如题所述
第1个回答 2008-10-30
事实上，《美国往事》是一个关于超越性的男性情谊的影片，同时也是一个令人心碎的爱情故事。
一个粗汉，但柔情侠骨，心细如丝。在他残暴、粗野的黑帮生涯事，他的心中始终保持着一处圣坛、一块净土。
黛布拉始终是他心上的女神，纯洁的恋人，而洗衣女佩姬则是他发泄青春期骚动欲望与好奇的对象。
麦克斯和努得尔斯一样深深地为黛布拉所吸引，但在努得尔斯和麦克斯之间，并不存在着任何真正的竞争，更不必说公平竞争。因为对努得尔斯的情感，麦克斯和所有的人都洞若观火；而对麦克斯的隐情，努得尔斯和其他人却近乎一无所知。
对于麦克斯来说，他不仅将努得尔斯对黛布拉的迷恋一览无余，而且他更为深刻地洞察了努得尔斯本人也不甚了了的、他与黛布拉之间不可逾越的鸿沟。它并不显现在现实之中，而是呈现在未来的设计里。除了一份赤诚的爱，努得尔斯不能给野心勃勃的黛布拉提供她所需要的一切，因而他也难于在这幅未来图景中拥有一个真正的位置。麦克斯对这一隐秘的深知，同时也成为他的一份自知。
他比努得尔斯远为清醒地意识到，对于黛布拉说来，一份一往情深的爱和一个坚强有力的怀抱是远远不够的(而且在这种意义上，他显然不是努得尔斯的对手)，如果他不能彻底改变他的现实，他永远不可能真正得到或占有黛布拉。
于是，他并不去着手进行类似“无用功”式的尝试。他所做的一切，只是有效地隔离开努得尔斯和黛布拉就足够了。他隐秘地将黛布拉安置在只有他自己才知道的未来图景中，也只有在这幅未来图景中，黛布拉才具有她真正的价值和意义。
他可以等待，而这正是另一种经典“男子汉”的品格。
在影像的类比结构中，观众可以清楚地意识到麦克斯不断在离间着努得尔斯和黛布拉，但我们和努得尔斯一样，倾向于将麦克斯的动机理解为情深意笃的朋友对异性恋人的忌妒。
在努得尔斯/黛布拉/麦克斯这一微妙的三角关系中，有趣之处在于，黛布拉的情感无疑是倾向于努得尔斯的。
她爱努得尔斯，尽管从一开始就极为无奈而清醒地意识到这爱的无望，一如少女黛布拉的那首情诗：
“我亲爱的，有着水晶般的心灵，有金子般的头发，他永远洁白无瑕，他的眼睛又大又亮，他的身体如象牙一样洁白坚实。然而他永远也成不了我的爱人，他是个穷光蛋，哦，多遗憾！”
但她仍忍不住要倾吐，
“努得尔斯，你是惟一的，我一直……关心的人。我总觉得亲切……”
而对于努得尔斯来说，黛布拉是他心灵中最重要的支点，正像他对黛布拉的倾诉：“(在监狱里)我每天晚上都在想你，没有人能像我一样爱你。你不能理解我是怎样地想念你。我想，黛布拉活着，她在外面活着，她给我活下去的意义。”
但和努得尔斯的另一个不同之处在于，黛布拉远比努得尔斯更为清晰地洞穿了麦克斯的离间和这一行为的真正动机。正是她两次用：“去吧，你妈叫你呢！”回答了麦克斯对努得尔斯不近情理的呼唤。
不仅如此，她对麦克斯的洞悉还在于那是一种同类间的深刻的相互理解与默契。
他们同样野心勃勃，同样出身微贱而不甘居人下，即使成了无冕的黑帮之王或布鲁克林的舞蹈女王，街区的小天地也绝不足以满足他们做人上人的欲望。
在黛布拉一无返顾地前往好莱坞/“太阳城”(在失魂落魄的努得尔斯的视点镜头中，列车窗旁的黛布拉决绝地拉下了窗帘，并不把一线留恋的目光留给故乡)之后，麦克斯花费8000块钱买来一把17世纪教皇的座椅，只为了“我正坐在上面”，正是作为一个阐释符码定义着麦克斯恶性膨胀的欲望。
他和黛布拉与努得尔斯一样，也有着丰富的情感和记忆，墓室大门上菲利普的排箫曲和麦克斯/黛布拉之子的名字：大卫(努得尔斯的名字)似乎成了另一组重要的阐释符码，但他们绝不会为这一切所束缚。
一如美国影评人S.卡明斯基所指出的：在莱昂内的影片中，“家庭生活很渺小，不断被自私的恶人所毁掉。这些恶人不是出于仇恨，而是为一种冰冷无情的利己兴趣所驱使而行动..
