The Godfather: Some feedback for a first time viewer, per favore.

Cafe Society
1

Over the weekend one of the cable networks (AMC?) had a Godfather marathon. We’re talking all Godfather all the time. I had never seen it in it’s entirety, and only even saw bits and pieces for the first time a few years ago.( I think this is due to when I was a wee Wook and one of my little friends had seen it with her parents and relayed the dreaded horse’s head scene to me. That really stuck with me and made me never want to watch it).

So, at the risk of being pelted with a thousand and one cannolis, I have to say that I wasn’t that impressed. I didn’t hate it or anything; far from it. I thought it was beautifully scored and photographed. I found it very atmospheric and compelling in some parts. And yet, I was a bit disapointed.

Do you think I was expecting too much based on it’s reputation? I’m generally pretty perceptive, but perhaps there are nuances I failed to grasp?

To be specific, I found most of the acting to be a bit hammy. I thought the dialogue was kind of laughable. I consciously disliked all three of the largest female roles (Diane Keaton, Talia Shire and whoever played Apollonia. I smiled to myself when she bought it). Does the fact that it was probably heavily edited for t.v. make a huge difference? Enough that I shoud rent the dvd? I didn’t watch any of the sequels. Based on what I’ve expressed about the original, would I like them even less?

I don’t know why it should mean so much to me to have an appreciation for this film. Usually I can’t be bothered with the general concensus. Still, I can’t help but feel I missed something.

Anyone care to share your thoughts or critiques? Maybe some tips on how I might get more out of it upon my next viewing?

2

Yeah, the TV editing couldn’t have helped. Try renting it next time.
Watch I & II but skip 3.

Leave the gun. Get the Canoli.

3

What BMax said. AMC is a terrible place to watch movies.

It’s fine that you didn’t like those three women. I don’t think they were intended to be sympathetic, not even Kay/Keaton. Marry somebody when you know you weren’t their first choice? Uh uh.

Who did you think was hammy? Just curious.

4

Yeah, IMHO don’t make your first viewing of any classic movie the TV edit. They seriously butcher them nowadays. And Godfather three is certainly NOT a classic.

But generally I’d say this is a example theory I have about any old peice of artwork (film or book or musical peice) that is considered a classic… Its hard to watch anything that is considered “seminal” for the first time and be as impressed as you should be. This is because it has been copied so many times, that nowadays it seems derivative and unoriginal, but thats only because, in the case of the GF trilogy, EVERY ganster movie since then has copied it.

5

It’s probably so thoroughly a part of our culture now that there’s really nothing surprising about it if you’re viewing it for the first time.

My wife makes me watch it all the time. Either The Godfather or my brains are going to be on the television. :slight_smile:

Actually that’s not true. I know she likes it, and I like it, and it’s something we like watching together, so if there’s nothing else compelling on, The Godfather it is.

I’ve seen it so many times, it’s hard to say exactly why I like it. In addition to the overall story, there are just a lot of little things I enjoy, like Luca Brasi, giant cold-blooded killer extraordinaire, stumbling over his words in front of the Don, the sound of Luca’s shoes on the marble floor, or Marlon Brando’s priceless facial expression just after the horse’s head scene. The leadup to the diner scene. Great stuff.

There are also endearing goofs like the scene where Sonny beats up Carlo and throws a punch obviously missing him by a mile, and the part in Italy when Michael’s courting Apollonia where the same guy with the red shirt seems to be in every scene either walking or riding a bike.

The book’s pretty much the same way. Crude but compelling.

6

Slight hijack- I was watching the same marathon- though I’ve seen it before. I actually was wondering of Michael ever did tell Kay he was married before! Was there a scene I missed, or do we just assume he told her?

7

The editing for TV was terrible. I remember seeing the original on screen and it had continuity. I watched the TV version as you did and deleted the rest after about halfway through because the continuity sucked.

Jack

8

I’m wondering if that might not be part of it. I saw Gone with the Wind when I was seventeen after hearing all my life what a wonderful movie it was, and I found it fairly tedious and more than a little hammy. And I fully expect my grandchildren to wonder what all the fuss was about with Star Wars.

I thought The Godfather was wonderful, but I saw it when it first came out, and I probably carry a little bit of that enthusiasm with me every time I see it.

9

In the book, when they first got together after Michael’s return, Kay asks him if he’s had other lovers, and he says “Yes, but not in the last six months.” That’s all he says. She doesn’t ask him any more questions.

I skimmed the rest of the book and didn’t see that Michael ever told her about the marriage.

10

In the movie, he never mentions to Kay anything that happened in Sicily. He doesn’t even tell her where he was.

