"The Godfather" discussion: 3/17/02 - 3/23/02

[Morticia]

Click here to see what this is all about.

In brief: this is a thread to discuss the technical and/or thematic merits of The Godfather.

The purpose being to foster intelligent discussion of films without resorting to "It's a piece of crap." or "It's the greatest film ever." (And so that we all can gain a bit of a film education from everyone.)

We'll discuss a new film each week. Either slade or I will post the film in this forum on Thursday, but please refrain from discussing until Sunday so that everyone can have a chance to watch the film before the discussion begins.

If you want to make any comments about this idea, that don't directly pertain to this movie, please make them in the thread linked above.

Thanks everyone. Slade and I are excited and we hope this works (we're open to any ideas of how to make it better).

****SPOILER WARNING**** of course this entire thread is going to be full of spoilers.

[DimWit]

What can be said about this movie? It's the definitative "gangster flick" of all time. It's made stars out of its cast and director; Pacino's first role, shot Duvall into prominence from a character actor, Brando's finest outing in the last 30 years, and became a pop cultural icon/reference point.

One of the biggest strengths, I think, is that the main players in the film are of all Italian descent. Puzo, Coppola, Pacino, Brando. Hell, even the nonItalian in the cast has been voted "Italian of the Year" by the N.Y. Italian Association... TWICE! Caan's declined it of course, but it's a measure of how authentic it was played. There is a feeling of realism in the performances that hadn't been seen up to that time.

Coppola had chosen, wisely, to focus on the personalities, not on the gunplay. Not only did it give you the feeling of authenticity, but it allowed him to create and explore the world in which the characters inhabited. Opening scene... banal wedding sequence, seen one, you've seen it all and then: Don Corleone, being asked a favour. It sets up the society... stringent rules, unwritten, but codified, strictly enforced are in play here. These guys don't f*** around.

Before this moment, all gangster flicks had become clichés. Everyone was doing bad Cagney imitations and dressing like George Raft. After this seminal film, everyone was doing "The Don" imitations. Without this movie, there wouldn't have been a Scorsese or even something like The Sopranos.

That's power.

[DrDetroit]

Originally posted by DimWit
Without this movie, there wouldn't have been a Scorsese...

I can't say I agree with you on that point. Scorsese was already making films by the time Godfather was released. Mean Streets, which was shot probably before The Godfather made it to theatres, was totally original, and far more realistic than The Godfather. And even then, Scorsese hasn't devoted his entire career to studying organized crime, so I wouldn't agree that Scorsese was simply a "byproduct" of The Godfather.

But I agree with your other points. I think that The Godfather and its sequel are absolute perfect movies: stylistically, musically, script-wise, acting-wise, everything. I think it's a totally accessible film, but at the same time it's intensely personal.

[DimWit]

I know that Scorsese and Coppola are contemporaries. But do you think that, as brilliant as Mean Streets is, Hollywood would've allowed Goodfellas without Godfather?
Coppola had an uphill battle to get it made, and I'm sure, numerous instances of helpful advice to make it more "audience friendly" an euphemism in Hollywood speak for "not stupid enough for my comfort level".

After G'fther, the clichés were broken. It could be treated as a serious subject. Not a gangster flick but as true drama.

[Templar]

You know, evaluating The Godfather is kinda like evaluating a chess game between Anton Karpov and Gary Kasparov. I know it's good, but I'm damned if I can understand the intricacies. I'll go rent it this week, but I'm not sure I'm gonna be able to write anything intellegent about it.

[DrDetroit]

Originally posted by DimWit
I know that Scorsese and Coppola are contemporaries. But do you think that, as brilliant as Mean Streets is, Hollywood would've allowed Goodfellas without Godfather?
Coppola had an uphill battle to get it made, and I'm sure, numerous instances of helpful advice to make it more "audience friendly" an euphemism in Hollywood speak for "not stupid enough for my comfort level".

Well, with all due respect, saying there would be no GoodFellas without The Godfather is an entirely different thing from saying there would be no Martin Scorsese.

[vikramas]

Hey guys! I'm new to posting but I love the site and have been surfing it for a while now. Anyway, I thought I might as well use my first post ever to talk about my favorite film, "The Godfather".
here goes nothing......

