In [thread=7302864]this thread[/thread], Lochdale opins that:
I’d go one further than and say that after its popularity, organized crime actually attempted to ape the Corleones (as portrayed in the film) as a public image and appeal to the notion that they live by some kind of code of honor, rather than just being a collection of poorly educated thugs in silk suits.
I think The Godfather is great cinema and engaging storytelling; it uses Vito Corleone as an avatar for unattainable prescience and success, and his son Michael inevitablyl (though through no fault of his own) fails to live up to his father’s stature and expectations; his ultimate failure (to be a “real man”, defined by his father as someone who “spends time with his family”) is the result of just not being quite perceptive, lucky, and having sufficient coglioni to keep his family from coming apart. For family he’s saddled with a hothead who gets himself killed, a dim-brained weakling who betrays him, and an erratic hedonist who causes him no end of irritation; in order to save his family (by “going legitimate”) he’s forced to commit horrible crimes and lie (transparently) to his wife, further destroying unity. Mix in a bit of Lear, a measure of * Hippolytus*, a healthy dollop of Hamlet, a cup of Oresteia, and a dash of Titus Andronicus; set it in post-war Brooklyn among a bunch of Italian-American families, and voila–instant Mafia mythos. The Corleones are made relatively more honest and forthright than their competitors so that the audience can identify with them (despite their manifest brutality) and walk away with a bag-full of Academy Awards.
It bears, however, little relation to the reality of organized crime. Goodfellas, while somewhat fictionalized and condensed, is certainly closer to the reality; sociopathic, hedonistic bullies who’ll shove, shiv, or shoot anyone in order to make a buck. An unpleasent bunch of guys who certainly don’t whitewash their sidewalks and talk endlessly about honor and duty to family.
I really have nothing to add to this because I think you just summed up both why I love and hate the Godfather perfectly (do you mind if I use this summation myself at a later date?).
My concern, however, is that I fear a great many people don’t see the Godfather for the escapist fantasy that it is and instead see it as an accurate depection of real life mobsters.
There was a code of honor in the mob pre-Godfather. Omerta and all that. The guys were even called “men of respect”.
But a very peculiar code. If you did anything wrong you’d end up in a meat grinder. Betrayal (to outsiders) was unthinkable. It wasn’t until Valachi testified that things changed. Then mob guys began turning states witness left and right.
The real life mob bosses of the main Vito Corleone era were an extremely nasty group of folk. Kill or be killed within the mob. Puzo tries to paint a picture of one particular boss who realized that it was bad for business to have such a chaotic situation and tried to reason with people first. Not accurate for the 1930s-1940s era. But actually similar to some attempts at organization of the 1950s.
Basically, they got lazy during the 1950s due to their special relationship with Hoover and then went downhill from there. In NYC, still very powerful in the cement business and some unions, but other gangs are making much larger chunks of money in their backyard.
Only if you correct my egregious spelling and grammar errors. Gah, did I even preview?
I agree, but then you can point to many proportedly realistic or “based on a true story” films and make the same criticism. Film, by its nature, is highly stylized; a compelling story has to fit into a 100-150 page screenplay and offer up conflict and resolution within its running time. If you read up on the real Henry Hill and his compatriots, you’ll find that Scorsese took many liberties as well (making Jimmy Conway, nee Jimmy Burke, far more intelligent and mannerly than in reality, for instance). And virtually any war movie–even the much revered Saving Private Ryan–panders to some notion of the honor and dignity of battle. It’s the rare film–something like Das Boot or All Quiet On The Western Front–which doesn’t glamorize war, and such films are a hard sell to an audience looking for some message that isn’t a straight up shot of nihilism.
A code that was enforced through fear and intimidation. They were called men of respect by a local populace that feared them. They were bullies and thugs and nothing more.
My understanding was that Puzo’s book was mostly fiction, a potboiler rather than an effort at a serious work.
Oh definitely. On the commentary for Godfather I Coppola openly admits that neither him or Puzo really knew what they were writing about. They did next to no research into the actual mafia and the story was written mostly from Puzo’s imagination and the stereotypical images of “men of honour”.
This is true, but as Stranger pointed out it’s also the case with many films on all sorts of subjects which present heavily distorted and glamorised views of “real” life. And I don’t think Coppola and Puzo should be criticised for telling the story they wanted to tell, and then a load of people going and misunderstanding what they were saying. I think anyone who sees the Godfather films and comes out with a positive view of mafia life is seriously missing the point.
I think you are right. Puzo did not set out to document the Mafia. Rather he set his tale in the context of what he believed the Mafia MIGHT be about. The Mafia stuff was secondary to the human tragedy (i.e. the corruption of Michael Corleone) of the tale. Which is why I don’t understand that stupid “GROWING UP GOTTI” TV show. People should remember that every penny that this woman (Victoria Gotti) has came from extortion, loan sharking, theft, and other crimes.
The fascinating thing-after the release of the movie, some local Mafia bosses started imitating the movie