A Few Words About A few words about...™ Once Upon a Time in America - Extended Director's Cut -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[The Drifter]

I know this is an old thread, but I didn't want to start a new one to discuss OUATIM - and this one seems like it's gotten the most responses. I just recently saw the extended director's cut for the first time, and am extremely impressed by this film. My only other viewing was the old DVD back in the 200X's, and for some reason the film didn't make an huge impression on me ATT - nor do I remember much about this initial viewing.

Conversely - this 4-hour extended cut was superb. Very epic in scope, and the film seamlessly blended the 1918, 1930/1933, and 1968 sequences together without being forced. The film was obviously extremely expensive to make, and the cars/clothing/hair-styles/set-pieces from all three eras seemed very authentic & well-done.

I did like the "added scenes", and I'm glad they were added back into the film - even though the PQ was not nearly as good as the rest of the footage. I especially liked the extended/deleted?! 1968 scenes when an older Noodles (DeNiro) went to the gravestones & saw the plots of his three friends, and then had the conversation with the cemetery employee (Louise Fletcher).

Despite the film's 4-hour length, IMHO it never dragged. I found it compelling from start to finish.

I haven't seen all of Sergio Leone's other films & am going out on a limb by saying this - but, IMHO this is his best film. I doubt that opinion will change if/when I see the rest of his movies, either.

 

[The Drifter]

Part 2 (didn't want to make my last post too long):

I was initially confused by the "present day" 1968 scenes (especially the ending sequences), when Noodles came back to NYC as an older man due to getting a cryptic letter; and then later met his old friend Max Bercovicz (James Woods) - whom he believed had been killed years earlier. Max was now a big-shot politician who was under investigation for corruption, etc. However, overall these future scenes didn't seem to make much sense - given that:

Spoiler: SPOILER

1) It seemed clear that Max, Patsy, and "Cockeye" had been killed in 1933, after Noodles told the authorities about the "job" they were planning - with the thought that this would save their lives because they would get captured instead of killed (though the opposite happened).

However, in the 1968 sequence when Noodles met Max in his office (during the big party at his house), Max told Noodles that he had faked his own death, with the help of the authorities, etc. However - if he had faked his death (unlikely), he would have skipped town & kept a low profile for the rest of his life. He wouldn't have stayed in the same general area & become a well-known politician that many would have immediately recognized (for one thing, his picture would have frequently been in the paper, etc.) - ridiculous.

Going along with this, Max is portrayed as being borderline-unhinged & vicious. And, I don't believe that this character had the foresight/skills/planning that would have been needed to fake his own death. I believe that what seemed to happen in the film re: their deaths did actually occur: I.e., Max, Patsy, and Cockeye planned the crime; it back-fired due to Noodles' alerting the authorities; and all three were killed in the ensuing shoot-out. And, the bodies that were seen laid out on the pavement were in actuality the three of them.

2) In the 1968 sequences - why was Deborah (Elizabeth McGovern) not aged to look like she was in her 60's, like the Noodles & Max characters?! All three were all roughly the same age - so she should have had make-up to make her look significantly older - like DeNiro & Woods. However, she didn't look that much older in these 1968 sequences than she had in 1933 - and I know plastic surgery isn't even that great during this era, let alone the 1960's.

Spoiler: SPOILER

So, after doing some research online - some fans of the film believe that all of the "present-day" 1968 sequences were dream-sequences, and these were experienced by Noodles while hallucinating/dreaming in the opium den. What adds credence to this theory was that the final scene of the film shows Noodles (in 1933) in the opium den, smiling & seemingly half-asleep - as if he's hallucinating/dreaming.

And, I do believe this theory & it does make perfect sense in the context of these 1968 sequences. I believe that Noodles felt incredibly guilty that he was responsible for the death of his friends (even though it wasn't intentional), and the idea that at least Max was still alive (in this futuristic fantasy sequence) was a way to cope with his guilt. And, he remembered Deborah as being young & beautiful, and that was how he would always think of her.

Just my .02

In any case, excellent film!

