Archive for the ‘ Reviews ’ Category

The Godfather: Part III (2 of 4)


Eleven years after part II, Coppola finished his Godfather films with the last chapter in Michael Corleone’s life. Nominated for seven Oscars without a win, the third and final installment of the Godfather saga is substantially weaker. For many familiar with the lore of the Godfather films, or simply those with movie-geek friends, you’ve probably heard something like: “Just don’t watch the third one.” I don’t think the third movie is a bad movie, it’s just unnecessary, and really it leaves our character Michael in the same state he was at the end of film two.

In further attempts to legitimize the family business, Michael, now old and gray, makes an incredible donation to a charity he has created in the name of his father The Vito Corleone Foundation. He officially opens the foundation with a generous deposit of $100 million. The money garnered from his life-time of ambitious underworld activities. The casinos and illegal business sold or handed off and his debts paid,  Michael considers himself semi-retired and out of the gangster world.

But his violent past is not easily concealed or forgotten. So when Michael makes a deal with the Vatican. He will eliminate the 700 million dollar deficit in their budget, and in exchange become the leader and large share holder of the Vatican’s eight billion dollar world-wide real estate company, Immobiliare.

Holding back his retirement and retribution from his past is his nephew Vincent (a bastard son of Santino), played by an excellent Andy Garcia. Vincent wants to “preserve the family”, and achieve the power that Vito, his grandfather, once had. In a mix of care, necessity and sadness Michael takes Vincent under his wing as his protegé.

When all of Michael’s old criminal friends are massacred at a dinner, via a helicopter-machine-gun surprise attack (the third film got classier what can I say…) Vincent takes the initiative and “hits back”. On the person responsible, Joey Zasa. As both his uncle and his grandfather did, Vincent begins his rise to power with a murder, a single violent and vengeful murder. The cycle begins again.

Michael, devastated by his past sins, especially what has happened to his family, immediate and extended, finally confesses his wrongs and repents, vowing to redeem himself if the Lord would only give him the chance.

Michael ultimately gives over power as Godfather to his nephew making him Don Vincent Corleone. Under the singular condition that Vincent give up his love and not pursue Michael’s daughter Mary (Yes, his first cousin. Michael thought it was wrong too).

The greatest moment is a close up of Michael. Everything he has done has earned him only death and suffering for his entire family and everyone he loves. Searing, crying and screaming do nothing–he is completely muted.

The problem with Part III is not the acting, or the pace, or the editing, or the lighting, or the landscapes (which are incredible!), or even the inclusion of far more profanity than the other films combined (it was the ’90s). The problem with Part III is it’s mind-numbing over explication. If you understood nothing from the first two films (and you’d best give up movies altogether if you sat through 6 hours of the story and it breezed over you) the third film will explain everything. The characters literally sit and dialogue through their feelings of the last 30 years of their lives. It’s atrocious. It is an absolute horror. These actors who delivered passion and emotion and excellence in two masterfully scripted and directed and cast pieces of cinematic history are forced to patronize the viewers.

This is the epitome of my frustration and it is a trend becoming more common in Hollywood today. I end here with a small redemption of Part III, by saying that the last half hour of the film does encroach on the same menacing and unpredictable magic that drove the first two films toward their pinnacles. It is the end of a saga and as the end of every film, or film series, we love–it is bittersweet.

Is the third installment in the saga forgivable? Could Sohpia Coppola be any worse? Is Andy Garcia more intimidating than his uncle and grandfather? Comment in the sidebar!

<——    Over and Up



The Godfather: Part II (4 of 4)

“I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart. You broke my heart!” –Michael Corleone

Almost as quickly as The Godfather was recognized as a masterpiece, Paramount wanted more from Coppola. An amazing change of mind on Paramount’s part after much real-life drama with Coppola during the filming of the first movie. Coppola had put so much effort into the first film, that he needed complete control over the sequel. So Paramount gave him that–complete artistic power (and large percentages of the profits). It was the offer he couldn’t refuse, if you will. The result? Part II won even more Oscars than its predecessor bagging six including Best Picture and Best Director, and even challenged a masterpiece in its achievements.

The movie actually tells parallel stories. One, a prequel, the story of Don Vito Corleone’s rise to power upon first coming to America. The other a continuation of Michael’s descent into destruction caused by the organized crime world.