The Godfather

The opening words of “The Godfather” are “I believe in America”, curious because America here represents justice and freedom, and none of the characters presented in the film are either free or just. However, in the world of organized crime the American dream and its ideals are all that matter; the method of achieving that lifestyle is irrelevant.

We are introduced to this world in a brilliant opening sequence: a wedding. It is Connie Corleone’s wedding day, and there are many, many guests there to celebrate the occasion. What is different about this wedding is the fact that Connie’s father is Don Vito Corleone, mafia head of one of the so-called “Five Families” of New York, and all the wedding guests are all in the grip of his power in one way or another. The Don’s adopted son is Tom Hagen, who also functions as consigliere or law counselor to the Don; a very prestigious position in a family especially for a non-Sicilian. In addition the Don has three native sons: the hot tempered Sonny; the shy, slightly slow Fredo; and the youngest son, Michael, who is a mystery. He is not interested in his family business and has openly defied his father in the past, yet at the same time is most like his father in his ability to be powerful without saying a word.

Perhaps it is the way we are introduced to him, but we know instantly that something great will happen to Michael. Al Pacino gives the best performance of the entire ensemble in Michael, and he does it all with his eyes. He is cool, calm, composed, and it is projected to everyone around him. He shares none of the joviality of his father but has the same confidence, which makes him more chilling to watch. Observe the early scene at the wedding with Michael and Kay. Michael tells Kay a story that illustrates the ruthlessness of his father, and at first she thinks he’s joking. Then she realizes he isn’t. Michael then says “That’s my family, Kay. It’s not me.”, but Kay doesn’t seem to believe him and neither do we; his eyes give him away. For the first time, Kay is scared of Michael, and she doesn’t realize that she will be for the rest of her life.

The lighting of “The Godfather” is probably the best ever done for a film, perhaps with the exception of “Schindler’s List”. Almost everyone in the Cosa Nostra is half-cloaked in shadow, symbolic because of the hidden evil within them. Set design is perfect; we believe it’s the 1940s like we are supposed to. Composition and camerawork are magnificent, especially in the “God’s-eye-view” sequence when the Don is shot and the strategy planning scenes afterwards. A perfect example of how to edit movies is in the baptism sequence; the intercutting of the assassinations with the baptism of Connie’s son is still chilling to this day. All the shots have a purpose and many later shots pay off better because they are set up in the early scenes so well.

Of course, the story and the script are also epic in their scope. Many of the lines of dialogue are ingrained into pop culture (“leave the gun. Take the canoli.”). Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola worked hard to bring the immensely popular novel faithfully to screen and they did it so well that one can hardly read the book without images from the picture popping up in their head (I couldn’t do it). As already noted, the acting of Pacino is remarkable, but only just a bit better than the rest of the cast. Marlon Brando becomes Don Vito; the thick accent, false teeth, and shuffling walk all contribute to his transformation. John Cazale embodies the meek Fredo. James Caan is fiery as Sonny. Coppola’s sister Talia Shire is underrated as Connie. And who could forget the look that Diane Keaton’s Kay gives us in the closing shot of the film?

Its interesting to note that the original title of “The Godfather” was “The American”; the same title was considered for “Citizen Kane”. I still wonder if either Orson Welles or Francis Ford Coppola knew that the were making the two greatest American films of all time.

[DrDetroit]

Originally posted by vikramas
Its interesting to note that the original title of “The Godfather” was “The American”; the same title was considered for “Citizen Kane”.

I was not aware of this piece of information. I thought the original title would have been "The Godfather" because that was the name of the book upon which it was based. Where did you come across this bit of information?

Originally posted by vikramas
I still wonder if either Orson Welles or Francis Ford Coppola knew that the were making the two greatest American films of all time.

Given the immensity of both those fellows' egos, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they did think so.

[vikramas]

DrDetroit: I apologize for not making it clear but I meant the original book title was to be "The American". Also, when the movie began production the novel wasn't nearly as popular as it became so Coppola and Puzo considered this title as a box-office draw. All info is from numerous essays on the book an film.

Agree with you on that last point as well, but I wanted to have a nice concluding sentence

[MrTony]

There are a million fascinating things about this movie, but central to all is the path throughout the movie taken by Michael Corleone, whom many consider to be "the Godfather" referred to in the title.