 

[JohnRice]

Part 2 (didn't want to make my last post too long):

I was initially confused by the "present day" 1968 scenes (especially the ending sequences), when Noodles came back to NYC as an older man due to getting a cryptic note(s); and then later met his old friend Max Bercovicz (James Woods) - whom he believed had been killed years earlier. Max was now a big-shot politician who was under investigation for corruption, etc. Overall, these future scenes didn't seem to make much sense, given that:

Spoiler: SPOILER

1) It seemed clear that Max, Patsy, and "Cockeye" had been killed in 1933, after Noodles told the authorities about the "job" they were planning - with the thought that this would save their lives because they would get captured instead of killed (though the opposite happened). However, in this 1968 sequence when Noodles met Max in his office (during the big party at his house), Max told Noodles that he had faked his own death, with the help of the authorities, etc. However - if he had faked his death (unlikely), he would have skipped town & kept a low profile for the rest of his life. He wouldn't have stayed in the same general area & become a well-known politician that many would have immediately recognized (for one thing, his picture would have frequently been in the paper, etc.) - ridiculous.

2) In the 1968 sequences - why was Deborah (Elizabeth McGovern) not aged to look like she was in her 60's, like the Noodles & Max characters?! All three were all roughly the same age - so she should have had make-up to make her look significantly older - like DeNiro & Woods. However, she didn't look that much older in these 1968 sequences than she had in 1933 - and I know plastic surgery isn't even that great during this era, let alone the 1960's.

Spoiler: SPOILER

However, after doing some research online - it seems that some fans of the film believe that all of the "present-day" 1968 sequences were an "opium dream" experienced by Noodles while in the Opium den. What adds credence to this theory was that the final scene of the film shows Noodles (in 1933) in the opium den, smiling & seemingly half-asleep - as if he's dreaming/hallucinating. So, I do believe this theory & it does make perfect sense in the context of these 1968 sequences. I believe that Noodles felt incredibly guilty that he was responsible for the death of his friends (even though it wasn't intentional), and the idea that at least Max was still alive (in this futuristic fantasy sequence) was a way to cope with his guilt. And, he remembered Deborah as being young & beautiful, and that was how he would always think of her.

Just my .02

In any case, excellent film!

Two simple answers.

1) The film is intentionally ambiguous.

2) Deborah actually has aged, if you look. She's just aged a lot better than the guys.

 

[lark144]

Two simple answers.

1) The film is intentionally ambiguous.

2) Deborah actually has aged, if you look. She's just aged a lot better than the guys.

Yes, Deborah most certainly has aged. Beyond the make-up, which is subtle but discernible, you can see it in the way she walks, how she occupies her body differently, how time has affected her, and especially that glance, steely yet ruminative, the slowness and contemplativeness of it when she meets Noodles again, the way her eyes at first refuse to focus, looking out almost as if into a void; the dark past, as well as the unknown future. She's turned into a tragic figure, very different from who she was in the beginning. Elizabeth McGovern makes time stand still, reminding me of Isuzu Yamada wiping away the imaginary bloodstains in THRONE OF BLOOD. It's abstract in a way, as it's movement-based, yet deeply emotional. It's an extraordinary performance.

 

[SD_Brian]

Elizabeth McGovern makes time stand still

If you look at Elizabeth McGovern today, after roughly the same amount of time has passed in reality as OUATIA's time jump, you can see the movie's old age make-up artists were spot-on.

 

[Fozl]

This movie needs a 4K Upgrade this year at it's 40th anniversary !

 

[Lord Dalek]

Disney owns Once Upon a Time in America now. Don't hold your breath.

 

[JPCinema]

Disney owns Once Upon a Time in America now. Don't hold your breath.

How did Disney get the rights to a Warner title?

 

[Lord Dalek]

How did Disney get the rights to a Warner title?

Regency.

 

[JPCinema]

Regency.

I looked at the Regency films list. Are they all with Disney? JFK just got 4K treatment

 

[The Drifter]

Two simple answers.

1) The film is intentionally ambiguous.

2) Deborah actually has aged, if you look. She's just aged a lot better than the guys.

1) I can't see the 1968 sequences being anything other than a dream due to the reasons I've already gone over in my previous post(s). Again, I believe that Noodles felt guilty that he was responsible for the death of his friends, and the idea that at least Max was still alive (in this futuristic fantasy sequence) was a way to cope with his guilt.

Going along with this, the very last scene of the film depicts Noodles (in 1933) smiling & half-asleep, as if he has been hallucinating. IMHO this cements the idea that the previous sequence(s) was a dream.

Going along with this, Max surviving the shoot-out with the authorities & "faking his own death" is ridiculous - especially considering how violent/hot-headed the character was throughout the earlier sequences.

2) I guess it's possible that via make-up strategically placed, possible plastic surgery (not sure how advanced that was in 1968, however), etc. that Deborah could look somewhat younger than the men. And, IRL I have seen women who look younger than their actual age. However, I still believe this was a dream sequence/hallucination.