(USA 1984 228m) DVD1/2
An appointment at Fat Moe’s
p Arnon Milchan d Sergio Leone w Leonardo Benvenuti, Piero de Bernardi, Enrico Medioli, Franco Arcalli, Franco Ferrini, Stuart Kaminsky, Sergio Leone novel “The Hoods” by David Aaronson, Harry Grey ph Tonino delli Colli ed Nino Baragli m Ennio Morricone (with Giaocchino Rossini, Cole Porter, Joseph M.Lacalle, Lennon & McCartney) art Carlo Simi, James Singelis cos Gabriella Pescucci, Nino Baragli
Robert DeNiro (David “Noodles” Aaronson), James Woods (Max), Elizabeth McGovern (Deborah), Treat Williams (Jimmy O’Donnell), William Forsythe (Cockeye), Tuesday Weld (Carol), Burt Young (Joe), Danny Aiello (Police Chief Aiello), Joe Pesci (Frankie), Jennifer Connelly (Young Deborah), Larry Rapp (Fat Moe Markowitz), James Russo,
Once Upon a Time in America is Sergio Leone’s defining statement as a filmmaker, one that it effectively took him twelve years to conceive and make. It wasn’t helped by the fact that Leone’s masterpiece was butchered in the US to 149m with the sort of careless glee not seen since Jack the Ripper roamed Whitechapel and, like so many other masterpieces of the eighties (see Kurosawa’s Ran and Bergman’s full Fanny and Alexander), it was made by a man a generation after his peak, but it’s also one of the greatest films of its decade.
Noodles Aaronson has been summoned back to New York 35 years after all his friends were supposedly killed after a robbery went wrong. He knows not why he’s been summoned or, apart from a name, who by, but he starts to piece together the pieces while looking back at his childhood before World War I in New York’s Jewish quarter.
It sounds simple enough, but America is a film that cannot be appreciated in one viewing. It demands at least three, like the best of Kubrick or Tarkovsky. Leone goes against the grain immediately by not having his gangsters Italian (like him) but Jewish, automatically distancing it from the familial splendour of the Mafiosos in The Godfather. The feel and look of the film is nostalgic, almost elegiac, and some of the directorial touches so audacious as to leave one gasping (the endless telephone ringing, the final mysterious refuse truck – did he or didn’t he?). Never, even in The Bowery or Manhattan, has the Brooklyn Bridge been so memorably depicted on film, towering over the kids like a huge Grim Reaper, ready to descend down on the next inevitable victim that always seems imminent. Not all nostalgia then, and this is certainly true of two rather horrible rape scenes, though the one of Tuesday Weld in the bank raid could equally be seen to be aggressive sex as one finds it hard to see her as a victim as much as we do poor Elizabeth McGovern in the backseat of the limo. Our hero may be a double rapist, and his friend psychotic, but they are real, and we care because we know them so completely.
Yet America is a film full of humour, as one recalls the girl who offers to pop a boy’s cherry for a delicious cake, only for him to eat it, and the hilarious scene set to Rossini’s ‘Thieving Magpie’ overture (a homage to Kubrick perhaps?) where the babies are switched. Leone is helped immeasurably by his superb cast; we expect great things of DeNiro and he returns to the sort of reflection not seen since 1900, Woods is mesmerising as Max, Weld is memorable as his sluttish but ultimately considerate lover Carol and there’s a lovely vignette from Larry Rapp as Fat Moe (he of the kosher confectionary, saieth the sign). Yet in spite of their fine work, Leone’s main partner in crime has to be Morricone, for his incomparably sweeping and multi-layered score (too good for an Oscar). As with the earlier Once Upon a Time in the West, the music was written first and played on the set (incorporating Joe Lacalle’s immortal Amapola). It’s sad that Leone didn’t live long enough to make any more films or to see his masterpiece get the praise it deserved, but he had the last laugh. America is truly a film to make one believe in cinema’s limitless potential if the mercenary studio hacks would keep their Philistine scissors off. A film of consummate mournful splendour, a modern day Greek tragedy to make the Gods laugh and its audience weep with joy and desolation. Like Deborah’s Cleopatra, age cannot wither it, nor custom stale its infinite variety.