在全片最为温情、豪华的场景(组合段22)之后，努得尔斯粗野地强奸了黛布拉。这与其说是男性极力/暴力的行使，不如说更像是一种孱弱而绝望的哀鸣。
正是那种深刻的理解与默契，而不是情感，使黛布拉最终投入了麦克斯的怀抱，而且事实上成了麦克斯罪行的“事后从犯”，以更为残忍的方式参与了、至少是默认了麦克斯对努得尔斯的劫掠、欺骗与叛卖。
麦克斯成了最后的胜利者。
是麦克斯，不是努得尔斯,彻底地实践了美国梦的全部：富甲一方，跻身高位，并拥有了少年、青年时代可望而不可即的姑娘。
然而，导演莱昂内显然不曾认同于实践了美国梦的成功者：麦克斯和黛布拉。一如努得尔斯是片中人物化的叙事人，是影片的空间视觉结构与叙事结构的中心，他也是莱昂内的认同点。
于是，在影片的结局中，莱昂内设置了两个重要的场景，以呈现35年之后——1968年，努得尔斯与黛布拉、麦克斯的重逢。
第25组合段的最后一个镜头，是摄影机缓缓推成贝里慈善院奠基留影上黛布拉的特写镜头，伴着忧伤的音乐，镜头叠化为剧院化妆室内、镜中的黛布拉。
与贫穷、衰老、孑然一身的卡萝形成对照的是，豪华剧院的化妆间、名剧《埃及艳后》的巨幅招贴、室内的无数鲜花所包围着的黛布拉。
但有趣之处在于，在这一特定场景中，刚刚结束演出的黛布拉，头上戴着假发、脸上涂着厚厚的油彩。在整个段落中，她一直在卸装，但始终未能完成。
于是，黛布拉浓重的化妆犹如一张假面，遮蔽起她真实的情感，并如同一个标示符号，喻示着她试图继续掩藏的、沉没于35年岁月中的真相。
而一个与之对应的重要的修辞手段，是此段落中镜中像/谎言与镜外像/真实间的交替使用。在黛布拉不无伤感的镜中像之后，努得尔斯出现在这一镜中的、双人中景里，这对少年时代的恋人在“镜中”相逢，他们并没有四目相向，相反他们只是在镜中彼此凝视。
尽管这是努得尔斯揭秘之行的起点，尽管从这里开始，努得尔斯的一生、他的全部记忆与历史将重新估定，但此刻，这幅双人镜中像，只是一次感伤的重逢，只是久远的过去、一次“水中月、镜中花”式的、少年之恋的指称。
此后，在这一段落中，努得尔斯的多为镜外像，岁月书写在他苍老、疲惫的脸上，但他专注、几乎是痛楚地要求答案与真实；
黛布拉的镜头则多呈现为化妆镜中的中景，岁月几乎没有在她脸上留下痕迹，尽管不无温情，但闪烁其词与微妙的疑惧使她失去了应有的雍容。用努得尔斯的话说，她“现在的演技很拙劣”。
终于，当她和麦克斯的儿子来到门外，当努得尔斯的追问已不能再回避，黛布拉被迫艰难地面对真相，摄影机缓缓地以一个180度的摇拍，由镜内而至镜外，由镜中的黛布拉摇至镜外、对镜而坐的黛布拉。此时，也是此段落中惟一的一次，黛布拉对着镜中的努得尔斯，说出了她所能说出的告白：“努得尔斯，我们都老了，多少保留着一些美好的回忆。如果你出席星期六晚上的派对，这一切将荡然无存。那是后门，从那儿出去，一直走，别再回来。我求你，请你……”当黛布拉意识到她已无可回避时，她并没有忏悔或直言，她只是以哀恳和告诫的方式肯定了努得尔斯的猜测。而正是这一段告白，第一次暗示出黛布拉和麦克斯一样，对努得尔斯其人有着深刻的洞察与理解，她深深地懂得：对努得尔斯说来，即将发生的一切比曾经发生过的阴谋更残酷。也正是在这一告白中，第一次，也是惟一一次，黛布拉试图在麦克斯的网罗面前保护努得尔斯，试图阻止麦克斯最后一次实现他“冰冷无情的利己兴趣”但是，当完美的谎言的景片既经撕裂，当返归旧日、探明真相的旅程既经开始，努得尔斯已不可能停下。因此，尽管他的问题“如果我从正门出去，我就会变成石头吗”得到了肯定的回答，他仍毅然打开了前门。答案已昭然若揭：伴着忧伤、凄婉的音乐，台口，站起一个红发的少年，仿佛少年麦克斯的再生，强烈的逆光为他勾勒出了一道眩目的光环，摄影机缓缓地推上去，如同旧日岁月的重现，犹如一个心灵的幻影，同时是对那一切的粉碎。泪水无声地淌过黛布拉的面颊，“他是贝里部长的儿子，叫大卫，和你一样。”大卫的近景镜头缓缓地叠化为长岛贝里宅邸一扇半掩的窗口，窗子半推开来，近景镜头中，露出贝里/麦克斯苍老的面容，他望向画外。第一次，未经任何掩饰与遮蔽，影片出现了麦克斯的视点镜头，并将他指认为一个仍强有力的控制者，一个真正高明的、隐身的恶魔“导演”。
一个粗汉，但柔情侠骨，心细如丝。在他残暴、粗野的黑帮生涯事，他的心中始终保持着一处圣坛、一块净土。
黛布拉始终是他心上的女神，纯洁的恋人，而洗衣女佩姬则是他发泄青春期骚动欲望与好奇的对象。
麦克斯和努得尔斯一样深深地为黛布拉所吸引，但在努得尔斯和麦克斯之间，并不存在着任何真正的竞争，更不必说公平竞争。因为对努得尔斯的情感，麦克斯和所有的人都洞若观火；而对麦克斯的隐情，努得尔斯和其他人却近乎一无所知。