At the beginning, Michael is the charming, unassuming war hero at the wedding, telling his lady friend Kay the story about when Don Corleone convinced the bandleader to let Johnny Fontane out of his contract:

Michael: "My father made him an offer he couldn't refuse."
Kay: "How'd he do that?"
Michael: "Luca Brasi held a gun to his head, and my father assured him that either his brains or his signature would be on the contract...That's a true story...That's my family, Kay. It's not me."

At this point in time, Michael has nothing to do with the family business, nor does he want to. But he is singing an altogether different tune shortly, after the failed assassination attempt on Don Corleone, which was ordered by the family's newest rival, Virgil Solozzo. Michael goes to the hospital to visit his father and realizes that his life is still in danger. After moving his father to a different hospital room, Michael has a violent run-in with Sgt. McCluskey of the police department, whom Michael correctly guesses is involved in Solozzo's drug ring.

Michael now realizes that not only is the Don still in danger, but the family cannot rely on the police for protection. Michael then proposes to the family's inner circle, including his older brother (and the acting Don) Sonny, that he meet with Sollozzo and McCluskey and kill them both. This is met with amusement and skepticism by the others, because of the risk involved in killing a cop, and the fact that the "civilian" Michael wants to do it himself. Michael justifies the action the following way:

Michael: "Where does it say that you can't kill a cop?...I'm talking about a dishonest cop that's mixed up in drugs. I'm talking about a dishonest cop who got mixed up in the rackets and got what was coming to him...It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business."

Michael is now saying that by being involved in drugs and taking money from a gangster, McCluskey has crossed into their world, and this makes him "fair game." (By the way, this has roots in the actual Cosa Nostra. The "official" rule was that the killing of law enforcement was prohibited, unless they crossed the line and screwed you first.) And if these two must die in order to protect the Don and the family, then so be it. Michael's plan is carried out: he kills Solozzo and McCluskey, and goes "on the lam" in Sicily. (The love story that takes place there merits its own post, so we'll skip it here.)

Years later, Michael pursues Kay again, and the following exchange takes place:

Michael: "I'm working for my father now. He's been sick, very sick."
Kay: "But you're not like him, Michael. I thought you weren't going to become a man like your father. That's what you told me."
Michael: "My father's no different than any other powerful man, any man who's responsible for other people. Like a senator or a president."
Kay: "You know how naive you sound?"
Michael: "Why?"
Kay: "Senators and presidents don't have men killed."
Michael: "Oh, who's being naive now, Kay?"

Michael has now taken his initial words even further: he is saying that the Corleone family's way of business is no different from that of any government or corporation.

Later, Michael and representatives of his family are in Las Vegas. They are looking to get out of the olive oil business and into the hotel and casino business in Nevada. To do this, they must go through a man named Moe Greene:

Michael: "Now Moe Greene will sell us his share of the casino and the hotel so it could be completely owned by the family...I'll make him an offer he can't refuse."

The repeat of the quote from the Johnny Fontane story pretty much says it all. Michael has taken his father's path.

Whew, this was a really long post. I'll have more to say later, but this is plenty for now.

(By the way, all quotes courtesy of filmsite.org.)

[Rogue]

I always enjoy the famous baptism scene. Here we see Pacino become the Godfather in the traditional and 'mafia' sense simultaneously. And I love the irony when the priest asks him 'do you denounce Satan and all his works?". He answers 'yes' but then Coppola cuts to all the murders he ordered (culminating with his own brother-in-law. )

I also find the film facinating because you find yourself rooting for people who in any other circumstance you would find repugnant. I think that's the movie's neatest trick.

[SolidSnakeASS]

posted by DimWit:
I know that Scorsese and Coppola are contemporaries. But do you think that, as brilliant as Mean Streets is, Hollywood would've allowed Goodfellas without Godfather?
Coppola had an uphill battle to get it made, and I'm sure, numerous instances of helpful advice to make it more "audience friendly" an euphemism in Hollywood speak for "not stupid enough for my comfort level".