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
Wonders in the Dark 
“Never, even in The Bowery or Manhattan, has the Brooklyn Bridge been so memorably depicted on film, towering over the kids like a huge Grim Reaper, ready to descend down on the next inevitable victim that always seems imminent.”
Correction, Fish: That’s not the Brooklyn Bridge. The scene was shot in Brooklyn, yes, but the name of that neighborhood is DUMBO– Down Under the Manhattan Bridge Overpass. It’s a common mistake, especially if you’re not from the city (let alone the United States), and even then, there’s plenty of New Yorkers who get it mixed up if they’re not well-versed in their boroughs. It is a very fine use of the Manhattan Bridge, and I’d venture to say that it is better than most of the sentimental portraiture the Brooklyn Bridge gets. Still, something to keep in mind for future drafts.
Yes, my mistake. This was written several years ago, but it’s obviously not the BB as for starters the main towers on that are made of stone and this is clearly metal.
And while we’re at it, I think the most famous bridge scene in Manhattan is the one that includes the Queensboro Bridge (remember, Woody’s an uptown boy, though he did grow up in Brooklyn). Though, inevitably, the BB’s in there too somewhere.
Once Upon a Time is available for instant viewing on Netflix so I don’t even have to put it atop my queue. I’ve seen various scenes numerous times on television – or when it was on somewhere in the background (when you add it all up, I may have seen a good 45 minutes or so of the film, though I couldn’t tell you anything about the plot from all of that). But I’ve never sat down and watched the whole film. That will be rectified in the next day or two…
Yeah, the Queensboro is another one that keeps being mistaken. It’s also the place where Gwen Stacey died in the Spider-Man comics (never mind Sam Raimi’s attrocious films) and, I believe, the bridge that Snake crosses to rescue the President at the end of “Escape From New York”. The Brooklyn Bridge itself might’ve been seen in “Hannah and Her Sisters”, but I honestly can’t remember.
Wait, correction! In the comics, Gwen died at either the George Washington or Brooklyn Bridge; a caption affirms the former but the art depicts the latter, making for a confusion that Marvel fans have been bugged by to this day. The Queensboro was the setting for Sam Raimi’s 2002 “Spider-Man” film, and its lame approximation of the showdown with the Green Goblin. Worst of all, I spelled Gwen Stacy’s name wrong– mea culpa, true believers!
Question: The version on Netflix claims to be 335 minutes.
Allan’s review states a 229 min runtime.
Which is considered by cineastes the definitive version?
I watched a good portion (possibly even all) of this film a long time ago on cable TV but I’m not sure what version it was. It was a very puzzling movie to me at the time…lost of memorable stretches (most of the childhood flashbacks…that TELEPHONE RINGING!) but I don’t even recall if I made it all the way through to the end. It’s almost as if I only dreamed the film, and based on some other reviews I have read in the wake of Allan’s, it makes me believe maybe I did see all of it and the “correct” version at that…or maybe not and maybe I gave up on or didn’t have the time to devote to the end or I saw the incomplete butchered American theatrical cut and that’s why I feel like maybe I didn’t see it all. How strange that I can’t recall or don’t know! Ahhh — I ramble.
The 229 minute version is the longest available today, but I believe Arnon Milchan has stated that they’ve found more footage that can be spliced in, but only about a half-hour’s worth. Maybe the full version is out there, somewhere, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Wow…my apologies…I was barely coherent there.
So does anyone know the veracity of Netflix’s 335 minute version? Or perhaps that is just a typo on their site?
David: I believe that 335 minute listing is incorrect. It 6 minutes too long.