And the edited for AMC versions rot, to put it politely. They are so chopped up you miss a lot of continuity, not to mention the ludicrous editing of anything remotely associated with vulgar language.

11

I can’t resist watching the GF-I really liked the movie. But I think I spotted a blooper-just before Michael’s sicilian bride (Appolonia) gets blown up , I noticed that the Alfa-Romeo sedan they were driving had RH stering-did Italians drive on the left in those days? Also…loyal Tom Hagan-is there any reason to think that Tom (pissed off at Michael’s high-handedness) actually set up dopey brother Fredo with Hyman Roth? That would explain how the assassins got into the Lake Tahoe compound…maybe Tom haen was the traitor all along!
Anyway, the other think that bothered me-Connie was so pissed off when Michael had Carlo garrotted to death-even though Carlo had beaten her up several times-was she really all that sorry that Carlo got the dirt nap? Finally-that slime Senator from Nevada-was he owned by Roth as well?

12

I caught this at Paddy’s this weekend, fortunately with the sound off (and the big yellow splotch that the projector always makes.) First of all, not only do you need to see the films uncut, but you also need to see them on the large screen, not the televisor. Like Lawrence of Arabia, the television just can’t do justice to the dark hues and cinematic detail. The Godfather is the best of the three, and even the much-paradied Brando performance is really strong when seen in context, as is Pacino’s rare turn at a subtle role. Part II is the more expansive and complex film, and it suffers somewhat by moving out of Brooklyn, but the end is devistating, especially Fredo’s “fishing trip.”

III is an intolerable mess that should have gone straight-to-video along with Pesci’s crap mafia films. Sofia Coppola make be a good, perhaps even great, director, but she can’t act for dried beans. None of the women are really strong presenses, really, and I think that was a deliberate choice; it’s a “man’s world” in the film where the rights and interests of women are secondary at best; hence Sonny’s overt and everyone else’s tacit dismissal of Connie. I think you have to watch them a couple of times at least to really get the richness of the films. But avoid III, and especially the bastardized Coppola chronological re-cut.

Stranger

13

Read the book! - much better.

14

I have no answers to these two questions.

Just my opinion, but I think at that time in the series, she was deeply into the abused wife syndrome, and maybe thought he was perfect and she deserved the abuse. But, I don’t know, and the movie did not develop this further. Even her reconciliation with Michael was more of a “I’ve gotten over your killing him even though I do not know it for a fact, and I’m ready to settle down and take of my children, and of you” thing.

The Nevada senator treatment really confused me. Enemy–then taken care of the family–then doing the speeche at the hearing but not standing up for Michael? I got nuthin’ here but question marks, coulda been me, though. But why the hell after setting all of this up (and they DID set it up with him in the brothel), did they let this die without a whimper?

I’m with you.

Still, a pretty dang good movie.

15

Count me as another who was watching the marathon this weekend as well.

This doesn’t surprise me. I too saw it late in life compared to most of my friends. I watched it for the first time on VHS in college about 20 years after it’s release. I knew most of the classic moments and my friends and media had hyped it to extremes. Additionally I had seen and loved classics, though partial imitations, like Scarface, Goodfellas, and Casino as well as a bunch of crappy mob dramas. The net effect is that the sometimes subtle parts of The Godfather get glossed over compared to the bombast of more modern works while some of the lines come across as cheesy and cliche due to their constant replication.

One of the main criticisms of the movie is the roles of the females. They are typically loathed by fans to the point of becoming a punchline. Similar to the reaction people had to Adrian in Rocky. By no means are you in the minority here. I’m not sure if it’s a generational thing, if it was intentionally done by the director,
if it’s accurate to the book, or if it’s just a result of shitty casting/acting. Whatever the case, the female characters do indeed suck. Complaining about that is like complaining about the clunky romances in the original Star Wars trilogy.

True, AMC does indeed blow goats with it’s editing. It’s not so much that scenes are missing, and they do alter tons of cursing dialoge in cringe inducing fashion, but mostly that it utterly destroys the mood and rhythm of the movie. When you watch the film in a darkened room in without distractions all the way through you get much more emotional invested in it and the dramatic scenes, which by todays standards are a little subtle, have a better punch.

In short, I agree. It’s a very good movie and I think if you rewatch it on DVD without interruption you’ll appreciate it much more. Normally caring what other people thought of a film is pointless, think about the English Patient episode of Seinfeld, but in this example I think you’re right to question your reaction to a edited for TV version.