Robert De Niro, who won the Oscar for his supporting role, plays the young Don Vito. The film tracks him quickly from  his boyhood through the birth of his youngest son Michael before trailing off. The two time-lines are inter-cut through specifically identified defining moments in both the father, Vito, and the son, Michael, as they grow their power. Killings and deals are viewed back and forth–an obvious allusion to the similarities in their lives.

As promised to Kay, Michael is attempting to make the family business legitimate. But the five years have passed, in fact it’s been seven, and the “family” is still criminal and driven by violence. Michael’s casinos and hotels are doing well, but the FBI and state governments are tightening their grip. Through an old business connection to his father Michael joins forces with a Jewish hotel and casino/club owner, Roth, in Havana, Cuba.

While dodging assassination attempts and stepping further into the control of even more profitable enterprises, Michael gets caught in an investigation by a federal committee to expose him as the head of the Corleone crime organization. His freedom protected only by the brother of an old Italian gangster formerly employed by his father.

Back home, his family life dwindles quickly as he suffers a betrayal from his older brother Fredo, a divorce from his wife and the loss of a child from an abortion. The movie ends as he keeps his unspoken promise to Fredo and makes the call necessary for his own brother’s murder.

The Godfather: Part II is every bit as good as the first film. Its detail is truly remarkable. Characters that were vivid and fleshed out in The Godfather are real in comparison. The greatest agony of the power gained by Michael and the flashbacks to his father’s early days are cyclical displays of evil. The paths the father and son choose ultimately lead to death, and maybe not physical death. But the death of relationships, of marriages, of brothers, of friendships and of families entirely. The loyalty that Michael and his father so strongly desired is the one thing they can’t gain, even among their own bloodline.

The same praises could be sung of all the technical achievements of the first film. The tone and consistency in the color-schemes, sets and costumes is unsurpassed. There are as many, if not more, memorable scenes as the first film: the New Year’s party in Havana, the lake where Fredo is killed, and the towel-wrapped pistol of Vito’s first merciless assassination and seizing of power all the way through his roof-top disposal of the gun smashed into pieces.

The movie’s greatest mark of accomplishment is that in all that happens, all the twists and betrayals and murders and dysfunctional family dynamics, it never looses sight of its application. Every sculpted scene in this gangster movie landmark is a working illustration towards the absolute and terminal depiction of the loneliness profited from greed. Maybe Matthew 16:26 could have given insight to the Corleone family had their religious spurts been more than a façade. “For what does a man profit, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?”

Which do you think is better, The Godfather or The Godfather: Part II (and why)? Who is the better Don Vito, Brando or De Niro? Which was the better era for organized crime Vito’s or Michael’s? Comment in the sidebar!

<—–Over and Up


The Godfather (4 of 4)

“I’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse.”

Francis Ford Coppola’s 1972 American masterpiece of crime The Godfather is one of the most acclaimed movies of all time. Winner of three Academy Awards including Best Picture  (nominated for 11) and landing at the #2 spot for AFI’s 100 Greatest Movies, this movie is truly an epic above the rest. Staring Marlon Brando, Al Pachino, James Caan, Robert Duvall, and Diane Keaton among others, the cast is an essential who’s who of now notorious gangster movie actors. With exceptional performances come unforgettable scenes and The Godfather is simply full of them.

For those unfamiliar with the story, The Godfather is about an Italian-mob family, the Corleone family, who is struggling to maintain power as the world changes around them. The head of the family is Don Vito Corleone, played by Brando. His sons Sonny (Caan), Fredo (John Cazale) and adopted son Tom (Duvall) are all in the business with their father. Vito’s youngest son, Michael, has just returned from WWII and wants nothing to do with the family “business”–at least initially.

Don Vito Corleone is an old-fashioned man, he is fine dealing with booze, women and gambling, but doesn’t want his crime syndicate to turn to drugs. So, when another Italian-mob family head asks for his political influence to protect a new drug cartel along the east-coast, Don Vito turns him down. In response, the angered Sollozzo, working for the Tattaglia family, puts a hit out for Don Vito.

The failed attempt on his father’s life pushes Michael too far, and as revenge for his father’s attempted murder he insists to his older brothers that killing Sollozzo (along with a crooked police chief) is the only way to ensure his father’s safety. The murderous act officially brings him into the underworld of the Italian mob.

After the killings, Michael is exiled to Italy where he waits two years before returning to his aging father and accepting the role of Don for the Corleone family, promising to make the family business legitimate in five years. Ultimately Michael seizes power back for the family by knocking off every other Italian mob-boss in New York and a casino owner in Vegas.  

