Oh, that florist scene is great. It always seems to get overlooked by all of the bigger moments, but it's right up there.

I understand perfectly! That's pretty much how I feel about another movie, in another forum, where we didn't exactly agree. :)

I don’t think Coppola ever used the term “expose”. In reality I believe it is more subtext than anything else - something that maybe a lot of people won’t even think about.

More interesting isn't the same thing as more sympathetic. And it's not clear how we get from that observation/objection (per usual, it's hazy which it is) to a critique of the movie as a movie, anyway. As in, it's just inherently bad to have an interesting villain? Because it 'romanticizes' it? I am once again asking for some connective tissue between the orthogonal musings and the thing they're supposed to be supporting.

What makes a character interesting is how well the character is written. It's practically impossible to sympathize with the Joker (I haven't seen the Joqin' Phoenix movie yet), but the way his character operates is an exercise in recognizable consistency, intrigue and even hatred. He feels real despite his absurd background and comic book setting.

As for the Godfather movies, we sympathize with the family aspects, but disagree with the gangster activity, while finally understanding the mindset of the families.

My memory on it isn't the best, so I went ahead and requested it from the library. I did set the request to be active the 18th because I have 5 DVDs out already so I thought I shouldn't have a sixth out right away and should get through at least one or two of what I already have. Don't worry; I'll get to it. Maybe this weekend while I recover would be a good time to watch some of those movies.

I forgot to add to your point about "Violence was a tool to achieve their aims." I think that's what gets lost; they weren't violent to be violent. They were violent because they knew it worked for them. I know my response today isn't great. My sinuses hurt more today than they did yesterday so I'm having a hard time focusing.

If I remember I can come back and share some more thoughts when I watch it. I'll probably post in the "Last Movie You Saw" thread regardless. I'll approach it with an open mind.

Because movies are the novels of our era, tinged with mythology, which, of course, has some sort of psychological resonance. It's Freud and Jung stuff combined with imagery, which communicates better than words. We keep writing the same stories over and over. Jung speculated that it's just wired into our brains. There's probably about a dozen basic plot lines that make up most of the well known western literature. Same thing in movies....different character names but similar character types, different settings but similar stories. Taking it back to the Godfather, that sort of mythic setup is all over it. Jung said it much better than I can in one paragraph.

The fact that we retell the same stories has nothing to do with what I'm asking, which is: why do you object to the film? You said it "went wrong," and I asked about that, and I'm still asking about it five posts later. Here's a quick list of the questions I've been asking, none of which have gotten a response:

• "Are you saying you think the film is portraying them as civilized?"
• "It's bad because it romanticizes them, even though it depicts their 'moral doom' and sends them to Hell?"
• "it's just inherently bad to have an interesting villain?"
• "Because it 'romanticizes' it?"
• "...the film makes it condemnation of the characters obvious. It's unclear why you feel it being like an opera counteracts this."
• "The implication of what you're saying would seem to be that it's impossible to depict villainy in drama because drama inherently romanticizes things."

And then there's this entire post, where I even grant the (implied but strangely never stated outright) premise and then talk about how that feeds into the condemnation of the behavior in the end.

This feels less like a discussion and more like a game of free association, where words or ideas just prompt some theory or idea but the reply doesn't actually address or incorporate the thing it's quoting.

This is like watching a guy who carries around a book he's never read in the hopes it will make him appear smart, getting asked a bunch of serious questions about that book he's never read.

Seems like we could take a step further in the discussion by comparing each other's criteria. I'd like the chance to see if someone can convince me to rewrite my own, as learning about film is the fun of places like this.

Criteria for what? What makes a movie great? It can be all sorts of things for me. I think artists who master their craft can be great, which is what I find remarkable about something like 2001. Or artists who use their medium to ask big questions, like Bergman. Or can tell a story perfectly like Eastwood with Unforgiven. Or have developed a methodology with actors to get them to create a specific type of realism, like Mike Leigh. Or those supposed no talent nobodies who just have enough gumption to make a movie in their home and cast their families and barely know how to hold a camera properly, and yet make something as endlessly perplexing and unknowable as Things.


Greatness is all sorts of stuff and my favorite type of movie is one that shows me a way of being great that I'd never even considered before. That's what I'm always on the lookout for. Thats what keeps me going.

