Blu-ray

[dave jenkins]

My point is just that IF the dream theory is correct, that wouldn't be treating the audience like chumps, nor would it mean that the themes of the 1968 scenes are lost.  I would argue in fact that all these themes are strengthened by the fact that it's a dream

Couldn't disagree with you more. Bailey in 1968 offers Noodles a chance for revenge. Noodles doesn't take it. There is a huge moral difference between "dreaming" a temptation (and dreaming its avoidance) and actually experiencing the temptation and then choosing to avoid it. A man cannot be held responsible for what he dreams. Neither can what he dreams be anything to his credit. Jurisprudence limits itself to the deeds (or sometime lack of same) of waking life. When Noodles refuses to kill Bailey, he is commiting a moral act. If he is only doing that in a dream state, he is at best (and even this isn't certain, human thought in dream states is unreliable) signalling an intention to commit a moral act. But an intention is not a deed. Ask any jurist.

[drinkanddestroy]

Couldn't disagree with you more. Bailey in 1968 offers Noodles a chance for revenge. Noodles doesn't take it. There is a huge moral difference between "dreaming" a temptation (and dreaming its avoidance) and actually experiencing the temptation and then choosing to avoid it. A man cannot be held responsible for what he dreams. Neither can what he dreams be anything to his credit. Jurisprudence limits itself to the deeds (or sometime lack of same) of waking life. When Noodles refuses to kill Bailey, he is commiting a moral act. If he is only doing that in a dream state, he is at best (and even this isn't certain, human thought in dream states is unreliable) signalling an intention to commit a moral act. But an intention is not a deed. Ask any jurist.

You seem to think that redemption is a major theme of the movie; that the big moment is when Noodles's refuses to kill Bailey, and now he's redeemed himself. I really don't think that moment is as significant as you are making it out to be; I never thought that redemption is a major theme of the movie. It's much more about time, dreams, and mixing fantasy with reality. I don't think we're supposed to walk out of the theater saying "Yay, Noodles redeemed himself!" (Maybe if this was a Scorcese movie  )

[nat]

It's funny that you call Noodles refusal to shoot Mr Bailey an act of redemption (whether you consider it to be a major or minor or even non-existent theme). I always thought it was about the general themes of time and memories. Noodles consciously refuses to accept the new reality he confronts in his old age, the prefers to remain living in the 'reality' he has been morosely living with for decades. There is a conscious dissonance. That is why he constantly refers to him as Mr Bailey and refuses to address him as Max. That's why he leaves and refuses to delve into the details of the past few decades since Noodles self-imposed exile. It's not an act of redemption-it is refusing to drag himself out of the past he has become used to and has become his reality.

[drinkanddestroy]

It's funny that you call Noodles refusal to shoot Mr Bailey an act of redemption (whether you consider it to be a major or minor or even non-existent theme). I always thought it was about the general themes of time and memories. Noodles consciously refuses to accept the new reality he confronts in his old age, the prefers to remain living in the 'reality' he has been morosely living with for decades. There is a conscious dissonance. That is why he constantly refers to him as Mr Bailey and refuses to address him as Max. That's why he leaves and refuses to delve into the details of the past few decades since Noodles self-imposed exile. It's not an act of redemption-it is refusing to drag himself out of the past he has become used to and has become his reality.

I don't really think it's about "redemption." My use of that word was in response to dj's comment, which seems to indicate a belief that this action by Noodles -- actually his non-action -- is an act of redemption (though dj didn't use that term, that seemed to me to be what he was referring to). But as I stated in my previous post, I don't think the movie is about redemption.

on a separate note, RE: the issue of Noodles refusing to acknowledge Max, but insisting on calling him "Mr. Bailey" or "Mr. Secretary":
do you think that this effect was somewhat ruined by his later comment that (paraphrasing) " people used to come to us, lovers, business partners. Some of the jobs we did took, and some we didn't take. Yours is a job we never would have touched." Sometimes I've wondered if this bit of dialogue was ill-advised, cuz even though he refuses acknowledge Max but insists on calling him "Bailey," once he talks about how "people used to come to us," he is basically talking about their old days together and admitting that yes, this is his old buddy Max. I don't really see what purpose that bit of dialogue serves anyway; all it seems to do is to possibly ruin the whole effect of Noodles's refusal to acknowledge Max. is there something I am completely missing here?

[nat]

I take your point but I thought when he said 'us' he was not referring to the man standing in front of him, but rather to the gang of old that used to exist decades ago. It seems to me that when he used the word 'us/we' he was excluding the man standing in front of him. It is consistent with what I said in my last post. It is as if to say who are you? You have no connection at all to 'us', the gang that now only exists in his melancholy memories. We (including Max of 1933) would never have taken such a job. As if to say 'you are not one of us'. It is an insult, and at the same time a conscious refusal to accept the reality, feeling more comfortable wallowing in his depressing memories.

[Senza]

I'm not sure if this been posted here but does anyone know about this release of the 250 minute restoration - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Once-Upon-Time-America-volta/dp/B009HX6PH8 ?

[drinkanddestroy]

I'm not sure if this been posted here but does anyone know about this release of the 250 minute restoration - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Once-Upon-Time-America-volta/dp/B009HX6PH8 ?

That's the restored version shown at the last Cannes festival. For more info,  delve into these 40 pages of discussion http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=1302.0  actually, you can skip the first 100 posts on that page; the important stuff starts with Post #101 on page 7 http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=1302.msg146273#msg146273 (the first 100 posts are speculation, post #101 starts talking about the actual restoration)

In a nutshell: Leone very reluctantly had to remove 45-50 minutes of  material  from OUATIA because the movie was way too long. The 3:49 version we have now is missing the 45-50 minutes of footage that Leone believed was "significant," but he had to cut it cuz it wa sway too long.


A couple of years ago, a restoration was undertaken (arranged by Martin Scorcese and the Leone children, performed by Cinematographa di Bologna, funded by Gucci and the Film Foundation) to restore about 20-25 minutes of the 45-50 minutes of missing footage. The new 250 min. version was shown at Cannes last year and screened several places in Europe, but those restored scenes are of very poor quality. They released the blu ray in Italy but apparently it's not very good quality.

It's not clear why they only restored 20-25 minutes; there is hope that one day they may restore the rest of it. But for now, they have this version of the movie that's approx. 250 minutes long, but the new scenes are of noticeably poorer quality; it has been released in Italy but not in USA, though the restored scenes are available on Youtube I believe.

We are hoping that eventually they will be able to restore all 45-50 minutes in good quality, but who knows.

If you want to know what's in the missing 45-50 minutes, it is listed here http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=1302.msg146469#msg146469
You can find the script including those missing scenes in the Links and Downloads section of this site http://msb247.awardspace.com/

That's basically it; for more info, start delving into the 40 pages  of that thread. It'll have all you need to know (and a lot that you don't need to know   )

[Senza]

Well I live in Australia, and the blu ray region here is B so I guess that won't be a problem.

@ drinkanddestroy, thanks for the links, I just read through all of that, it's a shame that it hasn't been released anywhere other than Italy. I've actually seen the 250 minute restoration, and whilst I loved the restored footage, I hated the piss poor quality of it [especially the scene with Noodles and the Louise Fletcher character]. Like I said before with Leone's other restored movies, the new scenes only added something to the movie, and it never dragged. I actually didn't read the parts related to STDWD, seeing as how I want to read the OUATIA chapter for myself [I'm now up to the FOD chapter].

[Senza]

Awesome interview, thanks!