In all honesty, I’m pretty shocked about the placement of this film but then again its better than excluding it all together. The film remains famous for being one of the best final films and easily one of the most ambitious films of its genre. The film opens like a mystery but the dissolves into a story of youth corrupted by the life of the mob. Its a pretty extraordinary looking film that doesn’t really resemble the revisionist westerns that Leone is known for, nor does the plot dissolve into crowd pleasing action film. Not to say something like The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly or any from “the Man with No Name” series were bad film (just the opposite really), but one has to feel that Once Upon A Time In America feels far more mature than his work in the spaghetti western era. The first half of the film in particular seems to show this the best as Leone films the lives of children trying their best to adapt in harsh times and be surrounded by sex and violence. One scene in particular stands out where a child is sent too deliver a piece of cake to a girl. The scene starts off showing the child walking to the girls house and waits for her to come out to greet him. The girl’s mother opens the door and he catches a glimpse of her after a bath and is told to wait until shes finished. As he waits he looks at the cake and decides to take a piece. Soon he takes another and another until the cake is gone. The scene is absolutely perfect in showing a child not ready to give up his innocence and grow up while being at the crossroads of being young adult. It reminds you that all in all, the characters Leone has introduced us to are kids. When we see scenes like Noodles spying on Deborah dancing, or Noodles being taught the ways of the street by Max, we can’t help but see these aren’t wise guys or gangsters. They’re children. Its a shocking journey we take seeing these children become the ruthless gangsters from the second half. Its shocking to see Noodles turn into a person who actually rapes Deborah and who works for the mob. While the film is not perfect, its still a masterpiece in many ways. DeNiro continues his successful streak of films from the late 70s and early 80s, and Woods steals the show in one of his many great 80s performances (I cant help but recall Videodrome). But the star is Leone. His transition to American film making helped show the world what type artist he truly was (hell he did make his magnum opus in America, Once Upon a Time in the West) but this might have been my favorite of the three he made. And looking at this film, it might not resemble any of his other works, Leone’s ambitious epic scale is enough of to let us know who’s behind the camera. Once Upon Time in America strives to be the epic masterpiece in the gangster genre (as “in the West” did the same for the western genre) and while it might not debunk the Godfather, it still holds up as one of the most bold and daring cinematic achievements.
Anu, this long comment is brilliance incarnate! Wow!
Also, Anu, your splendid and impassioned response here does seem to indicate that the #2 placement is warranted, even though you also admit you are shocked by it. I must look to see where you had it on your own Top 25.
Allan and I are on the same page with this one… I had it at #3 on my own list. Originally, there were parts of the movie that I struggled with, mainly some plot elements that seemed preposterous at first — kids that appear to be 10 or 12-years old dictating to gangsters how to improve bootleg operations, the idea of knocking of Fort Knox. But even these I’ve somehow been able to simply overlook and just the let the movie flow.
What are everyone’s feelings on the theory that the majority of the film is Noodles dreaming in the opium den where we find him? I’m not sure if it works as a completely coherent theory, as far as covering ever little detail, but the movie works best for me when I think of it this way. It explains certain things — why we’re shown Noodles at the opium den at the beginning and end of the film, how Deborah miraculously never ages during the entire story, and the whole Max mystery.
And I’ll also just add that I found the final scene between Noodles and Max at the mansion to be very emotionally powerful… quite sad, actually.
Dave, that opium den theory has been posed, but I’m not so sure I buy it, even if I agree with you that the film works better narratively to think in these terms.
I like the opium theory, if for no other reason than how it paints the modern-day portions in a somewhat satirical light. The fact that, if it’s all a halucination, Noodles still dreams of the Beatles and television makes our world seem that much more suspect, which helps convey Leone’s message even further. At the same time, however, it’s by no means essential. It showed just how much creative energy Leone had at that time, and how much was lost at his death, that he was branching out narratively at that age.
Bob, you’re good! Real good!
Bob: I had forgotten that you did have ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA in your top 25. (I believe you had it at #17). You didn’t seem to evince a preference one way or another in these astute comments, but your knowledge of the work hints at some passion.
This film is an elegiac masterpiece. Dave, Anu, Bob, are all dead-on here. Allan and I have discussed it many many times, and in fact screened it yet again when Allan was here in the states. I’ll say more when I’m not rushing between periods, but suffice to say that perhaps more than any other film, the SCORE by Ennio Morricone informs the theme. Without it this film would be vastly diminished, but it’s there, and it’s magnificent stuff.