对于麦克斯来说，他不仅将努得尔斯对黛布拉的迷恋一览无余，而且他更为深刻地洞察了努得尔斯本人也不甚了了的、他与黛布拉之间不可逾越的鸿沟。它并不显现在现实之中，而是呈现在未来的设计里。除了一份赤诚的爱，努得尔斯不能给野心勃勃的黛布拉提供她所需要的一切，因而他也难于在这幅未来图景中拥有一个真正的位置。麦克斯对这一隐秘的深知，同时也成为他的一份自知。
他比努得尔斯远为清醒地意识到，对于黛布拉说来，一份一往情深的爱和一个坚强有力的怀抱是远远不够的(而且在这种意义上，他显然不是努得尔斯的对手)，如果他不能彻底改变他的现实，他永远不可能真正得到或占有黛布拉。
于是，他并不去着手进行类似“无用功”式的尝试。他所做的一切，只是有效地隔离开努得尔斯和黛布拉就足够了。他隐秘地将黛布拉安置在只有他自己才知道的未来图景中，也只有在这幅未来图景中，黛布拉才具有她真正的价值和意义。
他可以等待，而这正是另一种经典“男子汉”的品格。
在影像的类比结构中，观众可以清楚地意识到麦克斯不断在离间着努得尔斯和黛布拉，但我们和努得尔斯一样，倾向于将麦克斯的动机理解为情深意笃的朋友对异性恋人的忌妒。
在努得尔斯/黛布拉/麦克斯这一微妙的三角关系中，有趣之处在于，黛布拉的情感无疑是倾向于努得尔斯的。
她爱努得尔斯，尽管从一开始就极为无奈而清醒地意识到这爱的无望，一如少女黛布拉的那首情诗：
“我亲爱的，有着水晶般的心灵，有金子般的头发，他永远洁白无瑕，他的眼睛又大又亮，他的身体如象牙一样洁白坚实。然而他永远也成不了我的爱人，他是个穷光蛋，哦，多遗憾！”
但她仍忍不住要倾吐，
“努得尔斯，你是惟一的，我一直……关心的人。我总觉得亲切……”
而对于努得尔斯来说，黛布拉是他心灵中最重要的支点，正像他对黛布拉的倾诉：“(在监狱里)我每天晚上都在想你，没有人能像我一样爱你。你不能理解我是怎样地想念你。我想，黛布拉活着，她在外面活着，她给我活下去的意义。”
但和努得尔斯的另一个不同之处在于，黛布拉远比努得尔斯更为清晰地洞穿了麦克斯的离间和这一行为的真正动机。正是她两次用：“去吧，你妈叫你呢！”回答了麦克斯对努得尔斯不近情理的呼唤。
不仅如此，她对麦克斯的洞悉还在于那是一种同类间的深刻的相互理解与默契。
他们同样野心勃勃，同样出身微贱而不甘居人下，即使成了无冕的黑帮之王或布鲁克林的舞蹈女王，街区的小天地也绝不足以满足他们做人上人的欲望。
在黛布拉一无返顾地前往好莱坞/“太阳城”(在失魂落魄的努得尔斯的视点镜头中，列车窗旁的黛布拉决绝地拉下了窗帘，并不把一线留恋的目光留给故乡)之后，麦克斯花费8000块钱买来一把17世纪教皇的座椅，只为了“我正坐在上面”，正是作为一个阐释符码定义着麦克斯恶性膨胀的欲望。
他和黛布拉与努得尔斯一样，也有着丰富的情感和记忆，墓室大门上菲利普的排箫曲和麦克斯/黛布拉之子的名字：大卫(努得尔斯的名字)似乎成了另一组重要的阐释符码，但他们绝不会为这一切所束缚。
一如美国影评人S.卡明斯基所指出的：在莱昂内的影片中，“家庭生活很渺小，不断被自私的恶人所毁掉。这些恶人不是出于仇恨，而是为一种冰冷无情的利己兴趣所驱使而行动..
在全片最为温情、豪华的场景(组合段22)之后，努得尔斯粗野地强奸了黛布拉。这与其说是男性极力/暴力的行使，不如说更像是一种孱弱而绝望的哀鸣。
正是那种深刻的理解与默契，而不是情感，使黛布拉最终投入了麦克斯的怀抱，而且事实上成了麦克斯罪行的“事后从犯”，以更为残忍的方式参与了、至少是默认了麦克斯对努得尔斯的劫掠、欺骗与叛卖。
麦克斯成了最后的胜利者。
是麦克斯，不是努得尔斯,彻底地实践了美国梦的全部：富甲一方，跻身高位，并拥有了少年、青年时代可望而不可即的姑娘。
然而，导演莱昂内显然不曾认同于实践了美国梦的成功者：麦克斯和黛布拉。一如努得尔斯是片中人物化的叙事人，是影片的空间视觉结构与叙事结构的中心，他也是莱昂内的认同点。
于是，在影片的结局中，莱昂内设置了两个重要的场景，以呈现35年之后——1968年，努得尔斯与黛布拉、麦克斯的重逢。
第25组合段的最后一个镜头，是摄影机缓缓推成贝里慈善院奠基留影上黛布拉的特写镜头，伴着忧伤的音乐，镜头叠化为剧院化妆室内、镜中的黛布拉。
与贫穷、衰老、孑然一身的卡萝形成对照的是，豪华剧院的化妆间、名剧《埃及艳后》的巨幅招贴、室内的无数鲜花所包围着的黛布拉。
但有趣之处在于，在这一特定场景中，刚刚结束演出的黛布拉，头上戴着假发、脸上涂着厚厚的油彩。在整个段落中，她一直在卸装，但始终未能完成。
