The Godfather Thread

..and why not?
User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23436
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: The Godfather Thread

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 08 Feb 2008, 15:01

sneelock wrote:I think the way the second film tells Vito's story and the Vegas story concurrently really gives more power to both. the whole really is stronger and the sum of the parts ain't too shabby either!


It's true. The Godfather Part II is the rare sequel that actually deepens the original film.

I still prefer Part 1 as the greater movie, but part II might be the greater achievement.
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 29192
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Re: The Godfather Thread

Postby Matt Wilson » 13 Feb 2008, 00:04

Davey the Fat Boy wrote: I still prefer Part 1 as the greater movie, but part II might be the greater achievement.


And let's not forget: The first one's got Brando.

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23436
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: The Godfather Thread

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 13 Feb 2008, 15:54

Wilson Schmilson wrote:
Davey the Fat Boy wrote: I still prefer Part 1 as the greater movie, but part II might be the greater achievement.


And let's not forget: The first one's got Brando.


That's the only reason I consider it a great film.
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 65618
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: The Godfather Thread

Postby Diamond Dog » 14 Feb 2008, 12:46

Davey the GAQ Boy wrote:
Wilson Schmilson wrote:
Davey the Fat Boy wrote: I still prefer Part 1 as the greater movie, but part II might be the greater achievement.


And let's not forget: The first one's got Brando.


That's the only reason I consider it a great film.


Ridiculous.
Mason Cooley wrote:Worried about being a dull fellow? You might develop your talent for being irritating.

In the future, in case you're wondering, "Crime, boy I don't know" is where I decided to kick your ass.

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23436
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: The Godfather Thread

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 14 Feb 2008, 16:49

Diamond Dog wrote:Ridiculous.


;)
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
beenieman
Posts: 15400
Joined: 20 Jul 2003, 21:43

Re: The Godfather Thread

Postby beenieman » 15 Feb 2008, 01:52

Diamond Dog wrote:
And that's the key - Vito knew how to call a truce "This war ends now". Michael didn't - his only answer is to kill those that challenge him. Always, without exception.



Vito was lying though. He fully intended to kill them later.

As we learned in the second movie Vito never forgave an enemy.
One night, an evil spirit held me down
I could not make one single sound
Jah told me, 'Son, use the word'
And now I'm as free as a bird

User avatar
beenieman
Posts: 15400
Joined: 20 Jul 2003, 21:43

Re: The Godfather Thread

Postby beenieman » 15 Feb 2008, 02:24

Davey the GAQ Boy wrote:
I'll start it off with the question I can never stop asking myself:

Vito Corleone was feared but loved. Michael Corleone was hated. Why?


i think the answer is as provided by others. Vito was connected to the community. Michael was not. Vito also has a clearer understanding of his wider responsibilities to the extended corleone family (the gang) rather than just the blood family.

In the second movie Michael has no sympathy for Pangelli's plight. He tells them he's working on something that will fix things. I fail to see how Michael's Cuban deal with Roth would fix Frank's problems. The truth is Michael does not care.

Vito was a Godfather. Michael was not. Michael was a boss.

The metaphor is with big business just looking after themselves and not caring about the shareholder.

As for the question about whether Vito would have killed Fredo? Fredo would never have betrayed Vito so the question is moot.

I've watched Parts 1 & 2 in the last week or so and will get 3 next.

Interestingly my son, who is 13, said after watching Part 1 that it was the best movie he had ever seen.
Last edited by beenieman on 25 Jul 2011, 02:04, edited 1 time in total.
One night, an evil spirit held me down
I could not make one single sound
Jah told me, 'Son, use the word'
And now I'm as free as a bird

User avatar
Jeemo
Posts: 20524
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 23:17
Location: ????

Re: The Godfather Thread

Postby Jeemo » 15 Feb 2008, 12:46

Wilson Schmilson wrote:
Davey the Fat Boy wrote: I still prefer Part 1 as the greater movie, but part II might be the greater achievement.


And let's not forget: The first one's got Brando.


And thats why part 2 is better ;)
Image So Long Kid, Take A Bow.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 65618
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: The Godfather Thread

Postby Diamond Dog » 15 Feb 2008, 13:47

beenieman wrote:
Diamond Dog wrote:
And that's the key - Vito knew how to call a truce "This war ends now". Michael didn't - his only answer is to kill those that challenge him. Always, without exception.



Vito was lying though. He fully intended to kill them later.

As we learned in the second movie Vito never forgave an enemy.


Of course. My point was, he knew when to call a truce.
Mason Cooley wrote:Worried about being a dull fellow? You might develop your talent for being irritating.

In the future, in case you're wondering, "Crime, boy I don't know" is where I decided to kick your ass.

User avatar
brotherlouie
AKA Number 16 Bus Shelter
Posts: 23132
Joined: 03 Oct 2004, 18:24
Location: In a library, probly.
Contact:

Re: The Godfather Thread

Postby brotherlouie » 24 Mar 2008, 10:00

I'm reading the novel for the first time (just got up to Michael's killing of Sollozzo and McClusky), and it's a wonderful read. The dialogue is practically identical, thought Michael says a lot considering his jaw's wired up. I suspect less is more is the best direction Pacino ever gets.