Is it one of the very best films of the 80’s? You bet!
I’m with Frank and 50% of the repliers (“Philistines”) 😉 who found some elements impressive but overall, I was left unimpressed when I originally watched this in the mid ’80s. Saying that, I’d like to catch the full version one day. I agree that’s its one of Leone’s most mature works. But since he really wanted to direct ‘The Godfather’ I feel the maturity of that work spilled over. It’s something that can be compared to that Coppla’s epic in at least ambition.
Bobby: There’s no doubt this film has divided audiences, and in fact just about a half hour ago I was speaking with Dennis on the phone, who again expressed his dismay over the love for this film. I think it’s a staggering achievement, but i can see why you feel like you do Bobby. I missed hearing about your week watching stuff.
Sam, had a computer crash over something or other so was off-line for about 5 days, except for a quick trip to my brother’s place. Will defintely be there for Monday morning Diary – next week.
Bobby sorry about that computer crash, that’s terrible. Don’t mind me, I can some time get pushy.
……….sorry I can’t join all the fun here, but this is a rather strange film. There are some outstanding individual sequences. But there’s also boredom and narrative confusion. Unanswered questions. No way is this any kind of a masterpiece of cinema. Way too frustrating and distant. Sam, I also like the music, but it can’t save this film………
Oooh Frank, you’re being harsh here. This is my #4 film of the decade, so you can see we’re miles apart. Narrative sense almost seems beside the point with ‘One Upon A Time in America.’ It’s more of a tone poem, an ode, a homage to a time and place gone forever. I am shocked you weren’t affected by it.
Joe, the enlightened cannot exist without the Philistines.
Boy, what a review! It really does justice to the awesome power, grandeur and a deep nostalgia for a lost era depicted in the Sergio Leone masterpiece. Indeed, what the studio bosses did to the movie was tragic like perhaps nothing else. I guess it was on a similar level as the fate Orson Welles’ Touch of Evil faced, perhaps even more.
And the clincher in your review was undoubtedly the line, that the movie was “a modern day Greek tragedy to make the Gods laugh and its audience weep with joy and desolation.” That’s a truly amazing statement!!!
Yes, Shubhajit, this review was recipient to Allan’s extraordinary writing talents. Modest as he is, I don’t think he would deny it himself. It’s one of his greatest pieces, and worthy of this monumental film. Thanks for the terrific comment!
Actually Shubhajit, Allan’s final line, referencing the most famous single phrase from Shakespeare’s CLEOPATRA is just as great as the one you mention, as well as the “consumate mournful splendor.” It’s really the kind of writing to make all bloggers jealous.
By the way Shubhajit, I just tried posting a long comment under your TIME AND THE CITY review at your site, and it wouldn’t go, beacuse your settings are too restricted. I tried, and was disappointed the long submission was lost. In any case I will now add you to our blogroll, as I see we have been on yours. Thanks again.
I’ll give you the score, maybe some of the visuals. But for the most part every version of this film I have ever seen has only mildly captured my interest.
Dennis, I respect your position here, even if I don’t share it remotely.
I voted this unforgettable film #1, and I concur with those who are smitten with this review here by Mr. Fish. The film’s themes are innocence, passion, trust, betrayal, honor and friendship, and they are wowen into an epic narrative that may sometimes confuse (the childhood section was about an hour and a half as I recall) but always stires the emotions. Both James Woods and Robert DeNiro are on fire. The sepia-toned-styled visuals bring the Prohibition era to life, and of course it’s all about the destruction that visits a group of childhood friends. The music is beautiful.
I received a copy of the film a few years ago from Sam, and I couldn’t stop talking sbout it.
Yes Peter, your love for this film was most special, as you reacted as strongly as I could realistically ever hope for, and then some! Great capsule there!
