Good observation! I tend to like or dislike movies without even knowing why. Out of curiosity, are you aware of film-maker’s skill as you watch a movie, or do these insights require “off-line” study and thinking?
the Godfather is a well made film that glorifies murderers, thugs and thieves.
In short, an exquisitely crafted piece of crap.
:::slow golf clap:::
No one’s mentioned the score yet? It has one of those epic, iconic soundtracks rivaled only by maybe the original Star Wars trilogy.
It took me forever to understand that Roth put the hit on Pentangeli even though the killer said ‘Michael Corleone says hello’ as he attempts to kill him; supposedly that was an ad lib by Danny Aiello but I’d have left it out as too confusing
Eh, Gone With the Wind glorifies slave owners and Shawshank Redemption (currently and for whatever reason the Number 1 movie on imdb*) has Morgan Freeman and other sympathetic characters who are murderers, Pulp Fiction’s “heroes” include a hit man who taunts and murders unarmed college students in the first few minutes and a guy who kills his opponent in the ring then runs away to spend winnings gained through fraud, Nicholas and Alexandra dwells on the love story of a couple who lived in inconceivable luxury as millions around them died of malnutrition and war brought about by his policies and the religious charlatan her irration brought to power, The Lion in Winter is a love story about a couple who hates each other, Schindler’s List makes a hero out of a playboy who parties through the war with the money he gets from enslaved Jewish laborers who live in daily danger of their lives, etc. ad nauseum. Nice people just don’t make for good drama, and as the bromide goes, ‘nobody is a villain in their own version of the story’.
*Don’t get me wrong- I think it’s a great film- it just wouldn’t be on my Top 10.
And so absolutely perfect for the film. You can’t imagine that score being used for any other movie.
I think part of the greatness comes from the built-in cognitive dissonance you get from the experience: You *know *that these are thugs, murderers, assassins, and general slime of the worst possible stripe. Yet at the same time, you understand them, see why they do what they do, understand that they are striving to support their families and the good things that they believe in, grok their motivations.
This sense of conflict sticks in ones subconscious craw and makes you *think *about the movie for days and days, dwelling on why you liked it as you alternately love and loathe the characters. To me, that’s a large part of it: to embed this great contradiction and make it work…TRM
As you can see I have a sentimental weakness for my children, and I spoil them.
It’s a mix. I really appreciated the wedding segment but was only vaguely aware of how many characters were being introduced. It was only reading later about it that I found out what it takes to achieve this sort of thing.
But I do notice a lot of interesting aspects of films on my own. Especially the visually oriented ones.
Take the long shots that are a frequent topic on the board. I almost always notice those. From MPFC’s The Meaning of Life to Kill Bill Vol. 1. (The later of course is jammed with fodder for film nuts.) So I also notice things like how the long shot in Atonement was a waste of time and just the director showing off his directin’ skillz. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it.
Reading about what is going on to make a movie look a certain way almost always adds to my enjoyment when I watch it again later.
While watching a movie, I am very much aware that I am watching a movie. I am thinking about how nice a shot was, how good the dialogue is working, etc. All very enjoyable to me. I never get “lost” in the film and start thinking “Don’t open that closet door girl! The killer’s in there! Oh noes!” That’s a very different way of enjoying a film but it’s not the way I tick.
I saw the film countless times on TV, video, & dvd and always loved it, but a few years back I had an opportunity to see it on the big screen (Michigan Theater in A2). My God you miss so much on TV. The lighting, sets, cinemtography, every scene is just perfect. There were over 1000 people watching it with me, and everyone jumped at the hospital scene.
If you ever have the opportunity, go see it at a theater to fully appreciate what a masterpiece this is.
BMalion what’s the matter with you? I think your brain’s going soft, from all that comedy you’re playing with those young Dopers. Don’t ever let anyone outside the Charter Members know what you’re thinking again!
Do you appreciate SCTV parodies, Tom?
(I wish I could find the opening of that episode in which Floyd the Barber asks Don Caballero to kill Opie.)
Movies from 2010 with mobsters are getting pretty dull from repeating the same things endlessly (like American Gangster from 2007). Going back and seeing the source only adds to the tedium.
The original movies were for their time pretty brutal, glorifying bad guys and having them present “evil” options with straight faces. To the people of the time, that was just awesome. Of course, most of that came from the book. But to the average viewer, this is what was cool. They’d quote the lines where the bad people were doing evil things, talk about mobster code, etc. and were interested in it principally as a film of manliness and high-powered business.
These days, that’s not original nor spectacular. You see it in any one of five randomly selected films. So where there may originally have been an “Oh my god!”, now it’s a “Myeah? What’s so special about that?” And it ends up a boring ass film.