The variety is a big part of it. For example, my first question in my four-question system is, "What is the goal of the movie?" IMO, addressing the goal should be the first step, and then determining whether or not the goal was met and justified. Of course, that's only first steps. But you pretty much nailed it with the "mastering their craft" comment.

Bottom line is that I don't object to the movie. It's fine. I've seen it several times. Is it the greatest cinematic utterance of our era? Maybe so, maybe no; I don't presume to know The Greatest. "Greatest" is a tall hill to climb and there's no objectively operationally defined measure for anything like art. You can count critics or box office if you want, but critics disagree and lots of people in that era bought tickets to other movies that were not so exalted.

Since I'm finished with these questions, I'll turn them around and ask why you think it's great, much less the greatest. To me, it's a good gangster movie.

People disagree on the origins of the world as well. Still gun to figure out.

Here's what you said:

In that respect, that's where I thought that GF went wrong; it's an opera basically.

This is what I've been asking about. Why is it being operatic "<going> wrong"?

You don't need to keep saying this. All of us understand that opinions differ and are not facts, and the existence of this thread (nay, this site) suggests we've moved beyond that point and are already prompting people to offer those opinions and expound on their reasoning, to facilitate discussion and understanding. There's little sense in joining a site about opinions and going into threads about opinions only to tell people that they're merely opinions. We know.

No thanks. I tried to discuss the actual content of the film with you multiple times, and you blew right past it. Happy to have a discussion, but those involve some give and take, and I'm not seeing any give, so I'll pass.

So ... I'll give it a go ...

The Godfather isn't my favorite movie of all time, but it contends for No. 2 (depending on how I feel at the time). So not a complete review, but I'll pull apart aspects I particularly like:

Ambiance. The sets (the Corleone family kitchen where they all eat together, the den where business is done, the streets of Manhattan, etc.), the costumes, even the manner of speech. There's a deep and rich consistency to a post WWII world that just seems right (no doubt the purists will quibble with some element).

Pacing. It starts slow, with Don Vito's meeting with the undertaker doing an excellent job of exposition of the role the godfather plays within his Italian-American constituency. We flash outside to Michael explaining to Kay that his family is corrupt, but he's not like that. The wedding celebration, not quite at DeerHunterish detail. From there, the details and the tension bring you along. But it's never a flashy action thriller with operatic shootouts and fights, but brief, brutal bursts of violence, which is really how those things play out. Toward the end, when the heads of the five families meet their fates, the pace temporarily accelerates, but again, it's not a Hollywood action set piece with six-shooters firing 18 shots and guy jumping through windows. Just professionals doing their job. Through Michael's assassination of the drug lord and police captain, to his journey to Italy, back to New York to head the family, the expansion to Las Vegas. Never hurried, but always pulling you on, always a sense of dread and anticipation about what will come next.

Dialog. There are many catchy lines. "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." "Leave the gun. Take the cannoli." But it stays grounded in reality. No bray of final words when someone expires, no lengthy operatic speeches laying out some explanation (or rationalization) of the various crime family's motivations. You're eavesdropping on real conversations: blunt, to the point. I never detected a false note.

Acting. Of course. I'd say the weakest performance here is James Caan as Sonny, and that's "just really good" compared to "sublime" for Marlon Brando, Al Pacino and John Cazale and "great" for Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton, Talia Shire, and the whole ensemble. Nothing showy, no one posturing or mugging, even Brando! Just right for an authentic drama.

Honesty. Let's be clear. I don't identify with the characters in this tale. And I don't think any serious line of scholarship contends The Godfather makes prostitution palable or glorifies violence. Quite the opposite. It never looks the other way when a crime happens. (Witness: the bloody corpse of the dead prostitute used to co-opt the Nevada senator.) It never ignores the fact of their criminality. They know they are criminals, and never speechify in any way some grandiose justification of their actions. When they say it is "just business," it is a way to impress upon rivals that retribution is measured and "fair" in trying to keep a lid on run-away violence. (The contention that there's a subtext about "capitalism" breaks down for me on this point, regardless of what Coppola says as rationalization.)