Sam, I don’t know what might have caused that problem because I haven’t really imposed any great restrictions on the comments section. Nonetheless I apologise for the same. I’ve tweaked the settings a bit, and hopefully that’ll alleviate the issue. I know it’s always a pain in the you-know-what to rewrite something, but I would still really hope that you do let me know your opinions about the movie and/or my review at the comments section 🙂 And here’s another request – please do not sacrifice on the length if you do go ahead with it 🙂
Thanks Shubhajit! I will check your site out again right now!
By the way, thanks a lot for adding me to your blogroll.
Just watched it. Well … interesting. Much of it is masterpiece status or close to it; like everyone else, I love the childhood scenes. I just don’t really know how I feel about the ending right now. It seems like the sort of outrageous and implausible twist I might have added to a story when I was a kid. Then again, maybe I had the right idea in my naivitee.
The “opium dream” theory occurred to me too, though the Beatles cues and the accurate depiction of 60s culture seemed to undermine this. But I agree that an a metaphorical level at least, I like the idea that this is De Niro’s dream – the same is true of (just the ending of) Taxi Driver as well. I can buy them as poignant fantasy wish-fulfillments (though in this case, the wish is treated rather ambivalently).
One other comparison that occurred to me was The Sopranos … the at times laconic pacing, the connection between hard-boiled mobsters and pyschological pathos, the surreal touches … indeed two aspects of the twist – the “opium dream” theory and the switchero (Max to Bailey) – reminded me of that great and ever-enigmatic plotline late in Sopranos were an unconscious Tony dreams he’s stranded in some resort town involved in a strange case of mistaken identity.
So I definitely liked it overall and “got a lot out of it” to use a mealy-mouthed cliche; but, as Allan suggests, it may be necessary to see it a few more times before I can really make up my mind about it 100%.
Talk about “timely” Joel. Our friend Dave Hicks just reviewed the film, naming it the best of 1984 at his place:
http://goodfellamovies.blogspot.com/2009/10/1984-once-upon-time-in-america-sergio.html
Yes, Joel, while I consider this a flat out elegiac masterpiece, and one of the greatest films of the 80’s (as Allan does) I agree it takes several viewings to reach that conclusion.
Thanks for another plug, Sam… you’re drumming up some newcomers at my place! 🙂 And I definitely agree with you that it’s one that needs to be watched a few times to really take it in. Unfortunately, I’ve found with a movie of this length, sometimes people are hesitant to re-watch a movie that they weren’t all that crazy about the first time. Joel, though, I know is one that wouldn’t hesitate to check something out again.
Also, since I have nowhere else to post such thoughts, anybody else here like William Dieterle’s PORTRAIT OF JENNIE? I watched it for the first time last night and found it very fascinating. It had shades of Vertigo to it I thought, although it’s not quite at that level. But Joseph Cotten is good as usual and I think it is probably my favorite that I have seen from Dieterle. Although, I still have THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER sitting here waiting to be watched, so that sentiment could change in the near future.
All That Money Can Buy (or TDADW as it was reissued) is Dieterle’s best film, but there’s Hunchback, Jennie and, of course, the tragically neglected The Last Flight, too.
I’m really looking forward to TDADW then… I might try and get to that one tonight. Of course, after last night watching Keaton’s SHERLOCK, JR. for the first time and being completely floored, I might have to go back and revisit the only other Keaton I’ve seen — THE GENERAL. I liked The General, but wasn’t blown away. Sherlock, Jr. was amazing and one of the best comedies I’ve ever seen. I am actually still a little excited from “discovering” (as in new to me) a film of this caliber.
It’s a great movie, still is after watching it for maybe the 6th time in several years.
I can’t help get another resemblance in the ‘young Max and Noodles’ story…; they remind me of John Lennon and Paul McCartney back in Liverpool and especially Hamburg. The first time they meet, Max looks just like John in this photo: http://www.rickbeat.com/beatles/john-truck.jpg and Noodles just has a bit of ‘paul eyes’.
This, of course supplemented by the Beatles tracks in the song, may point to Leone being a Beatle fan. 🙂
Just a thougt on a sundayafternoon.
Cheers to you all, George (Netherlands)
Absolutely amazing film, and a brilliant review.