by Allan Fish
(USA 1972 175m) DVD1/2
Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes
p Albert S.Ruddy d Francis Ford Coppola w Francis Ford Coppola, Mario Puzo novel Mario Puzo ph Gordon Willis ed William Reynolds, Peter Zinner, Marc Laub, Murray Solomon m Nino Rota art Dean Tavoularis, Warren Clymer
Marlon Brando (Don Vito Corleone), Al Pacino (Michael Corleone), Diane Keaton (Kay Adams), Robert Duvall (Tom Hagan), John Cazale (Fredo Corleone), Talia Shire (Connie Corleone), James Caan (Sonny Corleone), Richard Castelleno (Clemenza), Sterling Hayden (McCluskey), Richard Conte (Barzini), John Marley (Jack Woltz), Al Lettieri (Sollozzo), Abe Vigoda (Tessio), Morgana King (Mama Corleone), Franco Citti (Calo),
The Godfather is truly one of the great movie experiences. It’s more than just a movie milestone, it’s a watershed, a film that changed cinema forever. Maybe not entirely for the good as it lead to so many inferior imitations, but for three hours it draws you into its dark world and, despite the evil that drips off the screen like mozzarella cheese off a pizza, you are sad to leave it behind. You have grown to love these characters, or at least to know them, and the reason for this is that, at its heart, beneath the deception, the murders, the corruption and the poison of the underbelly of the American dream, it’s a good old-fashioned family saga. One is reminded of Mankiewicz’s House of Strangers with Edward G.Robinson waiting around, Lear like, while his contrasting sons screw up his Italian-American banking empire while he tries to listen to Rossini. Indeed, Richard Conte, Paul Valentine and Luther Adler so resemble Pacino, Caan and Duvall here (Duvall may not have been the other son, but the similarity is there) that it’s uncanny. It could be argued that The Godfather is rather like King Lear, but this Lear knows which of his sons he loves best and which one he wants to keep his hands clean. In the end, however, like Macbeth upon catching sight of the witches, he knows he’s just a pawn and so is Michael. And for those who didn’t see the link to House of Strangers, check out the name of Richard Conte, esq., in the cast as Barzini, principal rival family head.
Yet the irony is that it’s not Vito Corleone who’s the central figure here, in spite of being played by top-billed Brando. Just as Shakespeare’s Henry IV plays are not about the eponymous king, they’re about young Prince Hal, silently observing all those around him until it’s time for him to take centre stage. When we first see Michael he’s a war veteran, a hero, returning home for his sister’s marriage, with a naïve young woman in tow, who he tells, in very matter-of-fact tones, how his father settles arguments. “That’s a true story” he tells her, and we believe him. Even this early in proceedings, in the opening set piece of the wedding (where Coppola masterfully cuts between the frivolities outside, the FBI checking number plates outside the gates and the Don dispensing favours in the darkened office) we know this young man is going to change and this change can be best summed up in three pivotal scenes. The first is when he arrives at the hospital to find his father unprotected and has to think on his feet, feigning protection with another guy when in fact there is none. From the moment his jaw is broken by McCluskey, we know he’s out for revenge on him for his father and himself. There’s cold calculation at work. Next there’s the scene at Dempsey’s restaurant where he kills McCluskey and Sollozzo. It’s at this point that he has his first blood on his hands and, like Macbeth and Richard III, sin plucks on sin. So much so that, in the third pivotal scene, at his father’s funeral, he’s become a monster, a disquietingly evil Machiavellian figure, so cold as to be in cryogenic suspension. For those used to the more flamboyant performances of Pacino’s later career, his subtle transformation throughout the film is amazing, so much so that he completely steals the film, in spite of the fine work of Duvall, Caan and Conte (Brando is actually rather hammy). Throw in an immortal score from Rota, moody photography, nice period detail and uncanny direction from Coppola and you have the ingredients of a first class pizza. It might give you indigestion. Its flavour may be too rich for weaker stomachs. But hell, take some Gaviscon, it’s worth it, it really is an offer you can’t refuse.
