Top Ten Movies of the 1970s

#2
The Godfather Part II

1974

Directed by: Francis Ford Coppola
Written by: Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo (Based on his novel)
Cinematography by: Gordon Willis
Starring: Al Pacino, Diane Keaton, Robert Duvall, Robert DeNiro, and John Cazale

It was difficult choosing between The Godfather Part I and The Godfather Part II for this list. That being said, leaving out The Godfather Part III was incredibly easy. Both of the first two are amazing and considered classics but I decided that putting them both on the list of greatest movies of the 1970s would be unfair to others and I thought that putting them together would be cheating. The two of them while consisting of the same characters are still very different movies. One of the biggest differences that I noticed immediately was that the second installment didn't have the famous quotes that the first has. Watching the first film and hearing famous quote after famous quote can get tiring. In that way the second Godfather is more refreshing. But it is not just this, over all it's a better movie.

The movie follows two interweaving story lines. One follows Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) in the late 1950s as he struggles with the expansion of his business family in Havana and Las Vegas while his empire in New York unravels and as he struggles keeping his own real family together following troubles with his wife Kay (Diane Keaton) and brother Fredo (John Cazale). This is a fantastic storyline and could work well on it's own. However, to make something good even better, Coppola adds the second storyline. This one takes place in the early 20th century and follows Michael's father Vito Corleone (Robert DeNiro) as he rises from obscurity to wealth and influence. His mafia family and personal family both grow concurrently.

During a preview of this movie, Coppola showed the movie to some of his best friends in Hollywood where it was not well received. George Lucas is said to have remarked that "You have two films. Take one away, it doesn't work." Among other things this shows that Lucas really is a talentless hack. For all of his mainstream success, Coppola has never fit the Hollywood mould. He had to fight to get the final cut on the Godfather movies and even after their success continued to make experimental and cutting edge films to satisfy his own artistic needs instead of his financial ones. What I love about The Godfather Part II and what is the main thing that makes it better than it's predecessor is that the two story lines show how far Michael Corleone has deviated from his father's business. Vito's family rose in power because it began by winning the trust and favour of those in the community. The mafia family of which he was in charge of knew how to return a favour and keep people safe. In this long amazing scene, Vito kills the previous local mafia kingpin setting in motion the chain of events that would lead to him being the new local Don:



Even without the subtitles it is easy to understand what is going on. Don Fanucci here is a real bastard and charges bankrupting rates for his personal protection. Vito comes in and overthrows him, everyone is happy.

On of the reasons that The Godfather Trilogy is still so popular today, I believe, is because people are obsessed with it's focus on business ethics, or the lack therof. Michael is a anti-hero because, even though he is a cold heartless bastard, people believe that is always just doing what is best for his business. Even if that means hurting or even killing the ones he loves, the business always comes first. People love that. I remember particularly in university knowing people who were studying all these different disciplines. Those who studied business administration were usually the ones with the giant Godfather poster in their dorm room. I think the movie's popularity says a lot about the society that we live in. People can justify all sorts of ruthless behaviour involved in the corporate world using a twisted Darwinian logic. Eat or be eaten they say. I can't help but suspect though that their eagerness to justify this 'fact of life' stems from some sort of inner ruthlessness which they themselves possess. A ruthlessness which Michael also possesses.

Anyway, this reading of The Godfather Part II is false. The two story lines running side by side show the differences in the way Vito and Michael run the family business. Vito's has a charitable focus and he takes care of the local community. On the other hand, Michael's focus is on expansion into new markets by any means necessary. The difference hear is simple. Vito's running a fresh business and Michael's inherited one from his father that has been 40 years in the making. After all of this time corruption has run rampant in the organization like a virus. Michael himself is resorting to cheating and lies as a regular tool of business. His own family is falling apart too as a result of this.

In the movie, the family's political connections and bribes are shown quite naturally as just a part of business. This is the way to get things done. When running a dirty business like this though, there is increased risk. This is shown quite clearly as the Corleone family business tries to make in grounds into Cuba. At this time in the late 1950s, Cuba was the jewel in the Americans Caribbean Empire's crown. The President of Cuba Fulgencio Batista was a puppet and a dictator backed by the United States so that the American corporate interests could rape the island of it's natural and human resources while at the same time impose monopolies and virtually control all of Cuban industry. At the same time the people of Cuba were getting fed up. Batista had come to power in a second coup in 1952 and used hard line authoritarian tactics to prop up his rule. Cuba was a virtual police state and the majority of the island's people suffered from malnutrition, lack of access to education, and intense political repression. It was not just 'reputable' corporate interests that dominated in Cuba though, as shown in The Godfather Part II organized crime had begun to make inroads. Batista himself was cozy with leading mobster Meyer Lansky (Hymen Roth in the movie) and in the movie Michael travels to Cuba to try and get a piece of the pie. However, on New Years Eve 1958 things were destined to change and Michael and Fredo were both there to witness it:



So this is a classic scene, probably the most famous from the whole movie. Look past the drama between the two brothers though and you can see just how mired in corruption the Cuban government was. While the country was starving there was a lavish New Years party put on by the President to cater to his supporters: American diplomats and the corporate elite. Even the Mafia was invited to this event, the beginning of what have been a long relationship had the following events not taken place. This was the night of the Cuban Revolution. Also, while this party was going on, the rebels were making gains in towns and cities all over Cuba. Fidel Castro, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara, Raul Castro and their rebel group known as the '26th Of July Movement' had taken over the city of Santa Clara in a long battle. Batista panicked and fled to the Dominican Republic. A week later, after a long victory march, Fidel Castro entered Havana and proclaimed support for a new government. A government in which initially he did not even serve as President.

To be sure, Castro's rule has it's many problems. Nobody can deny that there are some similarities to his rule and those seen from authoritarians before him. However, Cuba has seen many significant gains since him and his movement came to power. Many people claim that it is a police state like the previous Batista government and heavily repressed. Maybe so, but it is more democratic than people give it creedence for. At least, it is more democratic than the Batista regime and many other countries in the region where American interests still hold sway. There is a party machine (The Communist Party) one must climb the ranks of to make a real difference, but these are open to far more people from many different backgrounds. There is a way to still make a difference in Cuban politics. More important than any structural or political changes though are all of the massive changes which have directly raised the Cuban standard of living. Cuba has the best health care in all of Latin America. Their medical personnel are sought after by nations all over the world and this expertise is coupled with a wholly inclusiveness so that a far larger percentage of people are covered than in many countries. I don't I'll ever live to see the day when the United States government can claim that 100% of their citizens have access to quality health care. The Cuban education system is also one of the highest and the most inclusive in all of Latin America. This is the key to the success of the revolution as it opens up opportunities to all to study.

One of the things which I enjoy most about The Godfather Part II is that in showing the ties that organized crime had in pre-revolutionary Cuba, it points out just how mired in corruption the country really was. Those who speak with nostalgia of the glorious Havana of the 1950s were the ones involved in this corruption and should hold no sway in the debate. The old Havana was run by gangsters and not just the gangsters not just in the mafia. These gangsters came from the corporate world and the highest levels of government (both Cuban and American).

Those who were corrupt in Cuba saw their downfall with the revolution. So too Michael will inevitably head to his downfall. That is the lesson of the movie. The young Vito Corleone prospered due to his goodwill while Michael inherited a business which could only survive by becoming more corrupt with each deal. Something like this, it is shown, is completely unsustainable and the effects are not worth the risk.

For being a thought provoking study of business ethics as well as being just an amazing classic, The Godfather Part II is in my opinion the 2nd greatest movie of the 1970s.

Top Ten Movies of the 1970s

#3
Barry Lyndon

1975

Written and Directed by: Stanley Kubrick
Based on the novel by: William Makepeace Thackeray
Cinematography by: John Alcott
Starring: Ryan O'Neal and Marisa Berenson

It is my steadfast belief that Stanley Kubrick is the greatest film director to ever live and this also may be my favourite movie of his. I go back and forth between Barry Lyndon and 2001: A Space Odyssey. It's tragic though, because Barry Lyndon has always been one of Kubrick's lesser known movies and in my opinion has not received the praise that it deserves. I think that people are beginning to look back though and examine Barry Lyndon more closely now. When I first looked at it's user rating on the Internet Movie Data Base (IMDb) website it was around 7.5 but looking at it now it's got a rating of 8.1 which is significantly higher. Martin Scorsese has also recently claimed that this is also his favourite Kubrick film. All of this I hope will lead to further re-evaluation of this movie and into the canon of classic twentieth century films.

The movie is divided into two parts. The plot of part 1 follows a Irishman named Redmond Barry (Ryan O'Neal) from a petty upbringing who lies and cheats his way into the English nobility in the mid to late 18th century. On the run from the law, he joins the English Army and heads to Europe to fight in the Seven Years War. The historical accuracy and Kubrick's attention to detail is one of the things that make this such an amazing movie. The narration provides the viewer with background of the setting and conflict. At the same time the battle scenes and scenes of the war are not overly embellished like they tend to be in modern films for stylistic purposes. This is just straight up battle the way it used to be done. Check out this scene of Barry's first taste of battle and you'll see what I mean:



The camera work is straightforward and maybe even stale on purpose. Kubrick doesn't think it's necessary to use tricks like fast editing or shaky camerawork to make the conflict any more intense. Watching it and thinking about what all the participants are going through does the job just fine. He doesn't even show the result of the two battalions reaching each other and engaging in combat, you just hear the sound coming from off screen at the end of the clip. That's the way it was for participants like Redmond and that's the point of view we are seeing the conflict through.

