cinemabon
05-16-2004, 11:58 PM
While Francis Ford Coppola can point to many films in his career with pride (The Conversation, Apocalypse Now), the film “The Godfather”, based on the best selling book by Mario Puzo, is perhaps one of the best of his career and perhaps one of the finest films ever made. Since the third film in this series does not come even close and is only loosely based on the first two, I will not even grace this article with its ugly presence. Instead, let’s look first at the synopsis.
As if beginning with an apology for all that is to follow, Coppola and co-writer Mario Puzo start us out by telling us how much they love America. We are not certain why, until it becomes clear that the voice we hear is that of an immigrant expressing his desire to fit in, a common problem with all immigrants. Within moments, we realize this is not a film about the Mafia, but about a man who is powerful, wise, and deadly. This man is respected for his ability to give but a word, and a man’s life is ended. He has made a pact with the devil, and in return has become wealthy beyond his dreams. “The Godfather” is about many things, but mostly the twilight and end of Vito Corleone’s life.
The film opens late in the life of Vito. He is old, revered, and full of wisdom. He is comfortable as the head of a large wealthy estate, and the head of a large crime syndicate. When the film opens, Vito is marrying off his only daughter to another member of the crime syndicate. These Italian men subjugate their women, drink wine like water, and fire guns as easily as they spit. Their world is a secret society that operates in within the borders of America, but has a law and creed of its own. No outsider may belong.
Many of those invited to the wedding come as a sign of respect to Vito. A part of that respect is call him “Godfather”, meaning he looks over them and protects them as long as they follow his orders. The tradition of the “Godfather” goes back to Sicily begun hundreds of years before the story opens. As a part of that same Sicilian tradition, the bride’s father must hand out favors on her wedding day. Vito has a long line of those requesting his assistance, and a longer line of henchmen to carry out the various nefarious deeds.
In addition to his daughter, Vito has three sons and an adopted son. All three have grown into distinct personalities. The eldest is quick to temper and passion rules his life; the second is not too bright and rather dull witted; and a third son returning from the war, who’s experience in the military makes it easier for him to kill others as a part of “doing family business” which we find out later in the story. The fourth son is adopted. He is older than the second and third. He has a college degree and is now a practicing lawyer, allowing him to also become a “counsel” to the Don. Don is another title of respect given to the “head of the crime family.” The Don controls everything and gives orders about what is to be done and who is to carry it out. Throughout the film, the plot takes us into gangland murders and assassination. The film concludes with the passing of the-head-of-the-family torch to the next generation and the end of Vito Corleone.
The word Cosa Nostra is never mentioned, either in the book by Puzo, or the screenplay. The main reason being, this story isn’t so much about the Mafia as it is the story of one man, Vito Corleone, and what the legacy of his life as “The Godfather” left behind. Unfortunately for the world, only the most extreme son survives, Michael, who becomes a ruthless killer that eliminates all the competition. The final moments of the film are like a ballet of killing, with each head of the competing families singled out and brutally murdered while church music and a holy ceremony takes place in sharp contrast, the words “Do you renounce Satan?” starting the blood bath. Only film can give you the proper juxtaposition of the inside of a cathedral versus the brutal slayings of mob bosses in their prospective environments.
After completing “The Godfather”, Coppola and Puzo would be still fascinated by the beginning of Vito’s life. Together they would examine the beginnings of the Corleone Empire in more detail. Within just two years, “The Godfather, part II” was created to explain that start. While continuing the flow of time with Michael who was now Don in the early 1950’s, a parallel story showed Vito as a boy coming to New York and growing up in the “little Italy” slum of the city. The primary focus of the second film was on the two Dons, one from the past, the other in the present time of the film’s current setting. The two roles from the first film, Brando and Pucino, were now transformed into the second film, with Bobby DeNiro playing a younger Vito and Pucino still playing Michael, but aged into his middle years. Michael is no longer in New York. He has more wealth than Vito could have imagined. Michael is well established in power through his Las Vegas casino money connections. Instead of cops and judges, Michael owns U.S. senators and governors. During key moments of Michael’s ever increasing problems, the film flashes back to his father’s humble beginnings on the streets of New York.
