The Two Jakes presents us with a Jake Gittes that is older, heavier, and still consumed by what happened in Chinatown. He has been through the war, and seen LA morph into a caricature of the movie world it creates. This is one of the major problems with the film. It allows the period setting to dominate the feel and thus everything becomes unrealistic and very structured. The magic in the original film was in containing the action to central locations and completely infusing them with the prevailing sense of doom. It is not really Nicholson’s fault as a director that this is not achieved, but what he does is provide an extremely stable hand so that the film is allowed to lumber onwards with at least some support.
It is nearly impossible to understand this film without having at least some knowledge if Chinatown. Yet they are almost completely unrelated. Two Jakes is more of a spiritual sequel instead of a direct one. We see the same Gittes just more successful and even more tired of wallowing in other people’s filth. Throughout the course of the film he is on a journey. We never really realize what this is for until the final moment where he tells someone that the past never goes away. The entire point of The Two Jakes is that Gittes regains himself. The ending of the film presents us with an older and wiser version of the man who appeared at the beginning of Chinatown. Up until that point Gittes existed only as a shell; with a membership at a country club, a worthless fiancée, a plush office and firm which are all the contrivances awarded someone who plays the game as dictated by society. He knows what he is but can’t live with it.
The Harvey Keitel character also being named Jake is no coincidence. He and Gittes begin to relate to one another almost immediately and this leads to a deepening relationship that reveals how they are like two halves of the same whole. The demise of one Jake leads the other to question himself and the motive of murder, if there ever was one at all. The film itself is flawed and meandering, but eventually like Gittes gets to a self realization that will keep in your brain for ages.
The best parts of Godfather III are those that deal with seemingly un-cinematic moments-those being the simple reactions from Michael and how he carries himself in his older years. The most gripping confrontation is not between Mafia chieftains, but between Michael and Kay after all these years. What Al Pacino and Coppola do with Michael nearly 30 years on is riveting. That is the reason why Part III is worth watching. If you could strip away the other superfluous elements you would be left with a vastly superior film.
The director’s cut streamlines some things and rearranges others so that a vastly superior narrative emerges. Originally the film opened with Michael involved in discussions with The Vatican. The new version does not. From that change onwards the overall experience is heightened. This is not to say that the film is great or rescued by any means. The subplots are generally uninteresting and we constantly reminded of this every time we are arrested by Pacino’s performance as Michael. To simplify things Coppola should have focused entirely on Michael since that is both the only thing that works and the thing that audiences most want to see.
Both of these films share numerous parallels that it becomes almost as if they were somehow linked. Both were released by Paramount Pictures in 1990. Both are sequels that occur 16 years after the previous installment. Both are over two hours and so full of detail that prior knowledge of events is mandatory. One closes a trilogy and the other was meant to be one. Both are carried by a single performance by a great actor. Both are set in a historical period. Finally, both were released with critical backlash and relative financial failure. Part III did moderately well mostly due to the fanfare and notoriety of the franchise. The Two Jakes failed to even make its budget back.
It is strange to see the products of such a creative time as the early 1970’s appear so much later and be so similar. The union between themes and tone I believe stems from the fact that everyone had become tired of the industry and the failure of the Hollywood Renaissance to change anything. It is astonishing to compare the audiences of today to those of 20 years ago. Back then, we were expected to accept works such as these that while flawed, presented us with great morsels to chew upon in our minds. Our patronage was rewarded with actual concepts and ideas. Today we are lucky to get even a glimpse of substance amidst the CGI jungle that is the Hollywood of 2010. One of the biggest hits of 20 years ago was The Hunt for Red October. To even suggest making an “action film” that had the intellectual content of Red October today would most likely get you thrown out of the conference room.
I’d sure like to be the one to suggest finishing the Gittes trilogy. I’m reminded of something Kirk Douglas once said to Stanley Kubrick about how Paths of Glory (1957) would likely make no financial returns: “Stanley, I don't think this picture will ever make a nickel, but we have to make it”. (1)
I think the overall bloated production for these two films and their ineffectiveness and their failure is what officially stated that the ideals and leaders of the Hollywood Renaissance were dead. This is the final nail in the coffin.
(1)-Paths of Glory DVD insert, MGM Home Video-1998.
(Kudos to Paramount Home Video for releasing these films in respectable transfers with original audio mixes intact. Godfather Part III was given light work after the previous two were painstakingly restored by Robert Harris and now has a warmer color palette. The Two Jakes looks light years ahead of the old worn VHS I saw many years ago. I was very surprised to find it on DVD in a Special Collector's Edition.)
No comments:
Post a Comment