|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on May 17, 2018 1:30:06 GMT
Brando didn't feel real loyalty to his brother. . . Well, I think it's a lot more complicated than that, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.  Complicated? Brando spelled it out. |
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on May 17, 2018 2:12:10 GMT
Complicated? Brando spelled it out. He spelled it out in the process of struggling through his internal conflicts - and even then, it took another third of the film for him to resolve the issues. That's not the same as it being a result from the beginning, or the middle. Resolving internal conflicts is a process, a process that drives the plot. If Brando were over his conflicts between his brother and Edie from the beginning, there wouldn't have been a plot to follow at all. Sure |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on May 17, 2018 2:29:15 GMT
I dont remember Michael showing any conflicted feelings at all. Much of the first film has him reacting to the various situations that unfold around him.
He wants to protect his father etc. but the story is really about his slow transformation into a monster. His destiny.
The second part is just the closing of the deal-I don't think any internal conflict he may have drives the story at all.
When Kate shows up at the door in Part 2 he closes the door on her without a second thought.
He's upset Fredo betrayed him but I dont see him as conflicted. He seemed pretty determined to kill him once the mother was gone.
Where's the ambivalence?
I think Nicholson in Bridge on the River Kwai is not ambivalent for most of the movie--only in the last moments does he realize his obsessive focus on the bridge has created a conflict with his duties as a soldier to the cause.
Taylor in Planet of the Apes is an interesting character for his changing perceptions.
He starts off misanthropic, cynical (or claims to be, I think it was a mask for his own arrogant sense of self-importance). Once he is taken by the apes and humiliated he becomes a human defender, and then when they find the archaeological site he becomes arrogant in his belief that humans or human-like creatures were on the planet first, and they were better than the apes.
But in the end his arrogance is rudely rewarded. It is quite a character arc!
|
|
|
|
Post by spiderwort on May 17, 2018 13:28:06 GMT
PR, I really need to see these films again before I can make intelligent comments about the subject. But I appreciate your thoughts and posts. You and bravomailer will have to forgive me for not being able to do my due diligence with these titles. It's been a long, long time since I've seen them, especially BRIDGE and PLANET. Even THE GODFATHER - OMG, it's been 46 years! Unbelievable!!
EDITED TO ADD: Just wanted to comment a bit more on Kazan's ability to create conflict, especially inner conflict. He had a lot to say about that. He said that in the "bad" character he always tried to find the good, and in the "good" character he always tried to find the "bad," because with the exception of psychopaths all people are both in different circumstances, and then he would exploit that when directing.
But his favorite tool for creating conflict, especially inner conflict, was ambivalence (hence my thread topic) - a character undecided, torn between wanting two things simultaneously. And what a great tool that is! It's something I've always gravitated toward and used in my work (and, regrettably, felt too often in my own life).
|
|
