...
With the "bad people" thing, they did bad things, and came out ahead. The reason that's important, to me, is because in other films and miniseries I've seen where bad people do bad things to other bad people, either they get their comeuppance or they're not actually bad people; they're just thrust in a bad situation and make bad decisions. One of my favorite miniseries is Hatfields & McCoys, even though they're people who made bad decisions doing bad things to other people who made bad decisions. That shows their flaws and they recognize their flaws and no one came out ahead. So many people died because of their terrible mistakes and it spiraled out of control and no one won. It's also a historical piece and the characters were more interesting (at least to me).
In Godfather, Michael rises to power and is now a new crime kingpin. I know he reluctantly became head of the house, but he did it all the same. Because he did terrible things, he came out ahead. That's what I don't like. Technically there's not much wrong with it, aside from a meandering pace, which I probably didn't like because I wasn't invested in the story. I can handle slow if I like the characters.
Sorry; I kind of wandered a bit.
Thanks ... getting back to discussing The Godfather.
It's a topic worth exploring ... does The Godfather glorify violence, or validate violence as a way to achieve the "American Dream"?
My own take is that The Godfather is honest about who the Corleones are. They're criminals. At the intro, Michael tells Kay about a crime his father committed but declares he's not like that. Later, Don Vito is meeting with the heads of other crime families and lists where he'll go (prostitution, gambling) and won't go (drugs, a decision that nearly gets him killed). Toward the end, Michael acknowledges to the Nevada senator that they're both criminals; he acknowledges he's a criminal, but insists it doesn't apply to his family. But then in that opening scene, where community member asks the don to kill the men who assaulted his daughter, he tells Tom Hagen to find someone to beat them up who won't get carried away because despite what people believe they are not murderers.("Murder" here being defined as unequal punishment since the daughter was still alive.)
Of course, they are murderers. They murder the innocent (the prosititue whose death is used to snare the Nevada senator's support), but mostly the members of other crime families in retribution for various trespasses and wrongs. Neither is right, but in their world reasons make a difference.
I don't know of a major line of critical analysis that contends this is glorifying violence. The acts are depicted with realistic brutality (for the time). They are not softened to be "palatable". The Corleones are shown honestly for what they are: criminals, thugs, murderers. The Corleones acknowledge it themselves. No one anywhere in Parts I and II offer anything other than an "eye for an eye" justification for what they're doing.
So ... no ... I don't think the film can be really criticized for "glorifying" violence or the organized crime element. Shows it pretty much for what it is and I for one never come away thinking they're cool or enviable.
But to your point, should we criticize The Godfather because the criminals appear to prosper from their crimes. Mixed bag here. Don Vito dies quietly in his garden. Sonny dies in a hail of bullets. By the end of Part II, Michael sits alone in the garden, his family gone.
You'd have to admit that movies where the bad guys get their comeuppance are pretty common. In fact, so much so that, once you've watched a lifetime of movies, you can predict the ending because the bad guy has to get caught, die, or suffer some other retribution in the end. I think we have to be able to tolerate a break in the cliche when the story is strong enough to sustain it. Yeah, Michael doesn't deserve to be anywhere but jail at the end of both movies, but I don't think any of us would say he's living the kind of life we'd like to live.
We have plenty of similar outcomes. Chigurrh walking away at the end of No Country for Old Men (now there's a guy who deserves some jail time and that one does get under my skin). Likewise: The Usual Suspects; Basic Instinct; Primal Fear. All pretty well reviewed movies. Yeah, I feel it's "right" when the bad guy/gal gets their just reward. But the world would be pretty boring if I could guess the ending to *every* movie.
Reply to Topic
), I'll admit my mind might not be changed so much. I'm actually throwing my arguments out, hoping for dispute, so I can challenge myself to sharpen my views based on thoughtful (hopefully) opinions to the contrary. Trying to justify your views is a great way to exercise your analytical and rhetorical muscles, so to speak. But if you change my mind about something, I'll give you credit. Grudgingly. But credit all the same!