Hi! Allan,
What a nice review of a film that I finally, watched for the first time…hmmm… maybe two years ago. 🙄
Allan said,” One is reminded of Mankiewicz’s House of Strangers with Edward G.Robinson waiting around, Lear like, while his contrasting sons screw up his Italian-American banking empire while he tries to listen to Rossini.”
Wow…and to think actor Richard Conte, was in the 1972 film The Godfather too!
Speaking of, actor Richard Conte, he has tremendous film noir credential(s) and so do actor Sterling Hayden.
Allan, once again, Thanks,
DeeDee 😉
The DeeDee Drill: Right pointer finger touching my right temple as I repeat these words…Number 22…Translation: 28 more
selection(s) to go! and I’ am watching 70s films like
“crazy” another batch just arrived today!…via postal service. I better go now because these films have me “dizzy.”
thank you for reminding me why i come here… you are about to pick 21 films from the 70’s that are better then the godfather (and Jaws isn’t one of them).
i do like the godfathers, but personality needs to show in these types of things. kudos guys.
for the record i’d watch/take three coppola’s over ANY godfather film. speaking of, has anyone seen his new ‘tetro’? it’s at a cinema by me so i may see it in a few days.
Alan will pick 21 films that he “thinks” is better than the Godfather.
Better than picking a thousand American films he thinks are better than that foreign muck…or you’d just vote for The Godfather 25 times…
I didn’t say it wasn’t only my opinion, Angelo, only that I was right.
Cont…
A.F. said,”Indeed, Richard Conte, Paul Valentine and Luther Adler so resemble Pacino, Caan and Duvall here (Duvall may not have been the other son, but the similarity is there) that it’s uncanny.
It could be argued that The Godfather is rather like King Lear, but this Lear knows which of his sons he loves best and which one he wants to keep his hands clean. In the end, however, like Macbeth upon catching sight of the witches, he knows he’s just a pawn and so is Michael. “And for those who didn’t see the link to House of Strangers, check out the name of Richard Conte, esq., in the cast as Barzini, principal rival family head.”
Touche! Allan, Touche!
By the way, I have never viewed the film House of Strangers starring actors Richard Conte, (Edward G. Robinson, Oops! 😳 another film noir icon…(Double Indemnity, Key Largo, The Red House, The Stranger.)Paul Valentine,(Out of the Past), and Luther Adler.(Cornered, DOA, and Kiss Tomorrow Goodbye).
A.F. said, “For those used to the more flamboyant performances of Pacino’s later career, his subtle transformation throughout the film is amazing, so much so that he completely steals the film, in spite of the fine work of Duvall, Caan and Conte”
Oh! Yes, you, summed up Pacino’s role as Micheal Corleone, perfectly!
“(Brando is actually rather hammy).”
Ok! everybody…on the count of 1-2-3 a collective
“gasp!”.. Say Wot! Get out!… The only Oscar@ winner! 😕
DeeDee 😉
Allan, somehow I missed this seminal work of the 70s until a few months ago, and was I ever impressed when I finally saw it. I liked the classic style it was filmed in–no frills or stylistic gimmicks, just a gripping story, perfectly told. I also like your review very, very much. I especially liked the comparisons to the several Shakespeare works, which all seemed apt (but especially the “Henry IV”). Pacino is not one of my favorite contemporary actors, although his talent is undeniable. But was he ever great as Michael Corleone in this and also (perhaps even moreso) in “Part II.” To the three pivotal scenes you covered, I would also add the scene where Michael’s Sicilian bride is killed. I felt that this was the point at which his future became certain. Up until then, he could have–and I had the impression intended to–return to his former life and not become involved in the family “business.” But that experience transformed him almost instantly into the cold, ruthless man he became, so that when Sonny was killed, he stepped in to take over. I know this will be on my top 25 of the 70s list. My only dilemma is whether to treat it and “Part II” as separate movies or as a single entity. They seem so different yet it’s hard to think of one without the other.