Kubrick is a perfectionist. According to legend it was not uncommon for him to demand hundreds of re-shoots of scenes from his crew and actors in order to pick out the most perfect take afterwards. This conceivable too as the shooting of the movie took about three hundred days. Everything has to be perfect for him. That is why he made sure to double check his facts and make the movie as historically accurate as possible. Prior to working on Barry Lyndon he had planned on making a historical epic about Napoleon Bonaparte so he was able to use much of that research in making this movie set during the Seven Years War.

The Seven Years lasted from 1756 unit 1763. Although the main battleground was Europe there were also battles in North American, West African, and Indian soil leading many historians to label this as the real First World War. The war was born out of national rivalries and a changing of the European balance of power. Longstanding rivals England and France were fighting long before the war officially began in North America over influence and land in parts of what is now the United States and Canada. The main catalyst though was the rise of Prussia under the leadership of Frederick the Great and the fear that it instilled in it's neighbours and rivals of France, Austria, Russia and Sweden. Previously enemies, all of these kingdoms formed an alliance against Prussia while Britain joined the war on the side of Prussia. It was a highly destructive war in which between 900,000 and 1,400,000 people lost their lives and many prominent cities like Prague were laid to ruin. Battles were won and lost on both sides and for a time it looked like the alliance of France, Austria, Russia, and Sweden would win. This is when what is known as the 'Miracle of the House of Brandenburg' happened which was when Russia's Empress Elizabeth died suddenly in 1762 and her pro-Prussian successor Peter III came to power and withdrew his troops from the war. Following this tide shifted and Prussia and Britain won the war within the year. Prussia would continue to rise as a powerful nation and be the founding member of the unified Germany a century later. Meanwhile France, Austria, Sweden and Russia all began to decline in their standing.

So that is the highly compressed background of the Seven Years War which serves as the backdrop for the first part of the movie. As in most large scale wars like this, it was borne out of power politics and run by ambitious men. Redmond was no different than these men of a higher standing. Joining the British Army out of necessity he later abandoned the army but was forced to recruit into the Prussian army when he was found out. Here he climbs the social ladder by gaining the trust and betraying high ranking officials. He becomes a travelling gambler, cheating princes and other European nobles of their money by taking advantage of their greed. Eventually though his own ambition and greed lead him to marry the widow of a nobleman, the Countess of Lyndon, and he acquires the name and noble title of Barry Lyndon. This begins the 2nd part of the movie. The second half consists mainly of Barry's attempt to rise the ranks of nobles and the misfortunes that follow him as he does this. Misfortunes that are entirely his own fault and which he deserves.

The scene in which he seduces the Countess is one of the greatest ever in any movie and you really have watch it, so click on it now:



This is such a great scene. It shows that one of the strong points of the movie is really it's cinematography. Kubrick insisted that as much of the movie as possible be shot with natural light so as to resemble a scene from the era as closely as possible. While he had to use electric light in some circumstances he still sought to achieve the look seen in the paintings of the era. However a painting is one thing, photography is completely different. It's very difficult for example to shoot night scenes without electric light. Kubrick insisted that the night scenes had to be shot with only candle light though and in the previous scene at the gambling table shows how much that decision paid off as it was a beautiful shot. This is where his technical genius was put to use. In order to shoot in the candle light Kubrick attained some super-fast 50mm camera lens with a focal ratio of 0.70 which were developed for NASA to use specifically to record the moon landings. The aperture of the lens (the hole which the light travels through) was and still is the largest in the history of film. I'm not quite clear on the technical details but basically I understand that it allowed for a sharper picture in low light scenes whereas normally the image would be blurred. Now I'm sure that obtaining these lens were not very easy and just stresses how much of a perfectionist Kubrick really was.

All of his hard work paid off. The whole movie is an incredibly accurate and realistic portrayal of life in the eighteenth century. By watching the movie you don't just get a feeling of entertainment or joy from the aesthetic beauty, but you feel enriched from learning more about a time long ago that you might have not known anything about before. It's a movie for people interested in both film and history and that's why it's one of my personal favourites.

For being such a beautiful, innovative and accurate portrayal of life in the eighteenth century, Barry Lyndon is in my opinion the 3rd greatest movie of the 1970s.