Identification. I dont' want to be a Corleone. Vito and Michael lead lives devoid of excess like the classic operatic gangster, so no envy. I don't cry when Don Vito or Sonny or any of them meet their fate. As Part I closes the door on Michael, his lie to Kay reminds us he has truly made the transition to monster. We certainly don't want to be in his place, trapped in a life he never really wanted. As Part II pulls back, Michael is alone, having lost the family he so desperately wanted to protect. No, The Godfather is not trying to make you sympathize and identify with these people. Nor even make you feel sorry for the fate they thrust upon themselves.

So there you have it. I don't like the characters in The Godfather. But gosh, do I admire the way their story is told. It's a guilty pleasure. On each rewatch I keep thinking, I should be rooting for these guys, but d--- you Coppola, you've done it again with your mastery. Until of course those last images, where he reminds you there might not have been "meet punishment" for these criminals, but no lasting reward either.

So there ... hope that's sufficient detail. It's OK if you just feel it's not for you. But if there are any of those points you feel I have wrong, I'd be happy to engage in further examination of specific and relevant details.

Here's my thoughts on The Godfather from my one and only viewing six years ago.


So what is it that people love about this movie? In a way it could be described as the ultimate soap opera. Now I know people use the phrase 'soap opera' negatively when talking about a movie, but not me. To me a film that's soap opera like means it has a lot of heart and it has a lot of complex human interrelationships and to me that's what makes a movie interesting. With a 'soap opera' movie, if it's done well, you get so much more than just an action-thriller. The Godfather takes us inside of the Corleone family and make us a part of that closely woven family for a three hour journey. We see their hopes and aspirations, we learn the meaning of loyalty and respect, and we see how interconnected relationships can break down when loyalty is lost.

The first act is by far my favorite that's where we meet the Corleone family as they come together to celebrate their daughter's wedding. The Godfather is based on a rather lengthy novel and that's why the second and third acts seem condensed as the director is tying to squeeze this big story into a 3 hour movie. That's always a problem for lengthy & detailed novels when they are turned into a screen play. If this had been made as a 2 part movie, with 6 hours the full story could have been told exceptionally well. I do think highly of Francis Ford Coppola and I've considered nominating a couple of his films. Well maybe one day I will. What keeps me from loving The Godfather, is that I'm not at all interested in organized crime or movies about it.

Yeah, that's why I commented in the first place: if somebody came away from The Godfather thinking it was going easy on the characters or romanticizing what they do, I can only conclude they weren't paying a lot of attention to it, or had a preconceived notion and didn't allow the movie to contradict it.

Romanticizing or going easy on the characters in The Godfather is also a complaint modern audiences have with Gone With The Wind which was a nomination in the last HoF. I'd say both films are comparable in that regard, meaning I can understand how detractors can feel that way and I can also understand how fans of the movie who payed close attention knows the film isn't glorifying the mafia or plantation owners.

Respectfully ... I still see substantial differences in the area of honesty. My objection is not that the films glorify the miscreants. It's simply about lies, and damn lies.

I see The Godfather as fundamentally honest about its protagonists. The Corleones are criminals, they know they're criminals, they act like criminals, they make no excuses, and they either end up dead or living a less than glamorous life. The movie doesn't try to soften their brutality or flinch at depicting the worst they are capable of. Again, for example, showing the bloodied body of an innocent woman who was murdered to entrap a politician. But most of the victims were themselves criminals who chose the criminal life.

I see Gone with the Wind as fundamentally dishonest about its protagonists. You cannot escape the knowledge that Scarlett, Rhett, and Ashley, even if they never once countenanced any of the brutalities so common in that era, were guilty of owning humans who did not choose the life they are forced to endure. I don't expect a film produced in 1939 to reflect modern sensibilities, and on reflection I don't expect those three to break down in tears of remorse. But the filmmakers were not contractually obligated to reproduce the novel with 100% fidelity and in fact made many changes to soften some of the darker aspects and make some characters more palatable. In the book, Ashley is a Klan member; Rhett is jailed because he was accused of killing two black men. So in 1939, in a screenplay of four hours, might even some peripheral character acknowledge outright and ugly lies: that the war was not started by northern "invaders" or that slavery was abhorrent? Too much to ask? Thirty seconds in four hours devoted to telling how "gallantry made its last bow"? But never once was even a scintilla of truth allowed to escape from a single character's mouth. If there is a passage to the contrary, please do quote it.