I think Gordon Willis’ contribution as DP needs to be formally acknowledged. His decisions on film stock, filters, and lighting were integral and if the claim that The Godfather is “a film that changed cinema forever” is credible, it is Willis that deserves the credit. It is his film as much as it Coppola’s. As Welles’ did for Citizen Kane, title credits should have been shared…
Hi! Allan, Sam Juliano, Tony and WitD readers,
Here goes a photograph of actor Richard Conte and “The Ham”…Oops! I meant to say actor (Marlon) Brando.…Just kidding! Allan, lol! 🙂
(DeeDee said,”Speaking of, actor Richard Conte, he has tremendous film noir credential(s) and so do actor Sterling Hayden.” My own “quote”…Unbelieveable!)
Here goes actor Richard Conte’s very impressive film noir credentials
Oh! Yes, I have watched all of Mr. Conte’s films accept for the 1947 film “The Other Love” and the 1955 film “Red Monkey.”
I’ll Cry Tomorrow (1955) …. Tony Bardeman (Noir 😕 )
Little Red Monkey (1955) …. Bill Locklin
… aka The Case of the Red Monkey (USA)
The Big Tip Off (1955) …. Johnny Denton
New York Confidential (1955) …. Nick Magellan
The Big Combo (1955) …. Mr. Brown (Noirish)
Highway Dragnet (1954) …. James Henry
The Blue Gardenia (1953) …. Casey Mayo
The Raging Tide (1951) …. Bruno Felkin
Hollywood Story (1951) …. Larry O’Brien
Under the Gun (1951) …. Bert Galvin (Oops! I never watched the 1951 film “Under the Gun.”)
The Sleeping City (1950) …. Fred Rowan
… aka Web of the City
Whirlpool (1949) …. Dr. William ‘Bill’ Sutton
Thieves’ Highway (1949) …. Nick Garcos
House of Strangers (1949) …. Max Monetti
Cry of the City (1948) …. Martin Rome (Hmmm…One of my favorites…I wonder why?!? 🙄 (The smiling eyes suppose to roll!)
Call Northside 777 (1948) …. Frank W. Wiecek
… aka Calling Northside 777
The Other Love (1947) …. Paul Clermont
… aka Man Killer (USA: reissue title)
13 Rue Madeleine (1947) …. William H. ‘Bill’ O’Connell
Somewhere in the Night (1946) …. Mel Phillips
Backfire (1946)
The Spider (1945) …. Chris Conlon
Heaven with a Barbed Wire Fence (1939) (as Nicholas Conte) …. Tony Casselli
Here goes that other film noir icon “very impressive”
film noir credential actor Sterling Hayden.
Oh! Yes, I have watched all of Mr. Hayden’s films accept for the 1957 film 5 Steps to Danger and the 1949 film Manhandled.
Thanks, to very “clever” film noir collectors!
5 Steps to Danger (1957) …. John Emmett
Crime of Passion (1957) …. Police Lt. Bill Doyle
The Killing (1956) …. Johnny Clay
The Come On (1956) …. Dave Arnold
Suddenly (1954) …. Sheriff Tod Shaw
Naked Alibi (1954) …. Chief Joe Conroy
Johnny Guitar (1954) .Johnny ‘Guitar’ Logon
Crime Wave (1954) …. Det. Lt. Sims
… aka The City Is Dark…“No Comment!”
The Asphalt Jungle (1950) …. Dix Handley
Manhandled (1949) …. Joe Cooper…The List their (Conte and Hayden) films courtesy of IMDb
DeeDee 😉
“Typo Alert!”
The List of their (Conte and Hayden) films courtesy of IMDb…Oops! and I never watched Conte in the 1946 Backfire.