The Godfather, by combining an incredibly involved plot and masterful production technique, became the new perfection of cinema. It has story, heart, conflict, relevance and above all family.

My favorite scene is when Michael shoots Sollozzo in the diner. I know what’s going to happen and every time I watch it I’m still tense. It is a perfectly acted scene with coverage most directors can’t imagine getting.

When most people think of gangster films, this movie or at least characters like these are the very first thing anyone thinks of. The irony of the gangster life is perfectly depicted in this film. The gangster is a dynamic and persuasive character, the climax of individualism, yet ultimately he must rely on others (the family or the gang) for his power. What makes the gangster so strong initially, his selfish individualism, always begins his undoing.

Full of memorable and conflicting characters and presented in a style now definitive of the genre, The Godfather is an absolute must see.  But this, although wonderful, is not a movie everyone will love. It’s long and violent and brooding and forces empathy from the viewer onto despicable characters. It is also the best gangster film ever made and arguably one of the best movies in history. So, it’s more than worth trying to stomach for those unsure.

We all know deep down crime doesn’t pay, but doesn’t this family make it look appealing? What’s your favorite Godfather moment or quote? Comment in the sidebar!

<—— Over and Up


The Public Enemy (1 of 4)

Well, I found it. I found a gangster “classic” I didn’t like. Allow me to introduce you to The Public Enemy a 1931 Warner Brother’s movie directed by William A. Wellman (who I will attempt to avoid from here on out). Staring James Cagney, Jean Harlow and Edward Woods it’s too bad none of these could help it.

The Public Enemy is a melodramatic, ham-handed and over-acted snore. Its plot is weak, its purpose completely void and there is no heart. The story is the typical “rough-childhood” experience turned a boy into a criminal (maybe that’s why they call this a classic? It may have started that terrible trend?). But without a moral (besides for the foreword from WB) and without any sympathetic characters the movie becomes laughable and boring.

Tom Powers is a bad boy, not the cool bad-boy attitude that we love our gangsters to have, but that twerpy kind that you just want to backhand constantly. The movie begins in 1909, pre-teen years of Tom, he steals some pocket watches and gets them to his “boss” Putty Nose (What the what kind of name is that anyway?), Putty Nose hires him as a full-time little crook. Cut to 1915 (Yes, exactly 1915. I know because of the big bold numbers flashed across the entire screen this is the most effective way of showing time has passed). Tom Powers is in his late teens (6 years later) but he looks twenty-five. Putty calls in a favor that will make Tom and buddy Matt “big timers!” Oo boy. How exciting. He gives them guns, they blow the job and are forced into hiding.


Years later they work for another guy, Paddy Ryan (who is naming these guys!?). Paddy is a bootlegger and gets them rich. Of course they don’t know what to do with the money and since they are uneducated muscles, and nothing more really, their quick rise to power proves once again that “those who live by the gun die by the gun”. Or something like that. (Matthew 26:52).

See those expression? That is great acting.

When another gangster dies an accidental death, a war breaks out and Paddy’s bootlegging days are over. The first to go must be his muscles. So Tom Powers must die, but don’t worry you’re not involved in him as a character anyway. You’ll just be glad it’s almost over.

Also mixed in is some terrible acting from the cast playing Tom Power’s entire family. His mother and brother are especially horrendous. Even Cagney is nothing spectacular, playing too far into the gangster attitude he turns it into a caricature. And Jean Harlow should have never appeared in movies. Yuck. Reminded me of that Eye of the Beholder Twilight Zone episode…

How is this woman supposed to be the “babe”!?

Avoid this “classic” at all costs. If you’re watching a gangster film from the ’30s spend your time on Scarface, not this diaper of half-brained performance slaughterings. In fact, watch the first five minutes of Tom’s early years and you’ll get a taste for the entire film. Wellman letting these children “act” the way they did, proves his inadequacy as a director, and the fact is only supported by the 78 minutes of excruciating evidence afterward.

The Public Enemy is only avoiding my half-point review score because of Cagney’s influence on gangster performances. Even if future actors had to tone it way down to be taken seriously.

Just one question for anyone reading: does this movie deserve any of the credit it receives? Comment in the sidebar!