于是，黛布拉浓重的化妆犹如一张假面，遮蔽起她真实的情感，并如同一个标示符号，喻示着她试图继续掩藏的、沉没于35年岁月中的真相。
而一个与之对应的重要的修辞手段，是此段落中镜中像/谎言与镜外像/真实间的交替使用。在黛布拉不无伤感的镜中像之后，努得尔斯出现在这一镜中的、双人中景里，这对少年时代的恋人在“镜中”相逢，他们并没有四目相向，相反他们只是在镜中彼此凝视。
尽管这是努得尔斯揭秘之行的起点，尽管从这里开始，努得尔斯的一生、他的全部记忆与历史将重新估定，但此刻，这幅双人镜中像，只是一次感伤的重逢，只是久远的过去、一次“水中月、镜中花”式的、少年之恋的指称。
此后，在这一段落中，努得尔斯的多为镜外像，岁月书写在他苍老、疲惫的脸上，但他专注、几乎是痛楚地要求答案与真实；
黛布拉的镜头则多呈现为化妆镜中的中景，岁月几乎没有在她脸上留下痕迹，尽管不无温情，但闪烁其词与微妙的疑惧使她失去了应有的雍容。用努得尔斯的话说，她“现在的演技很拙劣”。
终于，当她和麦克斯的儿子来到门外，当努得尔斯的追问已不能再回避，黛布拉被迫艰难地面对真相，摄影机缓缓地以一个180度的摇拍，由镜内而至镜外，由镜中的黛布拉摇至镜外、对镜而坐的黛布拉。此时，也是此段落中惟一的一次，黛布拉对着镜中的努得尔斯，说出了她所能说出的告白：“努得尔斯，我们都老了，多少保留着一些美好的回忆。如果你出席星期六晚上的派对，这一切将荡然无存。那是后门，从那儿出去，一直走，别再回来。我求你，请你……”当黛布拉意识到她已无可回避时，她并没有忏悔或直言，她只是以哀恳和告诫的方式肯定了努得尔斯的猜测。而正是这一段告白，第一次暗示出黛布拉和麦克斯一样，对努得尔斯其人有着深刻的洞察与理解，她深深地懂得：对努得尔斯说来，即将发生的一切比曾经发生过的阴谋更残酷。也正是在这一告白中，第一次，也是惟一一次，黛布拉试图在麦克斯的网罗面前保护努得尔斯，试图阻止麦克斯最后一次实现他“冰冷无情的利己兴趣”但是，当完美的谎言的景片既经撕裂，当返归旧日、探明真相的旅程既经开始，努得尔斯已不可能停下。因此，尽管他的问题“如果我从正门出去，我就会变成石头吗”得到了肯定的回答，他仍毅然打开了前门。答案已昭然若揭：伴着忧伤、凄婉的音乐，台口，站起一个红发的少年，仿佛少年麦克斯的再生，强烈的逆光为他勾勒出了一道眩目的光环，摄影机缓缓地推上去，如同旧日岁月的重现，犹如一个心灵的幻影，同时是对那一切的粉碎。泪水无声地淌过黛布拉的面颊，“他是贝里部长的儿子，叫大卫，和你一样。”大卫的近景镜头缓缓地叠化为长岛贝里宅邸一扇半掩的窗口，窗子半推开来，近景镜头中，露出贝里/麦克斯苍老的面容，他望向画外。第一次，未经任何掩饰与遮蔽，影片出现了麦克斯的视点镜头，并将他指认为一个仍强有力的控制者，一个真正高明的、隐身的恶魔“导演”。
第2个回答 2008-10-30
In his long career, spanning from the mid-60s to the mid-80s, italian director Sergio Leone made a total of seven (7) big films, most epic westerns, like "Fistful of Dollars" and "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." "Once Upon a Time in America," his final film before his death, is the culmination of everything he's ever done, so obviously it would be a tad anti-climactic. Featuring the same style, but a more experimental narrative, the film seems to be too ambiguous for its own good. But somehow it holds together, and becomes a masterpiece, and a wonderful little exit piece for the genius Mr. Leone.