DeeDee 😉
This is another instance of a film that has generated a backlash due to the reputation it has acquired over the years. Such things puzzle me personally, but what can you do? As R.D. Finch said, this is just great storytelling, plain and simple. For the longest time I would have considered this possibly my favorite movie. This isn’t quite the case anymore, but I still have it at #2 in the 70s. In fact, Coppola films occupy my top three spots for the decade, I could easily have switched them up and put this at #1.
Allan – Coppola fashioned an extraordinary work of popular art here. A brilliant look at family, in both sense of the word. The details and nuances FFC applied to the opening wedding scene are extraordinary, as is every other scene in the film. The precise editing and the power of the baptismal scene still resonate these many years later. Your comparison to “House of Strangers” is ever so appropriate. Al Pacino is brilliant here, as you rightly state his wonderful transformation from the naive Michael to a cold-blooded killer. Pacino’s whole seventies career is one of superb acting. The cinematography of Gordon Willis, the music of Rotha, the editing and the production design by Dean Tavoularis are all perfect ingredients to this magnificent work. Thanks for an excellent review.
Let me offer the likely reason why Allan Fish, Tony d’Ambra and myself have resisted putting this film in our top five? (Tony left it off, Allan has it here at #21, and I have it in the 30’s on my list) I think all three of us are rather frustrated by the fact that so many other voters are placing the film at the top or near the top of their own lists, and because the film’s spectacular artistic and commercial popularity over the years is possitively deafening. While the film is great in so many ways, and as Allan contends here it defines cinema as we now know it, it is always a downer when there is a “given” on anything. As far as lists go then, where is the suspense? But beyond that we must aask ourselves, does this film allow us that consumate emotional experience we hope to have whenever we watch any film? The answer is irrefutably in the positive.
Why is Allan’s review so great? Well, aside from the fact that nearly all his reviews rate an A + in the critical pantheon, I think he captures the Italian-American pulse here, throughout, fully understanding the psychology of these people, while expressing the mode of artistry that makes this one of the truly great films of all-time.
I was particularly amused by this:
“for three hours it draws you into its dark world and, despite the evil that drips off the screen like mozzarella cheese off a pizza, you are sad to leave it behind.”
You will not find a btter understanding of this film anywhere else on the net(and this is a capsule no less!!), or in any volume for that matter. That’s what it’s come to here at WitD with Allan. Now if only we can alter his personality to match that of your standard Italian American! Ha!
For those who insist that THE GODFATHER films are one and the same, please be advised respectfully that this is NOT the case. One film was made in 1972, the other in 1974. Their focus is quite different, despite the fact that for commercial reasons they were cut and combined to make The Godfather Trilogy along with the much inferior third installment in 1990, which isn’t even considered as part of this story.
For me, GODFATHER PART 2 is better than the film on display here for all sorts of reasons, but this is still an American masterpiece.
Dee Dee: What you have done here with all the embellishments, the Richard Conte filmography et al is simply amazing, and it really brings this thread to life in a big way. Also, th epalpable excitement you express here with the broaching in Allan’s review of THE HOUSE OF STRANGERS.
Jamie: I saw TETRO a few weeks ago and spoke of it at the first Monday Morning Diary. It’s not perfect, but I did like it. I found it a dazzling and bold operatic confection with a striking lead performance. Vincent Gallo was a drag though. But you really want to see this one.
Tony: I couldn’t agree with you more on Gordon Willis deserving co-credit there. His contribution is massive.
John and Dave: Terrific, terrific additions here, but as this is Allan’s review, I’m sure he’ll have more to say later today.
Needless to say, I absolutely love the parallels Allan presents here to Shakespeare. (LEAR, MACBETH, RICHARD III).
And then there is R.D. Finch, whose above contribution is stellar and suffused with cinematic excitement and appreciation. It’s what comments are all about, much like Tony’s, Dee Dee’s, John’s, Dave’s, Jamie’s and others.