<—— Over and Up



On the Waterfront (4 of 4)

Netflix Instant Play spoilers*

In 1954 Elia Kazan, the infamous Hollywood director who turned rat during the McC arthy trials, made On the Waterfront. And there are certainly similarities between Kazan, who named names, and his most successful character Terry Malloy who would also name names. Many film historians think of On the Waterfront as Kazan’s apology (or at least justification) of his testimony in the House of Un-American Activities Committee. Of course supposed Hollywood communists are different from real-life gangsters, but Kazan may not have ever seen that.  Staring Marlon Brando as Terry Malloy, Lee J. Cobb as Johnny Friendly,  Karl Malden as Father Barry and Eva Marie Saint as Edie Doyle, the film won 8 Oscars, including Best Picture, Director, Lead Actor and Actress, and Cinematography (Black and White). It was a new form of dramatized social commentary in the depiction of organized crime, and changed movies forever.

On the Waterfront tells the story of the overturning of a mob-controlled  labor union where the waterfront dock workers are getting scraps for hard work while the boss, Johnny Friendly, uses violence and his power as supervisor to steal the earnings of his union employees. And for a while, things are going well for Friendly. He’s living it up with all the money and power he could want.

But when Friendly tricks Malloy, his favorite young kid on the dock, into assisting in the murder of local dock-boy Joey Doyle he learns that he has gone too far, and that Terry Malloy has a conscience with an unbreakable will. A two direction storyline also invests in a priest Father Barry, who comes along side Eva Marie Saint’s character Edie Doyle to help her find her brother Joey’s killer.

Father Barry becomes the fire under the union. He holds a meeting at the church to challenge the dock workers to expose their mob-boss Friendly as the killer. But Friendly shows how truly shameful he can be as he sends his goons to raid the church with led-pipes and wooden clubs.

Father Barry takes things to the police and convinces one brave dock-worker to testify in trial against Friendly. The next day Friendly arranges for him to be killed in a loading accident. And just when it seems all hope of overcoming the mob is lost, Father Barry releases a speech, that I think I will say is one of the greatest Christian moments in movie history. I’m calling it the “Crucifixion Speech.”

Terry Malloy, the uneducated amateur boxer and all around tough-guy, is moved. Absolutely shaken to the core by the public divulgence of the evil on the waterfront. Malloy is pressured from both sides as he slowly begins to see the evil of his long time boss and the good of Father Barry.

Friendly makes a mistake by asking Terry’s brother Charley to either “talk some sense into the boy” or kill him. Charley picks him up with all intention to do as Friendly said, but Terry shames him into staying his hand with one of cinema’s most famous speeches ending with: “You don’t understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let’s face it. It was you, Charley.” Once you see the movie you will always be able to hear Brando delivering these lines.

But Charley’s disobedience angers Friendly, and Charley winds up murdered as well. In a crazy-faced only Marlon Brando could ever pull-it-off rage Terry grabs a pistol and heads to the bar to avenge his brother. Father Barry is there to stop him and convince him to confess his involvement in Joey’s murder and indict Friendly as the killer he is.

After the trial, Terry can’t get work on the docks. And being the strong-willed (and now principled) man he is, he marches straight to Friendly’s front door and demands a confrontation. Then things get climactic as the union workers and the mafia stand face to face on opposing docks as Terry and Friendly box it out.

Saying On the Waterfront is a great film is an understatement. Its 8 Academy Awards are a testament but not a just one. This movie is perfect. The gangster is redeemed through Christian ethics and the powerful conviction of a righteous man. One of the best examples in movies of change and empowerment, and proof there is always hope. It is a beautifully captured, impeccably acted and scripted masterpiece and one of my very favorite films, gangster films or otherwise.

Whose famous speech is better, Father Barry or Terry’s? Is Brando a better gangster here or in The Godfather? Would you have stood up to Friendly? Comment in the sidebar!

<——Over and Up


Scarface (3 of 4)

Netflix Instant Play

My second genre in my study is one of my very favorite. Gangster movies. A brief history before I begin, during the silent era, the gangster film’s growth was seriously stunted by the lack of dialogue. So with the influx of sound there was also a surge of gangster movies. Making this genre an almost exclusively sound age genre. It was simply too difficult to get an audience behind a “bad” character as the hero of the story without being able to hear that persons voice. Once our gangsters could talk they proved to be the most charming baddies imaginable.

1932 presented the world with the fast-talking and ruthless, prohibition gangster Scarface. Scarface or Antonio “Tony” Camonte, played pitch-perfectly by Paul Muni, had a new style of business in the Chicagoland area. And living by a “shoot before they do” mentality he helped his boss Johnny Lovo take over the entire city.