This is where the second film shines even greater than the original “Godfather” film. Robert DeNiro, a consummate actor brings a completely different level to the Vito Corleone story than Brando. Through DeNiro’s characterizations, we see a more subtle study of who Vito is and how he came to be. Both Coppola and DeNiro have honed this character study to include fine acting nuances, which raise the bar of what to expect in a performance. Oddly, on a completely different set, Pacino meets this challenge with his own level of excellence. More than the first film, “The Godfather, Part II” shines as a directorial triumph and an actor’s dream come to fruition. The first film is great; the second film is far superior.
Therefore, it came as a surprise to no one that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences gave it the Best Picture Oscar, supposedly the highest accolade the industry can impose on a work of commercial art. This is the only instance in film history where both a film and its sequel won the Best Picture Oscar.
The duelist nature of the second film running different time lines simultaneously is a rarity (or was at the time). There are two distinct stories, which if separated, could be two complete films, independent of each other. However, the fact that at certain moments of each film they segue to one another is the key that ties both stories together. What would be really fascinating would be to run the stories chronologically… starting with DeNiro, then Brando, and then Pacino as the Godfather. It would make sense in one aspect, but take away meanings made clear by their positioning within the context of two distinct styles of filmmaking.
The Godfather films, both parts I and II are so beautifully written, designed, photographed, acted, edited, scored, and directed, that there are few films, if any which could top their level of excellence, including any film made up till this piece is being written. Gordon Willis must also be singled out, along with Puzo, for bringing a new style of photography (diffuse lighting from above) to this set, giving the film its deep rich tones of black and amber and saturated colors like reds and flesh colors, while subduing backgrounds to almost total darkness at times. These two films were Coppola’s crowning achievement, his glory, his pinnacle. American cinema, and world cinema included, will have to go a long way to meet or surpass the level of excellence established back in the 1970’s by Francis Ford Coppola.
Comparing one director to another is a dangerous business in my very subjective opinion. However, let me further conjecture that there are times when it is not only necessary but also prudent. Take the case of directors who are one hit wonders versus those who have a long career but can only truthfully point to one film and say, that was the best. In either case of course, the egos of the director interfere or simply prevent them from doing that very thing because they don’t want to admit that only one film in their career will be the one they are remembered for. Think Welles and think “Kane”; but think Coppola and two films come to mind. While this is not a study of which is film is better or which director is better; there is one film (or rather two) that emerges as far superior to the rest.
As if beginning with an apology for all that is to follow, Coppola and co-writer Mario Puzo start us out by telling us how much they love America. We are not certain why, until it becomes clear that the voice we hear is that of an immigrant expressing his desire to fit in, a common problem with all immigrants. Within moments, we realize this is not a film about the Mafia, but about a man who is powerful, wise, and deadly. This man is respected for his ability to give but a word, and a man’s life is ended. He has made a pact with the devil, and in return has become wealthy beyond his dreams. “The Godfather” is about many things, but mostly the twilight and end of Vito Corleone’s life.
The film opens late in the life of Vito. He is old, revered, and full of wisdom. He is comfortable as the head of a large wealthy estate, and the head of a large crime syndicate. When the film opens, Vito is marrying off his only daughter to another member of the crime syndicate. These Italian men subjugate their women, drink wine like water, and fire guns as easily as they spit. Their world is a secret society that operates in within the borders of America, but has a law and creed of its own. No outsider may belong.
Many of those invited to the wedding come as a sign of respect to Vito. A part of that respect is call him “Godfather”, meaning he looks over them and protects them as long as they follow his orders. The tradition of the “Godfather” goes back to Sicily begun hundreds of years before the story opens. As a part of that same Sicilian tradition, the bride’s father must hand out favors on her wedding day. Vito has a long line of those requesting his assistance, and a longer line of henchmen to carry out the various nefarious deeds.
In addition to his daughter, Vito has three sons and an adopted son. All three have grown into distinct personalities. The eldest is quick to temper and passion rules his life; the second is not too bright and rather dull witted; and a third son returning from the war, who’s experience in the military makes it easier for him to kill others as a part of “doing family business” which we find out later in the story. The fourth son is adopted. He is older than the second and third. He has a college degree and is now a practicing lawyer, allowing him to also become a “counsel” to the Don. Don is another title of respect given to the “head of the crime family.” The Don controls everything and gives orders about what is to be done and who is to carry it out. Throughout the film, the plot takes us into gangland murders and assassination. The film concludes with the passing of the-head-of-the-family torch to the next generation and the end of Vito Corleone.