For about six months now, I am often “reminded” to check out the most recent postings at this site and to enter comments. I’ve done this faithfully-and appreciate all that has been done for me in return- but today I come to the site without any nudging- as summer school is slow- and lo and behold we have the most famous film of the period. I listed both Godfather films near the bottom of my top 25 list for reasons that Sam spoke of in his comments. Nobody wants to be told what they should do, and I think there is resentment for what is really popular on a grand scale. Still, if you asked me on a different day, I could have this in my top 5. I also would like to issue the strongest praise for Allan’s review, which in few words conveys this phenomenon. I also believe that these are two separate films, although I’m not so sure that the second is any better than the first. The first film has Marlon Brando, and editing like no other film, including the second part.
Congratulations Mr. Fish. You have really outdone yourself with this review. It makes you want to watch this film again today. I like that ‘Machivellian’ allusion. My favorite sequence is the baptism/multiple murder near the end, but I know that’s now seen as a classic.
My favorite line or lines?
Sonny: “Where’s Paulie?”
Clemenza: “Oh Paulie. You won’t see him anymore.”
Castellano is my favorite actor in the film in fact, and I always laugh at what he says in the scene when he teaches Michael how to shoot: “Don’t take no chances, two shots in the head each!”
Hey Frank! You are really tempting me there to come up with a batch of favorite THE GODFATHER lines! Seems that no film has yielded as many.
Sam, I’n not around, please amend the typo on Machiavellian in wordpress.
Sam, the reason I voted The Godfather down here is not a subconscious decision to be shocking, whatever you may think, but because I felt it was the place it deserved, end of story. If I felt it was no 1 it would be no 1, but I rate 21 films higher. Simple as that.
I still cling to my subconscious contention, and since I am also applying it to myself, I don’t feel I’m unfairly fingering you. But you have explained yourself, so I’ll leave it at that.
Fair enough, but you’re wrong. Period.
Are you The Godfather? Ha!
This is a tremendous piece of writing. I agree with someone above who said it makes you want to watch this film again right now. Mr. Fish uses metaphors superbly. Pacino gives the best performance in the film in my opinion, and the character I enjoyed the most was the studio head (Woltz?) who found the head of his horse in his bed.
Metaphors indeed, David. Allan is one gifted guy. I only wish he would realize himself just how fantastic a writer he is. He may be the best on the entire net. When it come to compliments he’s teflon.
I think my favorite scene has got to be when Michael is in Italy, trying to teach Apollonia how to drive:
MICHAEL [Italian]: It’s safer to teach you English!
APOLLONIA [Italian]: I know English…
[then in English]: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Wednesday, Friday, Sunday, Saturday… Andiamo!
I don’t think it’s necessarily the scene itself that appeals to me — it’s more so how it breaks up the sobriety of the past two hours. As you said, ‘The Godfather’ is “a good old-fashioned family saga.” And despite the cloak of violence that overwhelms the family (and increasingly Michael) throughout most of the film, this scene shows that it hasn’t overtaken them completely. Not yet, anyway.
Hello L’Eclisse! Once again you brighten up our threads with cinematic insights. I also love that scene and it indeed is that small token of comic levity the film needed at that point. Of course it was the calm before for the storm, what with the Appolonia tragedy looming in the coming scenes.
By the way L’Eclisse, what is your site called? I’d like to pay you a visit and add it to our blogroll. You’ve been great with us. Thanks.
Thank you for the compliment, Sam! l’eclisse is the name of my blog:
http://leclisse.wordpress.com/
And thanks to you and Allan for creating such a vibrant forum to discuss so many great films. 🙂
“The DeeDee Drill: Right pointer finger touching my right temple as I repeat these words…Number 22…Translation: 21 more (Not 28)
selection(s) to go! and I’ am watching 70s films like
“crazy” another batch just arrived today!…via postal service. I better go now because these films have me “dizzy.””
You, do the math…Oops! 😳 make that 21 films!
I’am so sorry!…I really am “dizzy.”