But, quickly his ambitious and violent methods draw attention from the police and his showmanship and brazen (or mindless) courage draw attention from Lovo’s girlfriend Poppy. Tony also has his severe, controlling hand in the life of his younger sister, Francesca. ‘Cesca is 18 years old, in love with Tony’s best friend Guino and completely unaware of her own immaturity.

All three stories come barreling into one another in a terrible night of violence and dancing. After Tony kills Guino in anger over his sister, she betrays him to the cops and heads to his apartment to kill him herself. ‘Cesca’s love for her brother stays her hand and she and Tony enter into one of the most famous standoff shootouts in movie history as they hunker down in a steel encased apartment to open fire on the streets filled with police below. Finally in a last-ditch escape attempt he is gunned down, dying under the neon sign he worshiped. “The World is Yours” flashes over his bullet ridden body as the movie ends.

This is the gangster movie that drew attention to the gangster movies. It opens, as many older films did, with a statement to the audience, saying clearly that the movie is an indictment of gang rule and a challenge of sorts to the audience to do something about it since “the government is your government”. What became of this warning, eventually, was the Hays Office for Censorship and the beginning of strict rules enforced on Hollywood’s gangsters. They were not to be glorified and made into heroes, they should be condemned!

But then a problem arose. See, the gangsters were charming. We liked them. We liked them shooting each other, and robbing banks, and smuggling drugs and alcohol, and especially we liked them doing all of it with cool “wise-guy” attitudes and loads of class. Sure he was a murdering crook, but look at that suit! Nobody cared, they were “just movies”.

But surprisingly censoring the gangsters like Tony out of business, at least until the Hays Office was shutdown actually furthered the progression of the genre. What did Hollywood do when they couldn’t glorify the gangster? Ever heard of a little term called “the bad cop.” We simply put cops undercover and let them do the same things that the gangsters were doing, except because they were technically “good guys” it was acceptable. We still do it today with almost every popular spy and police TV drama. Burn Notice is a good example. Or for purists Internal Affairs (or its remake The Departed) are also good examples.

Scarface is a classic, it defined an era of gangsters and really set the tone for the extreme violence, classy showmanship and subtleties of organized crime films. It also was eight years before the film noir movement (in which hundreds of gangsters films were made) kicked into high gear, meaning it’s style hasn’t been mimicked. There are not many films like Howard Hawks’ Scarface.

Personally, I like the original better than the De Palma’s ’83 remake with Al Pachino. And my reasoning is really quite simple. It’s shorter. 93min vs 170min is a no-brainer for me. Howard Hawks speed in completing the story accentuates the quick-way-up fast-way-out circumstance of Tony. The slow destruction of a bootlegging empire and collapsing of Pachino’s world presented in the ’83 version is simply too slow. Hawks version gives you no time to think, and doesn’t drag on until good actors are giving ham performances. I’d say watch both, but if you only have time for one watch the shorter, older and better time-tested classic. Muni is as cool as Pachino tries to be.

Do you think gangsters make good heroes? Think the remake is better? Think Pachino is a ham? Comment in the side bar!

<——-Over and up.


The Social Network (4 of 4)

David Fincher’s new movie based on Ben Mezrach’s book “The Accidental Billionaires” and adapted for the screen by Aaron Sorkin is maybe the best movie I’ve seen this year. I read an article in the paper where Sorkin said that when you watch a movie that says it’s “based on a true story” you should think of that film as a painting rather than a photograph of what happened. Painting or photograph I’m not entirely sure, but The Social Network is definitely excellent.

Mark Zuckerberg, played by Jessie Eisenberg, and Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) are the creators of a social networking site for Harvard students. In a drunken rage of programming and blogging about fresh ex-girlfriend woes Mark develops the website that will become facebook. His main reason is to compare the girls on campus, he calls it and intends only to make people angry. But when the website overloads and crashes the Harvard network the two friends realize they have something bigger than they anticipated in their hands.