"Once Upon a Time in America" is a gangster pic, but hardly the traditional kind. Sure, it embraces all kinds of cliches, like the gangsters looking absolutely fabulous all the time, substituting style for characterization, and featuring paradise discovered and then tragically lost. But Leone turns these cliches into pure brilliance, putting an interesting twist on the almost overdone genre. All of Leone's films steer clear of deep characterization, and instead focus on more grandiose themes, like amorality, betrayal, trust, and greed.
The film takes place in three time settings - 1921, 1933, and 1968 - each placed in non-linear bizarro order. In fact, the first twenty minutes of the film are a series of bizarre little vignettes, seeming to have absolutely no connection other than the fact that they all have gangsters in them. With no narration, we are left to guess what is going on, but we should actually remember exactly what occurs in this introduction, as we will be forced to revisit it in order to figure out this movie, which is structured like a puzzle.
The film takes place in three different time settings: 1921, 1933, and 1968, each visited in bizarro order. There is no underlying plot, but deals with a group of people who live in these times, and are either involved directly or indirectly with the world of organized crime. The film's protagonist is Noodles (Robert DeNiro as an adult, Scott Tiler as a kid), who starts his life of crime back in the days of prohibition.
Noodles grew up in the Lower East Side of Manhattan, which is the jewish section, and was friends with some other kid gangsters, such as Patsy, Cockeye, and Max (Rutsy Jacobs as a kid, but James Woods as an adult). Although being tempted by an attractive young girl named Deborah (Jennifer Connelly - *swoon* - at 13 - *non-swoon* - as a kid, and Elizabeth McGovern as an adult), he still prefers the company of young gangsters, and they are soon part of the whole world of organized crime.