DeeDee 😉
LOL Dee Dee!!!!!!!!!!!
Hang in there. I’d love at some point to hear your views on some of these 70’s films!!!!
Guys, guys, guys. Nobody is disputing that this film is a master class in story telling. What we’re not discussing is the Shakespearean overtones that thread this film like a needle to cloth. Allan is correct when he sites the Bard’s tragic influence. THE GODFATHER is a supreme entertainment, but it is also a visual treatise on the seductive powers of greed for power and how it can turn the will of even the strongest resolves. What’s truly tragic about this story is Micheals own blindness to his fall into darkness. He is reacting to his destiny and for anyone that thinks that he is an innocent being jaded by the events of the story should seek a psychiatrists council. The drama that is so fascinating about ythis film is that a jaded soul will defend his position of innocence even in the face of destiny. Micheal is only doing what his upbringing has guided him to, he is a calculative snake whose belief in saving his family justifies his hunger for power. RICHARD III is closer to this than any other parallel. A
Outstanding analysis, dennis… just wanted to compliment you, as I agree with your assessment.
In the interests of full disclosure, my father is Sicilian.
The Mafia in Southern Italy and America more than any criminal organization before or since has under cover of a monumental perversion of family values corrupted, subverted, and destroyed too many lives and communities.
Coppola’s Godfather films are technically brilliant and deserving of the highest praise, but fail dismally to confront the reality of the destruction and trauma that the mafiosi wreak in the societies they infest. This is why I have not included the films in my list.
As UK film writer Geoff Andrew wrote in his review of Godfather II in the Time Out Film Guide: “the film is so entranced by the dynastic dazzle that it neglects to show the Mob’s baleful influence on America at large – the only people visibly harmed are either rival mafiosi or corrupt authority figures”
Apologies to Allan, but I found his pizza metaphor crass and a trifle offensive.
Well Tony, you have forced me into an admission here. My disadain for the television series THE SOPRANOS is in large measure for the reasons you just spelled out here. Italian-Americans are not shown as anything but murderers, thieves and immoral scoundrels, and it’s rather an abused stereotype. While the artistry of THE GODFATHER films won’t allow me to regard them with anything but cinematic veneration, I still am unable to place then ahead of films that affected me emotionally, on a far greater scale. So essentially I am on the same page with you.
You are half Sicilian then and half Greek. Well, My father, who is 79 was born here by hhis father, who lived to be 96, came here as a child and he was Napolitan. My father’s mother was from Bari, and both my mother’s parents were originally from Abruzzi (Bruzzese).
I can also see why the pizza metaphor would be offensive.
God, Sam, stop wearing out the assgroove on the fence from sitting on it. Adolf Hitler could come to the site and make an anti-Semitic diatribe and you’d say “I can see why you find Jews offensive, that’s a good point”.
I certainly didn’t mean to offend Tony, but I don’t believe I was being particularly offensive, but then again, it’s not one of my best pieces by a long shot, so if anything was offensive I’d say the piece was not one single metaphor about pizza.
The difference with The Sopranos, Sam, is that it wasn’t in the past, so you couldn’t pretend it was no longer happening. Plus it was in NJ, on your doorstep, and in your world they don’t exist. I loved The Sopranos, but at the same time I think Deadwood and especially The Wire were greater.
A lot of people find Mike Leigh offensive for the same reasons, that he stereotypes the British working class, hence why he’s so popular in the States. People do not like a mirror held up to their society and being told “look at this, you made this” They prefer to look with disdain on other countries, other cultures.
Allan, I was too defensive. No harm done.
But your response on The Sopranos is unfair to Sam. Unless you have grown up with the reality of prejudice, you will never know how Sam or his father feel.