The word Cosa Nostra is never mentioned, either in the book by Puzo, or the screenplay. The main reason being, this story isn’t so much about the Mafia as it is the story of one man, Vito Corleone, and what the legacy of his life as “The Godfather” left behind. Unfortunately for the world, only the most extreme son survives, Michael, who becomes a ruthless killer that eliminates all the competition. The final moments of the film are like a ballet of killing, with each head of the competing families singled out and brutally murdered while church music and a holy ceremony takes place in sharp contrast, the words “Do you renounce Satan?” starting the blood bath. Only film can give you the proper juxtaposition of the inside of a cathedral versus the brutal slayings of mob bosses in their prospective environments.
After completing “The Godfather”, Coppola and Puzo would be still fascinated by the beginning of Vito’s life. Together they would examine the beginnings of the Corleone Empire in more detail. Within just two years, “The Godfather, part II” was created to explain that start. While continuing the flow of time with Michael who was now Don in the early 1950’s, a parallel story showed Vito as a boy coming to New York and growing up in the “little Italy” slum of the city. The primary focus of the second film was on the two Dons, one from the past, the other in the present time of the film’s current setting. The two roles from the first film, Brando and Pucino, were now transformed into the second film, with Bobby DeNiro playing a younger Vito and Pucino still playing Michael, but aged into his middle years. Michael is no longer in New York. He has more wealth than Vito could have imagined. Michael is well established in power through his Las Vegas casino money connections. Instead of cops and judges, Michael owns U.S. senators and governors. During key moments of Michael’s ever increasing problems, the film flashes back to his father’s humble beginnings on the streets of New York.
This is where the second film shines even greater than the original “Godfather” film. Robert DeNiro, a consummate actor brings a completely different level to the Vito Corleone story than Brando. Through DeNiro’s characterizations, we see a more subtle study of who Vito is and how he came to be. Both Coppola and DeNiro have honed this character study to include fine acting nuances, which raise the bar of what to expect in a performance. Oddly, on a completely different set, Pacino meets this challenge with his own level of excellence. More than the first film, “The Godfather, Part II” shines as a directorial triumph and an actor’s dream come to fruition. The first film is great; the second film is far superior.
Therefore, it came as a surprise to no one that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences gave it the Best Picture Oscar, supposedly the highest accolade the industry can impose on a work of commercial art. This is the only instance in film history where both a film and its sequel won the Best Picture Oscar.
The duelist nature of the second film running different time lines simultaneously is a rarity (or was at the time). There are two distinct stories, which if separated, could be two complete films, independent of each other. However, the fact that at certain moments of each film they segue to one another is the key that ties both stories together. What would be really fascinating would be to run the stories chronologically… starting with DeNiro, then Brando, and then Pacino as the Godfather. It would make sense in one aspect, but take away meanings made clear by their positioning within the context of two distinct styles of filmmaking.
The Godfather films, both parts I and II are so beautifully written, designed, photographed, acted, edited, scored, and directed, that there are few films, if any which could top their level of excellence, including any film made up till this piece is being written. Gordon Willis must also be singled out, along with Puzo, for bringing a new style of photography (diffuse lighting from above) to this set, giving the film its deep rich tones of black and amber and saturated colors like reds and flesh colors, while subduing backgrounds to almost total darkness at times. These two films were Coppola’s crowning achievement, his glory, his pinnacle. American cinema, and world cinema included, will have to go a long way to meet or surpass the level of excellence established back in the 1970’s by Francis Ford Coppola.
Comparing one director to another is a dangerous business in my very subjective opinion. However, let me further conjecture that there are times when it is not only necessary but also prudent. Take the case of directors who are one hit wonders versus those who have a long career but can only truthfully point to one film and say, that was the best. In either case of course, the egos of the director interfere or simply prevent them from doing that very thing because they don’t want to admit that only one film in their career will be the one they are remembered for. Think Welles and think “Kane”; but think Coppola and two films come to mind. While this is not a study of which is film is better or which director is better; there is one film (or rather two) that emerges as far superior to the rest.