Still, you’ll probably never appreciate it as much as people who saw it for the first time when it was released with the sensibilities of that particular time. Also, you’ll never appreciate it as much as someone who saw it without knowing anything about the surprises it holds. Lastly, you probably won’t find it as good as if you hadn’t watched it all the way through for the first time on AMC. Never the less, I think it’s worth an second viewing on DVD.

16

Quick question about Part III. I’ve never actually seen the entire movie, and the parts I have seen pretty much convince me that I don’t want to see the entire movie.

Did Vincent and Mary know they were cousins? Did they ever discuss that their relationship might be a little too much even in the “family comes first” culture of the Corleones?

17

The senator really couldn’t do much more for Michael than make that “some of my best friends…” speech. Furthermore, he *was * a slimeball.

One thing that I’ve often thought of – the Panangeli brother from Sicily: Was he really there on his own volition? After seeing this a couple of times I’ve come to the conclusion that he was brought there by the Corleones. Frankie knew that if he didn’t retract his statements about Michael, his brother would never see home again.

I happen to love the Godfather I and II. But only if uncut and original. I also liked the “Saga” version where they combined the two movies and added back in some of the cut scenes.

18

I think the prevailing theory on this is A) The Brother came over by request of Michael
B) Frank changed his testimony because seeing his brother there embarrased him, because as he stated, the Brother was old-school and Frank testifying about family business and violating the code of Omerta, was a tremendous blow to his brother’s status and esteem or whatever. So he backed off his testimony to save his brother from being shamed.

I don’t know if this has ever been confirmed by a Director’s commentary or whatever, but at least thats what I’ve heard from other people. I did not read the book, but IIRC there was a back story about the Brother having some illegitamate children somewheres that Michael was threatening, but I don’t definetely know that to be the case.

19

Nitpick: neither Goodfellas nor Casino (a lackluster attempt by Scorsese to retool the former masterpiece) is any kind of imitation of The Godfather. If anything, Goodfellas is the anti-Godfather; it’s about a low-level Mob schlub with no “code of honor” or decency; a punk-ass drug addict who sells out his sociopath friends rather than face up to the consequences of his actions. It’s barely romanticized at all and yet, works suprisingly well; for as slimy as Henry Hill is, Ray Lolita makes him just sympathetic enough that the viewer sees his point of view. (Since his closest friends and partners are a murderous cowboy and a brutal, compassionless maniac, it’s not that hard to look to Hill for sympathy, even though in real life he was just a sleeze who slithered out of trouble by selling out his friends.)

The Godfather films, on the other hand, are Greek tragedies in the guise of a Mafia story; the Corleones are far more noble and honorable than any real crime family. They’re great movies–well, the first two, anyway–but about as realistic as Romeo and Juliet.

Stranger

20

I haven’t seen the edited-for-TV version, but I can’t imagine it would provide you with anything but a butchered version of a masterpiece.

As of the reason why it’s regarded as a masterpiece, there are several reasons, not least of which is the acting of Brando, Pacino, and Duvall (among others, although I have to agree that Diane Keaton’s acting is a bit hammy as the OP says). And you get some fascinating characters, like the Turk (Sollozzo) and Luca Brasi (who’s actually much scarier in the book), plus some dramatic plots of murder and revenge between warring families–the kind of stuff that has always made for a good story.

But the big reason, I think, that The Godfather is so memorable is Michael’s story. He starts out, adamantly opposed to his family’s business, determined to make an honest life for himself (in the Marines, no less)…but when his family needs him, when he’s the only one who can help his father (specifically, the scene when he goes to the hospital and finds the Don’s bodyguards aren’t there), he commits himself to the family and doesn’t look back. From that moment on, he’s willing to kill to protect his family from any and all perceived threats. His fall is complete in The Godfather: Part II, but at the end of the first movie, it’s already pretty clear that Michael has completely turned into the very thing he swore he would never be (remember one of his first comments to Kay about the Corleone business–“That’s my family, Kay. It’s not me”–by the end, he no longer can separate the two).

You may find that the movie grows on you with repeated viewings. It has for me, even though I really liked it a lot when I first saw it.

Oh, and The Godfather: Part II is also wonderful, although it took me several viewings to realize just how wonderful it is–in some ways better than the first one.

But The Godfather: Part III is just plain awful. And as for kunilou’s question: yes, Vincent and Mary knew from the beginning that they were first cousins (he’s supposed to be Sonny’s illegimate son by Lucy, the bridesmaid that Sonny was fooling around with at the beginning of the first movie). Thus, the viewer gets greeted to such stirring romantic dialogue as:

Mary: “I love you, cuz”
Vincent: “I love you, too, cuz.”

Ick, Ick, Ick