Over here, we have always have had to defend our cultural legacy against the stereotype that ‘all dagos are hoods’. That the rate of incarceration for those of Italian origin is way lower than Anglos is hardly ever mentioned…
I couldn’t reply to T9ony’s comment as no reply option against it, but the rise of the stereotype is not due to race, Tony, but due to religion. Italians and Spanish are seen as crooks, just as in the UK Scousers (Liverpudlians) are. The reason is that they’re Catholic countries. They are nationsa built on a religion where anything can be forgiven in the confessional on a Sunday and crime can thus be repented and recommitted again. Catholicism is founded on a lie, and most importantly on criminality. Look at all Catholic countries and you’ll see the biggest crime, the biggest poverty and the biggest stereotypes of crime.
If Italy and Spain were portestant countries, they would not have this stereotype.
Allan, you’re joking right?
Your bluntness oh Marquis de Sade adocate has always been my biggest inspiration if laying out the red carpet with vigour here at the internet’s most gloriously delectable battleground, Wonders in the Dark.
Tony.. While I would say you make a great point I think your making far more of this than warranted. I happen to be a Sicilian as well, and agree with you that the devastation the mafia wrecks on it’s societies is not present here in this film, but I don’t happen to think that was what Coppola ever had in mind in the first place. This is a family saga about the down-fall of a chosen son. To go into depth on the devastated reactions of this families community and society would have no baring on the story at hand. Like GONE WITH THE WIND, the backdrop and the reaction by society have little to do with the main story, a woman coming into her own. The realities of devastation the mafia has on society outside this family have nothing to do with the downfall of Michael Corleone. As an Italian I am not offended by the movie or Allans reference.
Dennis:
I assure you that Tony is hardly the only one who feels this way. My own father thinks the films went way overboard in the manner Tony spelled out, and there are many others!
With all that said; I will now make the prediction that Allan will not only have THE GODFATHER PART II in his top ten, but I’ll bet dollars to donuts it’s in his top five! We still have yet to see A CLOCKWORK ORANGE surface on this countdown and not one Scorsese film yet. I salivate with anticipation. Keep up the suspense and good work Allan. Thanx, Dennis
And as to the placement of THE GODFATHER in the No. 22 position on this countdown: I’m actually glad to see it here rather than higher up. While I’ve sung the praises many share for this film I will agree with both Allan and Schmulee that I honestly think there ARE better films in this decade. Personally, and I’m not alone here, the concensous seems to favor THE GODFATHER PART II as a better film all round. As far as Coppola is concerned, I think this was his decade and aside from both GODFATHER films he also score with the often forgotten THE CONVERSATION (featuring Gene Hackman’s BEST performance). For me, though, I will always praise him most for his personal favorite APOCALYPSE NOW, unlike his other films it was A.N. that became more than a movie and showed itself as an experience. No, APOCALYPSE NOW is his true masterpiece.
Well, for what it’s worth, if I could get myself to make ranked lists, The Godfather Part II – and perhaps The Godfather alongside it – would be #1. Considerations of overratedness, romanticization of the Mafia, and everything else aside…I just think this is one of the greatest stories ever told onscreen, with as much emphasis on the “told” as the “stories”. Of course, there are still a great many 70s classics I need to see – especially in the foreign department – but somehow I suspect few if any would edge these films down the list. Along with Lawrence of Arabia and Vertigo, for a good decade now Godfathers I & II (particularly the second) have held fast in my triumvirate of favorite films, when anybody cares to ask.
