No one has mentioned the music yet, which is beautiful and remains instantly recognizable. It was nominated for an Oscar, but got thrown out on a technicality.
But, the main thing is that the movies draw you in. The acting and development of the characters just makes you want to know what happens to them.
To be fair, I don’t know that there was a good way to read those lines which were straight out of daytime soap opera. I think Shire is also a bit savaged given her character doesn’t have much of an arc except going from abused wife to bad mother and then duitful sister. The films really give very little for the female characters to do; they’re all just mothers, wives, and whores.
Although the Godfather films are set in a Sicilian mafia milieu and the novel on which it was based was a pretty trashy pulp novel written to fictionalize some fairly sensational rumors about various Mafia figures, Coppola’s films were framed in the themes of a Greek tragedy, with Michael as the flawed figure who destories what he most desires to protect, and fails to livd up to the legend of his father. The real figures in the Mafia would never speak as gracefully and obliquely as Tom Hagan does to Frank Pentangeli, or be as prescient and strategic as the Don in anticipating his opposition. For a film that is an actual portrayal of Mafia life, Goodfellas or Donnie Brasco, about short-sighted, petty people who frequently let personal conflicts cloud their judgments, are closer to the mark.
As for why the films are so revered, they create a sense of place and time that utterly draws in the viewer. They aren’t really period pieces, even though they are set in historical places periods like Ellis Island and Havana at the fall of the Batista regime. The acting, story, and cinematography aside, they are almost fantasy-like in their nostalgia, creating their own world.
Stranger
For what it is worth, I read a few places that real mobsters loved the movies. A funny tidbit - on the Sopranos sometimes they would just call them “1” or “2”
At the very least it is as good. It has a rather different feel in part which I won’t bother to spoil, but I think very much reflects the different characters of Vito vs. Michael Corleone. I preferred that first film at one time, but now I really do like the second better.
But even if you don’t end up liking it as much, I strongly recommend seeing it if you were captivated by the first film. Other than the undoubtedly deliberately different tone( at times )the two films fit together seamlessly as a single story. It’s the most literal and genuine part I and II in terms of a rich storyline of any film and its sequel ever filmed. IMHO.
The third has a few good moments, but is ultimately is a lot more awkward and missable. It’s not as bad as you may have heard, it is just that it falls from a greater height compared to the first two.
ETA: You know what? You should just watch it tonight. No dilly-dallying ;).
I agree with that. I’ve only seen it a couple of times years ago but I thought then that the hate is only because of the comparison. I thought the journey of Andy Garcia from being Sonny to being Michael was well done and I think Garcia did a great job. Other parts were big misses.
It also helps to read the book too …
Thanks, but one small quibble. What was new was that Michael emerged triumphant - apparently triumphant, that is. I’ve been watching old classics, and recently watched The Public Enemy and Little Caesar. In both cases the “hero” was the bad guy, but because of the time they both had to be shown as losing in the end. Not so in GF I. Plus, Vito dies at peace in his garden - something else that wouldn’t be allowed before.
Pacino, Brando, De Niro, Duvall and Cazale all at the top of their game and nine acting Oscar nominations over 2 films, but you’d categorize the acting as hit and miss?
Are you really sure you’re not saying it insists upon itself?
You seem to think that there is one way for women to behave ignoring cultural variation. The creative team were Italian and I trust that they understand their culture better than PC outsiders.
It marked a generational shift. It was the first masterpiece of a very specific generation of filmmakers (Coppola, Spielberg, Scorsese, Lucas). If you ever wonder where the dividing line between Old Hollywood and New Hollywood lies, you couldn’t pick a better turning point than The Godfather. Studios had spent the better part of a decade trying to find a winning formula to lure a “youth” demographic into the theaters by this point and their best efforts were Easy Rider, The Graduate and Harold and Maude. The Godfather is the one that finally clicked.
My aunt died young at 40. The second child my grandmother buried. I remember her sister at the funeral handing my grandmother a picture of her daughter who died at 6. Apparently the misery level wasn’t high enough already. I’ve seen Italian relatives throw themselves on caskets. I had relatives that followed the old country tradition of wearing black for the rest of their lives when the husband died. The “histrionics” did not seem out of place to me for a movie made in the 70s and set a few decades earlier.
The ‘apparently’ part is critical. One of the reasons that GF I is great is because it leads up to this dramatic montage of Michael wiping out all his opponents. In a lesser film, the viewer would see that as a glorious ‘victory’ for the hero and feel some satisfaction at his triumph. But in The Godfather, the viewer feels a sense of loss as Michael ‘wins’, because we can actually see that in winning the war he lost his soul.
That’s my family Kay. It’s not me.
But in the end it’s him. And he’s better at it than all of them.
So many great little moments that Coppola doesn’t hit you over the head with. Michael learns he’s suited for the life at the hospital. When he is lighting the cigarette with steady hands. One of many great silent moments.
And his family, because “A man who doesn’t spend time with his family can never be a real man.” Vito asipired to make the Corleone family legitimate through Michael, and Michael ultimately fails, not only to be truly legitimate (“Just when I thought I was out…they pull me back in!”) but even to keep his family intact.
Stranger
I’ve just realzed that the Bluths are the Corleones.
And it plays out in GF 2, also a great movie. But this shows how much more nuanced and subtle movies could be after the death of the Hays Office and the prohibition of endings that could show that “sin” triumphs.
Well, they are the Bizarro Corleones. I thought that was pretty obvious with Michael’s “What do we always say is the most important thing?” schtick.
Stranger
I’ve read that Mario Puzo did 2 because he was regretful that 1 glorified the gangster life too much. Yes Michael did lose his soul as he became powerful, but how many people–especially young men–would look at that and think “Hell losing your soul would be worth it to be that Bad Ass!” At the end of 2 though, we see the true cost. Michael is still powerful, but he is broken and alone.
I agree that it is basically a Greek tragedy. A larger than life person brought low by circumstances beyond his control and by his own hubris.
This scene, where Copolla slowly zooms in to Pacino and we see his subtle transformation from the civilian in the family to a ruthless killer, is brilliant. You can see the transformation as he makes his decision, even though the other characters miss it.
that and getting hit by the in the next scene ……. although he denies it the apollonia episode pushes it even more
but the sad thing is in the 3rd movie they drive home the fact of mikes failure when he dies alone in the snow with nothing but regret unlike how his father died ……