The film also visits the 30s, where Noodles is released from prison after 12 years (he did some nasty stuff as a kid), and starts right up again with the grown-up Patsy, Cockeye, and Max. And throughout the film, we return to the late 60s, where Noodles is an old man, painfully remembering his past, and looking more ravaged and lonely than other older people. DeNiro is at his best in this film when he's old; he nails the look and feel of a man who regrets his entire life, but cannot turn time back.
The film is constructed in a wonderful fashion, unearthing facts as the film moves on. In all his films, the plot unfolds wonderfully, introducing us to things on a need to know basis. We don't know exactly why Noodles is so depressed at his old age until towards the ending, and somehow it's not anti-climactic. Leone is a master story-teller, always carefully plotting his films. The ending of "For a Few Dollars More," for instance, when we find out the true motivation for the Colonel's actions, is interesting, but not a let-down.
But unlike his other films, this has a much different feel. Sure, we get the same kind of style Leone is famous for, which several minutes of no dialogue but pure montage which are engrossing and hypnotic. And most of his characters are amoral, mainly because they can't be anything else. But for the first time, we get some true emotion from a Leone film. We feel sorry for Noodles since he spoils any chance he has to turn his life around. And instead of a simple plot, the story unfolds in an episodic fashion. But luckily, we still get Leone's knack for close-ups, cool shots, and making anyone look cool (even William Forsythe's face is as memorable as that of Henry Fonda in "Once Upon a Time in the West").
Also, Leone adds a lot of depth to the story, as well as some really analytical things. For instance, the film opens and ends in an opium shop, where the 1933 Noodles is getting high, and remembering parts of his life. Perhaps the whole 1968 part is just what he thinks will happen, a reminder that his life is going to be full of misery since he was chosen to live on the opposite side of the law. It makes for a more rewarding film experience.
The music by Leone regular Ennio Morricone is amazing as well. He creates a sad score, filled with beauty and depth. He occasionally adapts some traditional tunes throughout the film, including the Beatles' "Yesterday." Morricone has made one of his best scores for this film.
The acting is also very good. DeNiro, as I said, just looks and feels like a man regretful of what he is. And James Woods is awesome, especially in some of his later scenes. Elizabeth McGovern is actually pretty good, although her younger self played by Jennfier Connelly is better. The big scene stealer award goes to Tuesday Weld, who plays a girl who is raped by Noodles and eventually becomes Max's girlfriend. There are lots of smaller parts for semi-famous and future famous people, like Joe Pesci, "Rocky"'s Burt Young, Treat Williams, William Forsythe, and Danny Aiello.
Leone has always been a fan of long epic films ("The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" and "Once Upon a Time in the West" are both two hours and forty-five minutes long), and this one is barely an exception. Running at a lenghty three hours and forty-five minutes, the film still never drags. Leone always keeps things moving, and is a master of montage. Sure, it's almost four hours long, but you'll never be bored, and you'll be reluctant to turn it off because it is so positively hypnotic (if you still want to see it but don't want to see a four hour gangster film, there is a two hour and fifteen minute theatrical cut, but I have no idea what they cut from it. this film is so elegantly structured that if you took thirty seconds away, the film would fall apart).
"Once Upon a Time in America" is a film which is amazingly narcotic: it's hard to stop. Leone has always had this kind of power over his viewers, and this film, the culmination of his career, is one of this best examples of this. While I still think "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" is a better film, "Once Upon a Time in America" is definitely one of his best, and one hell of a way to go out.本回答被提问者采纳
"Once Upon a Time in America" is a gangster pic, but hardly the traditional kind. Sure, it embraces all kinds of cliches, like the gangsters looking absolutely fabulous all the time, substituting style for characterization, and featuring paradise discovered and then tragically lost. But Leone turns these cliches into pure brilliance, putting an interesting twist on the almost overdone genre. All of Leone's films steer clear of deep characterization, and instead focus on more grandiose themes, like amorality, betrayal, trust, and greed.
The film takes place in three time settings - 1921, 1933, and 1968 - each placed in non-linear bizarro order. In fact, the first twenty minutes of the film are a series of bizarre little vignettes, seeming to have absolutely no connection other than the fact that they all have gangsters in them. With no narration, we are left to guess what is going on, but we should actually remember exactly what occurs in this introduction, as we will be forced to revisit it in order to figure out this movie, which is structured like a puzzle.