But yes ... the attributes that we point out as loathsome in one movie will be revealed as inconsistent when compared with what we overlook in writing about another film. We issue "get out of jail free" cards based on personal attraction to particular works. In the 90s Hall of Fame coming up I have some feelings about a movie I know will get high praise ... because the criminals act like, well, criminals.

The opening of Badfellas. [In the background the opening bars of The Rolling Stones "Brown Sugar" is audible]

As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a plantation owner. To me, being a slaver was better than being any tyrant President of the United States. Even before I first wandered into an auction lookin' for an after-school job, I knew I wanted to be a part of them. It was there I belonged. To me it meant being somebody in a county full of nobodies. They weren't like anyone else. They did whatever they wanted. They were important. They owned people.

Re: Is The Godfather the greatest American film ever made?
 

It's one of them. It was the movie in high school that got me to take movies seriously and my first favorite movie. Brando is still my favorite... Coppola said he and Brando (didn't read the book) talked and framed the movie to be a story about America and the system.

I'm no expert on how the real mafia operates, though I did read what Skizzerflake posted about how real mafia members act. Though I really can't say. I'm also not an expert on the lifestyles of the well-to-do plantation owners in the deep south before the Civil War. But I bet experts can find lies about both groups in the two movies.

Yes one can perceive it that way. It can also be perceived as a film about loyalty, power and respect and those are things that people admire and find admirable.

I think people are revolted to see white slave owners as nice, cultured, beautiful people, having a great time with their parties in their fancy mansions. We want to see them be evil, so it fits our world view of slavery and when they aren't evil on the screen it triggers us into repulsion, which I can understand. GWTW shows the plantation owners from their viewpoint and shows what their privileged, gentile life was like. They lived like aristocrats, much like the lords and ladies of 18th century in Jane Austen novels. We might not like that truth but that doesn't make it a lie, just an ugly truth.

From memory I believe Fort Sumter is either referenced by name or indirectly as the opening skirmish in the Civil War in GWTW. Slavery was not abhorrent to the white plantation owners, why should the movie show them finding slavery abhorrent, we know it is, but they didn't probably lose any sleep over it.

I do hold that GWTW does show the negativity of slavery but it doesn't spell it out like a modern audience might like. Nothing shows the gross injustices of slavery as much as this screenshot from the movie does. I find this image very sad when one thinks of the real childhoods loss fanning privileged debutantes napping after stuffing themselves at a party.

I agree and well said.🙂

That's the beautiful balance of the movie. Two totally different peoples can relate to it based on that. They reflected on this a few times in The Offer.

Sure, sure. Long time listener, first time caller. The check is in the mail. Citizen isn't Goodfella. Riiiigggghhhhht......

I wonder about you sometimes, Corax. You may fold under questioning.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. I think we've both had a good say and aren't in any danger of swaying one another's core views on this. Yeah, I could lob a few "yeah buts" over the fence, but now's a good time to step back and see if anyone else wants to comment.

Although GWTW will never make any of my "best of" lists, in the recently concluded HoF, I put GWTW about two-thirds the way down ballot, even above my own nominee. Despite how it makes me feel, I consider it required viewing for anyone who loves film, as it's impossible to watch it and come away truly indifferent. It's maybe the perfect vehicle for testing your attitudes about what you value in film.

I think a film about criminals committing crimes isn't an inherently bad film. It just depends on how it depicts the criminals and the crimes they commit. Some of them I can't stand because they treat abhorrent individuals as positive people (like Goodfellas) (which I will always hate) (although my list of issues with that film is longer than "Bad people getting away with it.")

One thing for me is I'm not huge on the actiony crime films like Godfather, which I hadn't considered earlier. I'm more of a noir/suspense crime person. I'll still watch Godfather again (I said I would) and I'll keep an open mind, and maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. I don't mind enjoying films in genres I don't favor as much as others.

With what you've explained about Godfather it doesn't sound like it glorifies the Mafia nor organized crime nor violent crime, nor et al. It just says, "Here it is," and lets the audience how to interpret it. They are criminals. There's no escaping that. I'm just beginning to think there's more to it than "Me criminal, me commit crime, me better guy now."

Thank you for being courteous & civil, I always appreciate that! I like discussion when people don't have to try and change the other person's mind and as you said that's usually impossible anyway. What I like is learning a bit more why a person thinks or feels the way they do and now I think I understand a bit more why you feel the way you do about GWTW.