On the other hand, it’s a movie by Francis Ford Coppola who most filmies are convinced is an artist of great talent who creates films of significant depth. Personally, I think that where they see depth in his movies, it’s really just ambiguity compounded with a slow pacing to make you think that he’s stressing that there’s something meaningful there, when really there isn’t. It’s a movie about a guy turning bad, and how that’s a “bad thing”. And that happens in like the first 30 minutes of the first film. If the following movie(s) doesn’t convince you that his becoming bad was “bad”, then what all depth there was to the film has been lost. The Godfather 2 is pretty much just a continuation of Michael doing more bad things because the first movie sold so well that they were obligated to continue the story.
In terms of cinematography, perhaps it’s awesome. Personally, I only know when what I’m looking at is professionally shot or not,* so trying to evaluate each frame for its theoretical meaning according to the textbook of cinematography is beyond me. Perhaps if you have actually studied cinematography you’ll find it impressive. But if you haven’t, like 99.999% of everyone on the planet, I suspect that if you can tell anything beyond whether it is or isn’t up to the standards of professional cinematography is beyond you and your interpretation that there’s more there is more in your mind than anything. This is a fairly meaningless metric.
So, ultimately, I would say that it’s a movie that has been superseded and improved upon by its descendants in terms of portraying bad people do bad things. You’re better off to just watch the Sopranos and then be done with gangster films. And in terms of artistry, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Princess Mononoke, Meet Joe Black, Citizen Kane, A Clockwork Orange, etc. are all films far better at interweaving a topic of discussion into a movie form. Heck, even One Hour Photo probably did better, while still being plodding and ambiguous, and having beautiful cinematography. Nobody liked it, even me. It was the original moral ambiguity of the original film, The Godfather, which made it imprint itself on people’s minds. The fame of it and FFC as a talented film maker relies on it, even though it has now been rendered irrelevant.
IMHO, and all that.
- Technically, this isn’t true. As an artist, I’m aware of how one can draw attention to particular items by making the eye sweep along a particular line. And I’m aware that “lighting from overhead = romance”, “lighting from below = horror”, “camera looking up = making character look foolish”, “camera looking down = making character look meek”. But I’m not sure I trust that you can really impart more than that, nor that you need a degree to understand it, given that the techniques are meant to illicit the response that we naturally have.
Coppola did this intentionally. He virtually never showed the Corleones interacting with anyone except other criminals. This way the story was good criminals and bad criminals rather than criminals and non-criminals.
Generally speaking, I think you shouldn’t notice a good filmmaker’s skills when you’re watching a movie. They should be guiding you through the movie invisibly without you consciously realizing they’re doing so.
No, I think there was a lot more. I loved the parts about Vito’s childhood and young adulthood.
Yeah, because if you saw innocents being killed and robbed and so forth by the Corleones’ thugs, it would be a lot harder to glorify them.
::slow golf clap continues:::
I’m not sure any of these movies glorifies their protagonists in the same way that the Godfather glorifies its protagonists. We could argue cases on and on, but … no, the Godfather was a hagiography for gangsters, and none of the other films really qualify as hagiographies.
I didn’t much care for it, for some of the reasons Evil Captor cites (Deathstalker was way cooler), but also that I’m not really moved by what I guess is supposed to be the film’s central tragedy. Michael isn’t some naif who was raised in utter ignorance of what his father and older brothers were doing. He was a Marine captain in WW2, hence no stranger to deadly violence, and when the time comes to step up, he not only jumps at the role, he engages in harsh and unnecessary vindictiveness, though perhaps more so in the second film.
So slam the door on Annie Hall, already. She’s so whiny, I can sympathize.
There is a moment from the opening (wedding) scene in The Godfather that might be useful in explaining why this is a great film.
Michael is there, as an outsider, with his girlfriend Kay. It is the end of the war, and they are going to be married, and Michael is contemplating how he and she are going to relate to his Mafia family. Michael wants to make it clear to Kay what she is getting into, to see if she - and by extension, he - can handle it. So he tells her the story about Johnny Fontaine’s contract, and how Don Corleone, Johnny’s godfather, “convinced” the club owner to give up the contract by threatening to murder him. This is the first use of the famous “made him an offer he couldn’t refuse” line. And Michael winds up the story with the tagline that makes this a great movie.
Michael tells this story about show business and violence by saying “True story…That’s my family, Kay, that’s not me”. That line “true story” is a show business line. Michael is trying out a role, for himself and for Kay. He is trying convince her, as well as himself, that he can remain withdrawn from his family - that the violence inherent in his family’s way of life will not involve him. He is trying to convince himself, and Kay, that his father is not making him an offer he couldn’t refuse. The rest of the movie is finding out that he is wrong.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, it wasn’t too late to note that it was also shallow and pedantic.
Can’t you let mr off, you know, for old time’s sake.