User avatar
Owen
definitely not Travolta
Posts: 14658
Joined: 17 Jul 2003, 22:52
Contact:

Re: The Godfather Thread

Postby Owen » 24 Mar 2008, 14:17

I really enjoyed the book, I think Coppolla did a good job of deciding what to trim but reading it after I'd seen the film I was suprised at how good it was and how it fleshed out the world

User avatar
brotherlouie
AKA Number 16 Bus Shelter
Posts: 23132
Joined: 03 Oct 2004, 18:24
Location: In a library, probly.
Contact:

Re: The Godfather Thread

Postby brotherlouie » 25 Mar 2008, 11:45

Owen wrote:I really enjoyed the book, I think Coppolla did a good job of deciding what to trim but reading it after I'd seen the film I was suprised at how good it was and how it fleshed out the world


Sure, but a lot of the backstories slow down the action that the film gets you used to. I;m now at the bit when the Families meet after Sonny's death. In between Michael going to Sicily and this point there's a lot of fluff. The whole Johnny Fontane/Nino thing, the bit that ends up in the sequel and a lot of fluff about the other families. I suppose we know all about the Mafia now and that none of this seems surprising, but when the book was published it might have held some fascination.

User avatar
The Write Profile
2017 BCB Cup Champ
Posts: 14672
Joined: 15 Sep 2003, 10:55
Location: Today, Tomorrow, Timaru
Contact:

Re: The Godfather Thread

Postby The Write Profile » 23 Jul 2011, 10:04

I watched the Godfather, Part II last night, and what struck me is that Michael Corleone is pretty much dead inside from the opening frame, and so confused by maintaining his position that he seems to be on the verge of boiling over in pretty much every scene. And yet Pacino's performance is so controlled- I'd forgotten how very few actual hysterics there were in the film, which is why when Michael threatens Kay (after she reveals she had an abortion) it holds so much power, and it's also why that final shot of him by himself lingers in the mind- almost the mirror to the closing shot of the first film. In fact, the impressionistic, criss-crossing structure between young Vito and Michael makes a lot of emotional sense, I think Michael seems to have Vito's drive and ruthlessness, but none of his will to compromise or do deals to placate others. Robert Duvall's Tom Hagen leaves an impression pretty much every time he's onscreen too- something about his sense of authority and ability to reason makes him seem more towering than he actually is- there's that great scene where he tries to talk Michael out of ordering the hit on Hyman Roth, the tension is brilliantly handled- so underhand.
It's before my time but I've been told, he never came back from Karangahape Road.

User avatar
Owen
definitely not Travolta
Posts: 14658
Joined: 17 Jul 2003, 22:52
Contact:

Re: The Godfather Thread

Postby Owen » 23 Jul 2011, 10:23

The RightGraduate Profile wrote:I watched the Godfather, Part II last night, and what struck me is that Michael Corleone is pretty much dead inside from the opening frame, and so confused by maintaining his position that he seems to be on the verge of boiling over in pretty much every scene. And yet Pacino's performance is so controlled- .


It's a long, long time since I've seen the Godfather 2 and whenever I think of Michael in it I think of him on a snowy background at Tahoe with his dreams dead and just starting to work on megalomaniac autopilot. I can't even really remember if that's really in the film, maybe it's just the white and blues of the mountains and lake. I know that isn't the entire movie but it's the recollection I have now.

Whereas Godfather is reds and browns and a sicilian haze. The palatte of those two movies are incredible and stick with me so vividly.

have to watch them again this summer.

User avatar
The Write Profile
2017 BCB Cup Champ
Posts: 14672
Joined: 15 Sep 2003, 10:55
Location: Today, Tomorrow, Timaru
Contact:

Re: The Godfather Thread

Postby The Write Profile » 23 Jul 2011, 10:32

Owen wrote:
The RightGraduate Profile wrote:I watched the Godfather, Part II last night, and what struck me is that Michael Corleone is pretty much dead inside from the opening frame, and so confused by maintaining his position that he seems to be on the verge of boiling over in pretty much every scene. And yet Pacino's performance is so controlled- .


It's a long, long time since I've seen the Godfather 2 and whenever I think of Michael in it I think of him on a snowy background at Tahoe with his dreams dead and just starting to work on megalomaniac autopilot. I can't even really remember if that's really in the film, maybe it's just the white and blues of the mountains and lake. I know that isn't the entire movie but it's the recollection I have now.

Whereas Godfather is reds and browns and a sicilian haze. The palatte of those two movies are incredible and stick with me so vividly.

have to watch them again this summer.


The snow had gone by then, but the chilliness is in that final scene, for sure. It's a hell of a role in the sense there's no real character development, his entire arc as a person was finished by the end of the first film, the second part is about the lengths he goes to protect himself and how that shields him off from everyone. It's also worth pointing out how much the colour scheme of the Conformist clearly influenced the Godfather (Part I)- Gordon Willis's genuis was to take those dark, dreamy shadows and ramp up the harshness of the pallette considerably. Also, how important is the mournfulness of the music to how we instinctively respond to the characters, both Parts I & II are bathed in a certain nostalgia or sense of loss.
It's before my time but I've been told, he never came back from Karangahape Road.