Harvard puts Mark on academic probation for overloading the servers and invading privacy, who is then picked up by the Winklevoss brothers who want him to design a website for them. He agrees but behind their backs he makes a plan with his best friend Eduardo. Quickly they form an agreement, 70% is Mark’s (he did the work) 30% is Eduardo’s (he put up the money for servers and start-up). CEO and CFO best friends and business partners. But when (then) begins expanding to other universities Yale, Columbia, Stanford etc. things change quickly between the friends. And when Eduardo is secretly cut out of his 30% share, a close friendship ends and an enormous 3-way lawsuit for intellectual property begins. Finally ending with the worlds youngest billionaire, the film’s tag-line “You Don’t Get to 500 Million Friends Without Making a Few Enemies” has a resounding force.

The story is emotional, fascinating, invigorating and absolutely non-stop. The opening scene, which I could only describe as a shootout of dialogue between Eisenberg and actress Rooney Mara is worth admission price. My wife and I sat down in the theater and cringed when the hordes of tweens and teens bumbled in to see our movie, spilling popcorn and soda, whooping and howling like they had entered a water park. But after an incredible back-and-forth between two upcoming actors, we knew the theater would quiet down, and it did.

In typical Fincher style the lighting set the tone for his actors to deliver lines with such confidence that it’s hard not to believe them. I finally pieced this together while sitting in The Social Network. The same way I believe Tyler Durden from Fight Club when he says: “It’s only after we’ve lost everything that we’re free to do anything.” I believe him, even though I know that’s insanity. It’s the lighting. It’s that serious and consistent yellow grain light that fills the screen with this attitude. It’s why Eduardo can say lines like “I like standing next to you, Sean. It makes me look tough.” And everyone in the theater thinks it sounds so cool! Fincher works actors and shows confidence at such perfectly timed moments, that what he delivers in the end is masterful directing. And that’s not to take credit form Garfield’s acting.

Because before I get to what I think the movie means, I want to say that the cast is stupendous. Eisenberg, who I disliked in The Squid and the Whale, started to like in Zombieland, and now think is the best actor his age in Hollywood steals the show. Andrew Garfield, who has been incredible in everything I’ve seen him in (watch Boy-A there’s a good movie) performs like I expected. And even Justin Timberlake is, well he’s bearable, good at moments and unconvincing at others. Maybe having a pop-star play the creator of Napster wasn’t a good idea, it takes me out of the story for sure. But otherwise flawless casting.

I think this movie is good not only for its pacing and acting, but because I think it’s true of people. Even if the film isn’t 100% accurate as the real Zuckerberg has said, I think it says something about money and people and especially friendship. The movie presents Eduardo as Mark’s only friend, that is until Mark becomes infamous. Eduardo who is the plaintiff in one of the lawsuits is actually the better friend. Mark sold his friend for an idea that made him the youngest billionaire in the world. And it has to make you wonder, do you have friends worth a billion dollars?

Facebook, the real facebook, has become the most popular website on the internet. It’s a free service worth 25 billion smackeroonies, but it’s also been the butcher of our culture’s view of friendship. There’s a great moment when Eduardo fights with his girlfriend because his relationship status on the website says single. He confesses to her that he doesn’t even know how to change it, and it’s embarrassing as the CFO to not know how to change it. And it’s silly and the audience laughs, but we are right there. There’s a YouTube video floating around about facebook saying that 1 in 3 women between 18-26 check facebook before they do anything else in the morning.

My generation, is a generation of technology and blogging and YouTube and Facebook and Twitter and on and on, so how do we stay friends in the middle of all of it? It’s hard for me to compress it into a blog post/movie review, so I’ll say watch the film and just feel it. How many of your “facebook friends” are friends? Or are you no better than Zuckerberg, cause they’re just there for notoriety?

My #1 scene (courtesy IMDB):

Facebook Lawyer: Mr. Zuckerberg, do I have your full attention?
Mark Zuckerberg: [stares out the window] No.
Facebook Lawyer: Do you think I deserve it?
Mark Zuckerberg: [looks at the lawyer] What?
Facebook Lawyer: Do you think I deserve your full attention?
Mark Zuckerberg: I had to swear an oath before we began this deposition, and I don’t want to perjure myself, so I have a legal obligation to say no.
Facebook Lawyer: Okay – no. You don’t think I deserve your attention.
Mark Zuckerberg: I think if your clients want to sit on my shoulders and call themselves tall, they have the right to give it a try – but there’s no requirement that I enjoy sitting here listening to people lie. You have part of my attention – you have the minimum amount. The rest of my attention is back at the offices of Facebook, where my colleagues and I are doing things that no one in this room, including and especially your clients, are intellectually or creatively capable of doing.
Mark Zuckerberg: Did I adequately answer your condescending question?