Saying Goodfellas wouldn't have been made, or that Scorsese's career would have been different, unless the Godfather was made is completely ludicrous. Not only has the gangster genre been around since the first narrative films were being made, but Scorsese had started making films, like Mean Streets, and Taxi Driver, which came out before The Godfather Part II. Taxi Driver was probably just as influential as The Godfather, and many, inlcuding myself, consider it to be a superior film. Goodfellas is nothing like the Godfather either, both are as different as apples and oranges, despite the fact they deal with the mafia. The Godfather somewhat glamourized the mafia, whereas Goodfellas shows a more realistic and less 'operatic' view of that culture. Goodfellas was made because Scorsese is a great filmmakker, not because some exec went "Oh, he wants to make a gangster film? Well the Godfather is good, so let him." That is simply not going to happen.

[Dom]

Like vikramas pointed out, this movie makes you believe it's actually the 1940's. What I found interesting about the technical aspect of this movie is its look - the sepia toned colors, that is.

Not knowing much about film technique, I'd be interested in how this is achieved.
I know older film stock from the first color movies had this look to it (like in some older Westerns, or Wizard of Oz), but I assume today this effect has to be made artificially. There are other modern movies that used this weird coloring, like Se7en for example.

Is this achieved by applying colored lenses, or by a special film developing process?

[flix]

It's real easy to say that this is a wonderful movie - because it is. But let me go out on a limb here on two aspects that always bothered me.

First is the incredible length of the wedding scene. The scene works to introduce characters and situations - each visit to Don Corleone working like its own preamble to some other portion of the story. But for me, it always got carried away and seemed to go on forever. It does what it sets out to do very well - it establishes characters and situations, but after a bit it starts to feel like a one trick pony.

The second area of the film that always kind of grated on me was the Michael in Italy scenes. Again, way too long and in this case it didn't really establish all that much except his marriage. Also, given how out of the family Michael is in the beginning, and notwithstandig the hit he makes, it seems that he transforms in Italy even before the car explosion - his whole attitude changes and not in any linear fashion. Maybe its just his sudden cockiness, I dunno, but it seemed forced and awkward, especially for all the time that it consumes.

[slade]

Dom, I can't answer your question, but I also was intrigued with the use of sepia tones (more on that below). I remember when this first came out on DVD there were a lot of complaints about the picture quality. But, for me, the poor quality just sold me more that it was the 1940s. If it had a crystal clear image I wouldn't have been so sold, I don't think.

The theme that really struck me in this movie was the contrasting worlds that the Corleone family lived in. The opening scene did an excellent job of portraying this. The first words were about "The American Dream" and we are quickly shown how the Corleone's achieve that Dream. It is a dimly light office--with lots of these sepia tones--especially on Don Corleone.

It then cuts to the outdoor wedding, in the bright sunlight, with cheerful music, lots of overlapping dialogue, and bright, full colors. This represents the actual dream. Lots of friends and family enjoying their financial and social "freedom" to celebrate the wedding. (and how dare those cops come and take down license numbers during this celebration).

This separation of the two worlds of "getting" (business) and "enjoying" the dream are continually pronounced throughout the movie.

Frequently, we are shown the big house, the nice cars, and the family around. Several times you hear a baby crying in teh movie--these are people with "traditional" family values. And then, it will yank you from that likable, desirable world into the "business" world and remind you how they got it.

another exmample would be prior to them taking out the body gaurd (forgot his name) to kill him. Outside we see children playing and someone even advises the driver to look out for them as he backs out. They then drive and get canolli. Then kill a guy. "leave the gun, take the canolli" a perfect juxtaposition of these two worlds.

Other exmaples would be the love story in Sicily contrasted with the hell that is happening in New York, the joyous wedding at teh beginning of the movie contrasted with the subsequently abusive marriage, the fine dinners which were not to be used as a time to discuss busines.

The greatest example of this dichotomy (which has been mentioned before) is the montage (did I use that word right?) that occurs duing the baptism scene. Flashing between the serene, scared religious ritual and the bloody, murders of the heads of the other family. And Michael, being able to completely compartmentalize these two aspects of his life as he denounces Satan while having a plot to kill the father of the very child who is being baptized.

The final few seconds of the movie are also a great example of this dichotomy and the denial that these pepole live in so that they can experience teh American Dream. Michael lies to Kay about killing his brother-in-law and Kay, "believes" him so that she can continue her own blind lie about her life. Then the final shot shows her in teh foreground, obviously tormented by her believing this lie while we see Michael in the distance tightly framed in (trapped) by the doorway to the business office, while the others begin to gather around him and ultimately the door is closed on Kay--showing this enormous separation of business and the rest of their life.

