Kiss the Godfather, Part ll

 I am a fan of Ashley Judd, but that is not why I watched "Kiss the Girls" on DVD.  I have a sizeable DVD collection, because these were a necessity when working on ships.  The crew office had at least four DVD players broadcasting movies 24/7 on crew  television.  Movies are quintessential escapism.  Sometimes they become art.  When thought of in conjunction with American television, movies and TV were a core part of American culture.  Television helped provide a main stream and unified the country.  That was when television was good and honest.  That no longer is the case.  Things have taken an ugly turn, and most of our virtuous, original, and prosperous inventions have been murdered and exploited.  It began with "Reality TV," which was not having to pay "talent."  This is when the scope of television was desiccated.  Rather than paying homage to minstrelsy, vaudeville, or Broadway, Reality TV was just cheap, easy, insipid entertainment.  Good programming did persevere for a while, but Covid hammered a few more nails in the coffin of television.  This film with Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman, "Kiss the Girls," is a good example of how technique can undermine art.  I also watched "The Godfather, Part ll" and was disappointed.  After watching Part I, which is a pinnacle film making, technique undermined what could have been art.  What is technique?  Technique is more than natural talent, which could be an actor who is believable and likeable but plays himself.  Technique is a disciplined study of the craft of what you are attempting to do.  Method acting is one example.  Preparation is necessary.  What technique was lacking in both of these Hollywood movies?  In "The Godfather, Part ll," the answer is sound.  Only after you hear a beautifully mixed film replete with an orchestral score, Foley sound effects, and savvy oration from its actors, will you notice this absence.  The sound of actors' voices is a major part of their appeal, and it is this oration America has forgotten.  Sound in general is forgotten, because we are accustomed to hearing sound bytes in ear buds from a smart phone.  Real sound, something America has forsaken, is what created the music industry.  You must understand what real sound is, and scant few will have this opportunity.  Our closest second is the local rock concert, which is a meager substitute.  The concert halls of Europe are sound's best example, and they value music and support their artists.  The settings filmed in a movie, locations chosen for specific reasons, are beneficial.  Quintessentially being in another place is escapism.  Seeing the Alps, Caribbean, or the beautiful historical architecture of Italy in a film could be enough.  In combination with other technique, such as costuming, lighting, sound, and acting film easily can become art.  It's a bit like opera on celluloid and on location.  Sound is more important than we think, because the dialogue needs to be heard, easily.  Quality sound recordists should have their roots in old time radio, which proves sound alone can tell a story.  It is sound that falls short in G.F. Part ll.  If you have Marlon Brando, who understands these things, most of your work all ready is done.  You just need to record it.  America has seen periods of productivity and artistry, when all is necessary is to point a camera and shoot.  Art mimics life?  Perhaps when the talent is the root of a production, things fall into place.  In other cases when the shoot doesn't flow, quality technique is required.  The sonorous mellifluosness of actors' voices is absent in "The Godfather, Part ll."  There is ambient sound (crowd noise) and talking in diverse locations, so establishing an aural concept was difficult.  Today sound is an afterthought.  To see a handheld digital camera pointed at a news commentator in a professional network studio is a disservice.  No wonder news today is a shadow of itself, because production is minimal.  It's like it doesn't matter, and we all know what is coming out of the mouths of our evening news anchors.  A little sugar would be nice.  I finally figured out why television commercials fall short.  It is because they are base and unimaginative.  Not only does the concept of talking over music trying to show you a product not work, neither the dialog or the product are noteworthy.  Last night for the first time I saw a common television commercial for a local law firm, but it wasn't the same.  It was the same dialogue, but there were fresh graphics and an attempt to be hip.  It dawned on me.  If the commercial is blase and ineffective, wouldn't the law firm be the same?  That is the example it sets.  If the commercial used novel, unusual, or provocative techniques, then the technique itself might reach the viewer.  Isn't this advertising?  There has to be something more than a message or talent.  It takes technique.