’s.

The movie was made in 1984, and contributes to a gangster movie theme that runs the length of DeNiro’s career – including Mean Streets (1973), The Godfather Pt.2 (1974), The Untouchables (1987), Goodfellas (1990), A Bronx Tale (1993), Heat (1995) – and probably a few others I’ve missed. Amusingly, DeNiro even played a gangster in Shark Tale!

David Lynch said that a movie should have a beginning, middle, and an end – not necessarily in that order. Like Pulp Fiction, this movie both begins and ends in the middle. Also like Pulp Fiction, the movie jumps backward and forward in time between scenes. The device is used for a different purpose on “Once Upon A Time” than in Pulp Fiction, though. In “Once Upon A Time”, the jumping about is used to explain how various things have come to be, or why Noodles thinks or behaves the way he does. In that sense, there are few mysteries left by the end of the movie – it all ties together in a neat, cohesive package. In that sense too – perhaps it is pleasing to an American audience.

You are, though, only jumping about across Noodle’s life. From childhood, to old man, to young man – and round again. It is a single-stranded plot that has been made non-linear by jumbling it up to follow themes in life, rather than chronological time. In Pulp Fiction, by comparison, you have a totally different situation. Here you have not one, but many strands of plot, crossing, running parallel, and then speeding away from each other. The action is presented in non-sequential order, and by the end of the movie, there are quite few unanswered questions.

I also feel that Pulp Fiction contains a depth that is missing in “Once Upon A Time”. There are enigmatic mysteries in Pulp Fiction (like what is the glowing valuable thing in the case, and why does Marsellus Wallace have a plaster on the back of his head?) that are reminiscent of The Usual Suspects – there are no such mysteries that I noticed in “Once Upon A Time”. The Usual Suspects and Pulp Fiction have both become cult classics – whilst Once Upon A Time is a good, well-made movie, with a first-rate performance from DeNiro, I don’t believe it is in the same class as these other two movies. As a movie, it just lacks the unique character.

One thing that brought the influence of Pulp Fiction home to me was watching the “Magic Roundabout” movie, where Dillon echoes Butch Coolidges (Bruce Willis) line “Zed’s dead, honey – Zed’s dead”. Such later-day homage is clearly the evidence of a classic. Quotes from Pulp Fiction crop up everywhere – especially in my office! It is an enduring movie that has probably left its mark and shadow across a generation.

As I was watching it, I found myself thinking of a few other movies. The casual and gratuitous sex and violence reminded me of Gangs of New York (which I didn’t like). The style of it reminded me of LA Confidential (which I liked a lot!).

It is evident that I have seen the European/Director’s Cut version of the movie, and not the one released in American theatres. The American version does have a strictly linear plot – running 1910's - 1930's - 1960's. I’m glad that I saw the version I did – it made it far more interesting. In this aspect, too, there is another comparison with Pulp Fiction. Whilst “Once Upon a Time” spans six decades, Pulp Fiction covers a far shorter span of time – days or weeks perhaps. In that sense, it focuses on a lot more details – casual conversations and gestures become important – have meaning – whilst “Once Upon A Time” can’t afford such detail – it has a big story to tell. That’s the thing – Pulp is a collage of small details, whilst “Once Upon A Time” is a broad-brushed mural. Even with the Director’s Cut, I feel that Pulp Fiction was closer to David Lynch’s sentiment.

This was a good movie – I did enjoy watching it, and I would recommend it to fans of DeNiro, and those that like gangster movies. But it lacks the style, detail, characters, enigmatic nature and corkscrew plot, of Pulp Fiction.

Why I like Faithless

I have to admit that I have always liked rap music - I like its speed, its freshness and vitality, and its generally syncopated nature - the generally close link between the stresses in emphasis of the vocal and the backing track. In the dim and distant, I have written and performed rap, but only in a "review" setting, it has to be said.

As old as I know this comment is going to make me sound, modern rap music generally leaves me cold. It is abusive, it is benile, it is shallow, and it is foul-mouthed. It has precious few redeeming features, and is a world away from the relatively genteel rap roots that I fondly remember.

Here enters Faithless. Like Malcolm McLaren, Faithless freely admits to a complete inability to sing. This is not a problem, because he surrounds himself with extremely talented musicians and singers to realise his creations. Faithless writes rap. He is older, wiser, and more intelligent and considered than most other chart-hitting rappers. His music and his messages are more complex and lyrical.

Another aspect that has always appealed to me is "lyrics as poetry". I can point to my love of groups like Genesis, Marillion and Fish, Pink Floyd and Alan Parsons Project in this vein. Faithless, like Fish, loves to savour the sound and meaning of words. He uses devices that you don't generally get outside poems - like aliteration and onomatopoeia. He swills the sound of words around in his lyrics just as one might savour a wine by swilling it around in the mouth and see how it stimulates your pallete.

Because Faithless is now famous and accomplished - with a string of hit albums and singles behind him, the collaborations that he can arrange are increasingly good. I wouldn't say that any of his songs are weak - but in working with the likes of Dido, and many others, he achieves a breadth on his albums that can go from gospel to opera to full-on rap.

So - Faithless combines clever and considered lyrics, rap, and good music. And that's why I like Faithless. :)