I think they use the sepia tones well to demonstrate this as well. It was very interesting to notice who was sepia toned and who was not throughout the movie, and at what times. Don Corleone became less and less sepia toned as the movie progressed, while Michael became more and more sepia toned. Finally Don dies in teh bright sunshine while playing with his grandson--it almost feels redemptive (it's almost as if these characters are redeemed from their evil business practices by their living the American Dream).

The sepia seems to be used in other ways as well, which I haven't quite put a finger on. For example, in the meeting where Sollozzo first asks for Don's help Don is sepia toned while Sollozzo is not. But, when Sollozzo is telling Tom that he needs ot convince his family to go along with him, Sollozzo is sepia toned while Tom is not.

the message I get from all this is, "In what ways do I compartmentalize my life?" Do I justify some "bad" means for their "good" ends?

Great movie! (out of 4)

[mhendu]

Well, lots of people have chimed in with some pretty good posts, so I'll be brief. The film revolves on rituals, such as the wedding, the funeral and the baptism, but it undercuts these rituals with more sinister elements, implying something darker lurking beneath the surface. A common genre of the '50s was the family melodrama, whose major concern was the problem of patriarchal succession, possibly springing from the same Freudian concerns which gave birth to the post-WWII film noir (whose protagonists were often faced with emasculating, powerful women). In these films, there is typically an ailing patriarch who must have a successor to his power, but whose own son is often unsuitable for the position. It often falls on an 'intruder-redeemer,' a man from outside the patriarch's family (or perhaps the not-so-obvious choice within the family), to take on the patriarch's mantle. Examples include "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof," "Written on the Wind" and "The Long, Hot Summer." With its references to the American Dream and the business-like nature of the Cosa Nostra, coupled with its emphasis on family, "The Godfather" suggests that what is true for this family is true for others, that capitalism, which gave rise to the post-WWII prosperity of America and ensured its place as the most powerful country in the world, is also responsible for this criminal underworld based on violence, and that perhaps these two worlds are not as far apart as we might think. That the successor to Don Vito Corleone should be Michael, who by the end of the film lacks the empathy of his father, only underlines the criticism of capitalism. As the even greater sequel comes to a close, business has entirely superceded family as the essential component of Michael's Mafia, and he has lost his humanity.

[MrTony]

One aspect of Vito Corleone that I find fascinating is his ability to judge character. Take, as an example, the meeting of the Five Families, or "The Commission." Up until this point, the Corleones have assumed that Don Tattaglia, through his backing of Sollozzo, was behind the assassination attempt on Vito. Following the meeting, Vito confers with Tom Hagen in the back of the car:

Corleone: "I didn't know till this day that it was Barzini all along."

The first time I watched this, I said, "Huh? How'd he know that?"

The next time I watched the movie, I watched this scene like a hawk. The meeting centers around the proposed trafficking of drugs in NYC. Corleone and Barzini dominate the discussion:

Corleone: "When, when did I ever refuse an accommodation? All of you know me here. When did I ever refuse, except one time? And why? Because I believe this drug business is gonna destroy us in the years to come. I mean, it's not like gambling or liquor, even women, which is something that most people want nowadays and it's forbidden to them...by the church. Even the police departments have helped us in the past with gambling and other things. They're gonna refuse to help us when it comes to narcotics. And I believe that then - and I believe that now."
Barzini: "Times have changed. It's not like the old days when we could do anything we want. A refusal is not the act of a friend. Don Corleone had all the judges and the politicians in New York and he must share them...He must let us draw the water from the well. Certainly, he can present a bill for such services. After all, we are not Communists..."
Corleone: "I hoped that we would come here and reason together. And as a reasonable man, I'm willing to do whatever's necessary to find a peaceful solution to these problems."
Barzini:"Then we are agreed. The traffic in drugs will be permitted, but controlled, and Don Corleone will give up protection in the East - and there will be the peace."

Did Barzini tip his hand here by showing too much of an interest, or by expecting Corleone to give up too much? Possibly. But I think it has just as much do with inuition. Corleone has been in the game since the beginning. He just knows these things.