The film takes place in three different time settings: 1921, 1933, and 1968, each visited in bizarro order. There is no underlying plot, but deals with a group of people who live in these times, and are either involved directly or indirectly with the world of organized crime. The film's protagonist is Noodles (Robert DeNiro as an adult, Scott Tiler as a kid), who starts his life of crime back in the days of prohibition.
Noodles grew up in the Lower East Side of Manhattan, which is the jewish section, and was friends with some other kid gangsters, such as Patsy, Cockeye, and Max (Rutsy Jacobs as a kid, but James Woods as an adult). Although being tempted by an attractive young girl named Deborah (Jennifer Connelly - *swoon* - at 13 - *non-swoon* - as a kid, and Elizabeth McGovern as an adult), he still prefers the company of young gangsters, and they are soon part of the whole world of organized crime.
The film also visits the 30s, where Noodles is released from prison after 12 years (he did some nasty stuff as a kid), and starts right up again with the grown-up Patsy, Cockeye, and Max. And throughout the film, we return to the late 60s, where Noodles is an old man, painfully remembering his past, and looking more ravaged and lonely than other older people. DeNiro is at his best in this film when he's old; he nails the look and feel of a man who regrets his entire life, but cannot turn time back.
The film is constructed in a wonderful fashion, unearthing facts as the film moves on. In all his films, the plot unfolds wonderfully, introducing us to things on a need to know basis. We don't know exactly why Noodles is so depressed at his old age until towards the ending, and somehow it's not anti-climactic. Leone is a master story-teller, always carefully plotting his films. The ending of "For a Few Dollars More," for instance, when we find out the true motivation for the Colonel's actions, is interesting, but not a let-down.
But unlike his other films, this has a much different feel. Sure, we get the same kind of style Leone is famous for, which several minutes of no dialogue but pure montage which are engrossing and hypnotic. And most of his characters are amoral, mainly because they can't be anything else. But for the first time, we get some true emotion from a Leone film. We feel sorry for Noodles since he spoils any chance he has to turn his life around. And instead of a simple plot, the story unfolds in an episodic fashion. But luckily, we still get Leone's knack for close-ups, cool shots, and making anyone look cool (even William Forsythe's face is as memorable as that of Henry Fonda in "Once Upon a Time in the West").
Also, Leone adds a lot of depth to the story, as well as some really analytical things. For instance, the film opens and ends in an opium shop, where the 1933 Noodles is getting high, and remembering parts of his life. Perhaps the whole 1968 part is just what he thinks will happen, a reminder that his life is going to be full of misery since he was chosen to live on the opposite side of the law. It makes for a more rewarding film experience.
The music by Leone regular Ennio Morricone is amazing as well. He creates a sad score, filled with beauty and depth. He occasionally adapts some traditional tunes throughout the film, including the Beatles' "Yesterday." Morricone has made one of his best scores for this film.
The acting is also very good. DeNiro, as I said, just looks and feels like a man regretful of what he is. And James Woods is awesome, especially in some of his later scenes. Elizabeth McGovern is actually pretty good, although her younger self played by Jennfier Connelly is better. The big scene stealer award goes to Tuesday Weld, who plays a girl who is raped by Noodles and eventually becomes Max's girlfriend. There are lots of smaller parts for semi-famous and future famous people, like Joe Pesci, "Rocky"'s Burt Young, Treat Williams, William Forsythe, and Danny Aiello.
Leone has always been a fan of long epic films ("The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" and "Once Upon a Time in the West" are both two hours and forty-five minutes long), and this one is barely an exception. Running at a lenghty three hours and forty-five minutes, the film still never drags. Leone always keeps things moving, and is a master of montage. Sure, it's almost four hours long, but you'll never be bored, and you'll be reluctant to turn it off because it is so positively hypnotic (if you still want to see it but don't want to see a four hour gangster film, there is a two hour and fifteen minute theatrical cut, but I have no idea what they cut from it. this film is so elegantly structured that if you took thirty seconds away, the film would fall apart).
"Once Upon a Time in America" is a film which is amazingly narcotic: it's hard to stop. Leone has always had this kind of power over his viewers, and this film, the culmination of his career, is one of this best examples of this. While I still think "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" is a better film, "Once Upon a Time in America" is definitely one of his best, and one hell of a way to go out.本回答被提问者采纳