User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 29192
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Re: The Godfather Thread

Postby Matt Wilson » 25 Jul 2011, 01:18

The RightGraduate Profile wrote: It's also worth pointing out how much the colour scheme of the Conformist clearly influenced the Godfather (Part I)- Gordon Willis's genuis was to take those dark, dreamy shadows and ramp up the harshness of the pallette considerably.


But The Conformist came two years after Godfather 1.

User avatar
beenieman
Posts: 15400
Joined: 20 Jul 2003, 21:43

Re: The Godfather Thread

Postby beenieman » 25 Jul 2011, 02:06

It's been 3 years since I saw the trilogy. About time for another viewing.
One night, an evil spirit held me down
I could not make one single sound
Jah told me, 'Son, use the word'
And now I'm as free as a bird

User avatar
The Write Profile
2017 BCB Cup Champ
Posts: 14672
Joined: 15 Sep 2003, 10:55
Location: Today, Tomorrow, Timaru
Contact:

Re: The Godfather Thread

Postby The Write Profile » 25 Jul 2011, 02:24

Lance Matthew wrote:
The RightGraduate Profile wrote: It's also worth pointing out how much the colour scheme of the Conformist clearly influenced the Godfather (Part I)- Gordon Willis's genuis was to take those dark, dreamy shadows and ramp up the harshness of the pallette considerably.


But The Conformist came two years after Godfather 1.


You've got it backwards, it came out two years before the Godfather Part I. And I'm sure Coppola would've been aware of it, he's spoken about its influence before, and even hired the cinematographer for the Conformist for Apocalypse Now. It's not exactly a stretch to claim it, the colour scheme and indeed some of the techniques used, are very similar.

Anyway, I re-watched the Godfather Part I this weekend, but will post something when I get home from work tonight.
It's before my time but I've been told, he never came back from Karangahape Road.

User avatar
beenieman
Posts: 15400
Joined: 20 Jul 2003, 21:43

Re: The Godfather Thread

Postby beenieman » 25 Jul 2011, 03:13

In Godfather 2 Michael takes the Corleones (all the members not just the family members) from being an immigrant family business that relies on trust and looks after its members to being an uncaring Corporate America business that is ruthless in its pursuit of wealth for its own sake regardles of what is good for its stakeholders.

Davey opened his thread by asking the question "Vito Corleone was feared but loved. Michael Corleone was hated. Why?" I believe this answers that question.

Michael would never have the loyalty of someone like a Luca Brasi.

It is a fascinating movie and the best of the series.

It's interesting that Tony Soprano was a leader in the Vito rather than Michael sense but was let down again and again by others in the gang and was never really loved, perhaps because of his anger issues?
One night, an evil spirit held me down
I could not make one single sound
Jah told me, 'Son, use the word'
And now I'm as free as a bird

User avatar
The Write Profile
2017 BCB Cup Champ
Posts: 14672
Joined: 15 Sep 2003, 10:55
Location: Today, Tomorrow, Timaru
Contact:

Re: The Godfather Thread

Postby The Write Profile » 25 Jul 2011, 09:37

beenieman wrote:In Godfather 2 Michael takes the Corleones (all the members not just the family members) from being an immigrant family business that relies on trust and looks after its members to being an uncaring Corporate America business that is ruthless in its pursuit of wealth for its own sake regardles of what is good for its stakeholders.

Davey opened his thread by asking the question "Vito Corleone was feared but loved. Michael Corleone was hated. Why?" I believe this answers that question.

Michael would never have the loyalty of someone like a Luca Brasi.

It is a fascinating movie and the best of the series.

It's interesting that Tony Soprano was a leader in the Vito rather than Michael sense but was let down again and again by others in the gang and was never really loved, perhaps because of his anger issues?


What's really surprising about the first film is that there are very few scenes featuring Vito where he isn't performing some sort of favour or trying to patch things up. The wedding scene alone (which lasts about 25 minutes) sees him answering about a dozen requests in accordance with his "code". In contrast, as soon as Michael becomes Don, one of his first actions is to establish power by wiping out all of his rivals, and in the second film, he doesn't perform a single "true" favour for anyone. But the question remains- could there logically have been any other successor? The great irony is that the one person who could have (relatively) seamlessly shepherded the family into legitimacy, Tom Hagen, could never become Don because he wasn't a true member of the family. So it means that Michael was the best choice by process of elimination- Sonny was such a hothead that it was a matter of time before he "got his" eventually (it's pretty much foreshadowed throughout the first film, the only surprise is that it takes so long), whereas Fredo was too weak-willed.

Good point about Tony Soprano- I think the lack of respect was paradoxically down to both the anger issues and the perceived "weakness" of him trying to address it through years of (ultimately futile) therapy.
It's before my time but I've been told, he never came back from Karangahape Road.