First, let me add, I am an Italian-American (100% Sicilian). The image of Italian-American’s has been always tainted by the underworld stigma. Never mind the Joe DiMaggio’s, Frank Capra’s, Mario Cuomo’s, Fiorello LaGuardia’s, Gregory Corso’s, Frank Borzage’s, Yogi Berra’s, Al Pacino’s and so many others. The image of Italian-American’s is gangster or at best Vinny Barbarino or Arthur Fonzerelli. I happen to like gangster films in general, it has nothing to do with whether they are Italian gangsters or not and I think “The Godfather” is a brilliantly made work, one of the greats, though I agree with those who believe The Godfather 2 is even better. That said, one of the things that endears me to “The Godfather” and even more to “The Godfather 2” is the non-violent, non-underworld aspects of the Italian-American experience. The importance of family, and I do not mean the hoodlum family. I am talking about the wedding scene, the scenes of Little Italy and the Ellis Island scenes (I know this is Godfather 2). Coppola conveys these so beautifully, what is was like, how names were unceremoniously changed because earlier immigrants, now integrated and working on Ellis Island, could not understand these new foreigners language. This incident actually happened to cousins of mine whose last name is more German than Italian. I believe Coppola put a lot of love into these scenes and they are an important part of what makes the films, to me, great and more than just gangster films. I agree with Tony’s statement, and Sam, that the Mafia has damaged, corrupted lives, families and communities and has stigmatized the image of Italian’s that years of good, productive, creative lives like those Italian-American’s mentioned earlier and most others living decently cannot erase.
One of my favorite films that will be on my ‘70’s list along with The Godfather films, is Jan Troll’s “The Emigrants” which I saw back in 1971 and is another brilliant work about the immigrant experience of coming to America. I only mention this because another famous Italian-American Martin Scorsese is constantly rumored to be making a film about the Italian-American immigrant experience, without the gangsters. I hope this comes to be someday.
John: I am thrilled that you mention THE EMIGRANTS here, as I have battled Allan for years on this film, which he summarily dismisses as a major bore. Both it and its “sequel” THE NEW LAND, which I rank even higher (it’s on my Top 25 list) represent the definitive immigrant experience, and Von Sydow and Ullman are piercingly wonderful.
You’ve again provided us at WitD with a much-appreciated piece of commentary, and yes, I can’t say I disagree with anything you say here. Ethic objections aside, the Godfather films are works of art without question, and I disagree with my friend Dennis Polifroni, who makes claim that APOCALYPSE NOW is Coppola’s masterpiece. No way for me. The Godfather films are far superior by any barometer of measurement. Still, I respect his opinion and right to feel this way. John, those Italian-American names you mention there really tell it all. Yes theer are others, but I’ll add one essential one here: Frank Sinatra, especially since (in addition to his definitive greatness in his field) he’s “connected” to THE GODFATHER is more ways than one.
John , I would recommend Edward Dmytryk’s Christ in Concrete (aka Give Us This Day) (1949), based on the novel by Italo-American Pietro Di Donato. Christ in Concrete telling the story of Italian immigrant building workers and their families in Brooklyn during the Depression. The two leads, Sam Wanamaker and Lea Padovani, embody the immigrant experience, which is so imbued with vitality and compassion that the film soars above any other similar work of the period. My review on FlmsNoir.Net is here.
Aye Tony Aye! CHRIST IN CONCRETE is really a perfect example in this context and your review is quite frankly one of your greatest ever, especially as it is informed with great passion.
As John Greco is a HUGE film noir fan like yourself, I would think the Dmytryk is essential for him.
Sam – Yes, saw both “The Emigrants” and “The New Land” at the Sutton Theater of 57th street and they are both on my list. I’d rank “Apocalypse Now” up there, but I do rank The Godfather films higher. I did leave Sinatra off, how could I? There are many other names you could add too.
Tony – I will definitely read your review and add that film to my watch list.
Ah, John, I do remember the Sutton well, as I attended a number of films there in my younger days. It was on 57th Street right off 3rd Avenue. Many foreign-language films open there. I saw THE EMIGRANTS at a Manhattan theatre but I forget which one. THE NEW LAND was seen at a Warners screening room as I goy a few benefits from being the film critic of the college newspaper.
Sam, Tony, Dennis – Forgot to mention – I was wondering if any of you folks have read the book “Hollywood Italians” by Peter Bondanella? An excellent cultural look at how Italian-Americans have been portrayed in film.
Thanks for the pointer to the book John, I will try to get hold of a copy.
It does intrigue me as well Tony. I bet cheap copies are on amazon.