Another example: Vito and Michael are sipping wine and talking about the future - specifically Michael's safety.

Corleone: "Barzini will move against you first. He'll set up a meeting with someone that you absolutely trust, guaranteeing your safety. And at that meeting, you'll be assassinated...It's an old habit. I spend my life trying not to be careless. Women and children can be careless, but not men...It could be anyone...Now listen, whoever comes to you with this Barzini meeting, he's the traitor. Don't forget that."

Vito's prediction comes true when Tessio betrays Michael at the funeral.

We're not discussing The Godfather Part II here, but I'll let you think about this: Does Michael inherit his father's abilities?

Sorry about the long quotes.

[Rogue]

Originally posted by MrTony

We're not discussing The Godfather Part II here, but I'll let you think about this: Does Michael inherit his father's abilities?

Abosolutely. Yes.
Michael inherited the leadership qualities of his father. I think its clear that Vito always wanted Michael to take over. Sonny is too much of a hothead and it gets him into trouble. Hell, it got him killed because they used that quality against him.
Fredo is a wimp.
That leaves Micheal. But he doesn't want anything to do with it. Until his father gets shot....

[DrDetroit]

Michael inherits his father's intuition, leadership, and strategy, but he loses his soul. Vito's income and power may have come from his illegal interests, but I always got the sense that he cared more about Enzo the Baker and that old woman who got kicked out of her apartment because she had a dog. It's like that Machiavellian axiom: Get your followers to love you. But if they don't love you, get them to fear you. Michael opts for the second option, and he probably has far more power than his father ever did, but ultimately he's a broken man by the end of Part II. That's why I think the alternating timelines in Part II is such a great idea, because we see how both generations achieved their power. One is idyllic, and the other is tragic. And they both intersect in Part I.

[MrTony]

Wow, Rogue and DrDetroit have answered my question so well that I almost feel silly for having asked it.

There are so many reasons I love this movie, I don't think I could ever get to them all, especially because I'm tired right now. The baptism sequence, the scenes in Sicily (the more times you watch the movie, the more obvious it is how in love Michael and Apollonia are), the wonderful score, and so much more.

Francis Ford Coppola has called the Godfather trilogy "the world's most expensive home movie." He expands upon this in the excellent documentary on the DVD, but basically all of the family aspects of the movie are based somewhat on his own family.

I've tried to provide a summation of my thoughts as we come closer to discussing a new movie for next week. Hopfully I've been somewhat coherent. If not, well it wouldn't be the first time.

[SebastianCole]

The thing I always liked about 'The Godfather' is the relationships between the characters, and the fact that the movie focused on this rather than the "mob stuff."

In fact, I'm hesitant to call 'The Godfather' a mob movie, because I always feel like I'm selling it short.

[Disco Stu]

Originally posted by SolidSnakeASS

Not only has the gangster genre been around since the first narrative films were being made, but Scorsese had started making films, like Mean Streets, and Taxi Driver, which came out before The Godfather Part II. Taxi Driver was probably just as influential as The Godfather, and many, inlcuding myself, consider it to be a superior film.

Since you brought it up, Taxi Driver was released in 1976. Godfather I was 1972, II was 1974. I believe Mean Streets is 1973.

I'm not much of a fan of the Godfather films, and I haven't seen them in the last year to discuss them thoroughly. I'd say that they all pretty much share the same faults, entertaining yet essentially empty. Most of the scenes which have been heralded over the years, especially in G1 with Brando handing the reins over to Pacino, have not been worked out by Coppola, the emptiness is what people read into and assume their greatness. Sometimes people add substance to something they want to believe has more depth than it really does. I cannot argue with the comments about lighting. The first two films are amzingly shot by Gordon Willis.

[DrDetroit]

Originally posted by Disco Stu
I'm not much of a fan of the Godfather films, and I haven't seen them in the last year to discuss them thoroughly. I'd say that they all pretty much share the same faults, entertaining yet essentially empty. Most of the scenes which have been heralded over the years, especially in G1 with Brando handing the reins over to Pacino, have not been worked out by Coppola, the emptiness is what people read into and assume their greatness. Sometimes people add substance to something they want to believe has more depth than it really does.

So, we're all just idiots reading into a lowsy overbudgeted B-movie? With all due respect, please watch the movie again before patronizing us all like crazy.