Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 5,559,186
  • Total Topics: 106,349
  • Online Today: 767
  • Online Ever: 3,311
  • (July 08, 2021, 03:14:41 AM)
Users Online
Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 06:14:50 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Let's talk Godfather

Started by kalowski, August 07, 2019, 11:13:08 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

kalowski

I have a sentimental weakness for my children, and I spoil them, as you can see. They talk when they should listen.

Time to put our cards on the table, what is the CaB consensus? Part I or Part II? (Hopefully someone will come along soon and say Part III).
Those first two films really are remarkable, they move at just the right pace, showing us just what we need to know, when we need to know. I really love them. They look incredible, the performances are amazing - Duvall especially is just brilliant.

So, let's talk Don Vito.

Sebastian Cobb

Godfather 3 is a better film than Godfathers.

greenman

Been awhile so I'll cop out and say I preffer the first half of the original(ending with the restaurant shootings) and the Michael side of the sequel.

Just to devert early on as well and say Once Upon A Time In America is better than both for me and especially the Vito sections of the sequel.

kalowski

Quote from: greenman on August 07, 2019, 11:21:14 PM
Been awhile so I'll cop out and say I preffer the first half of the original(ending with the restaurant shootings) and the Michael side of the sequel.

Just to devert early on as well and say Once Upon A Time In America is better than both for me and especially the Vito sections of the sequel.
Once Upon a Time in America is not better. It's great, but too sprawling and has that awful "rape but she likes it" scene.
What don't you like following the restaurant shooting? Surely you love the killing of the families set piece?

kalowski

I love how they don't explain certain things "He's thinking of going to the mattresses" for example.

kalowski

Favourite line?
"Leave the gun. Take the cannolis"
"I am Enzo, the baker."

bgmnts

The book is better than them all because its 50% mafia and 50% large vagina sub plot.

I'd say 1 edges it over 2 though. Michael Corleone goes through a more gradual arc from goody two shoes to absolute bastard than Vito Corleone does, despite Godfather 2 being a longer film, although admittedly it'a telling two stories, and I can't think of a film that does that better actually.

Kelvin

I've never liked the Vito stuff in 2. It lacks the complexity of the stuff with Michael, but more importantly, it feels like it barely relates on a thematic or narrative level with anything in that main story.

Obviously there are a few superficial touchpoints like family and getting into a world of violence, but there are very few moments where you see a proper comparison with how Michael is handling things. No proper insights into brotherhood, style of leadership, etc. I just don't feel like the Vito stuff earns a place in that story, and it therefore ruins the pacing of the otherwise superb film.

Kelvin

Actually, even the main story of 2 has a problem, in that it has no proper charachter arc for Michael. He goes from ruthless cunt feared by his wife at the start to ruthless cunt dreaded by his ex wife at the end. It's not an arc so much as a flatline. It just gets by on being so well made and so compelling to watch, regardless. As a story and charachter study, 1 is a much better film.

bgmnts

Quote from: Kelvin on August 08, 2019, 01:31:04 AM
Actually, even the main story of 2 has a problem, in that it has no proper charachter arc for Michael. He goes from ruthless cunt feared by his wife at the start to ruthless cunt dreaded by his ex wife at the end. It's not an arc so much as a flatline. It just gets by on being so well made and so compelling to watch, regardless. As a story and charachter study, 1 is a much better film.

I think the stakes are raised when he kills his own brother, that is a bit of an event horizon I reckon. And maybe hitting his wife? You could say he goes from a bloke regrettingly dragged into his family business, to an evil fraticiding wife beating shouty man, drunk on power.

Kelvin

Quote from: bgmnts on August 08, 2019, 01:44:37 AM
I think the stakes are raised when he kills his own brother, that is a bit of an event horizon I reckon. And maybe hitting his wife? You could say he goes from a bloke regrettingly dragged into his family business, to an evil fraticiding wife beating shouty man, drunk on power.

But by the end of 1 we already see  him putting the business over Kay with the closing of the door. Fredo and hitting Kay are obviously another step beyond that, but they feel like smaller steps down a path we've already seen him walk - making a point thats already been made.

Obviously Fredo represents a betrayal of the family itself and speaks to Michael's ego and hypocrisy about it all being business - and as I think about it, that does seem a bigger step, maybe I need to rewatch them - but it's always felt like Michael at the start of 2 (and the end of 1) is basically the man he is at the end of 2, only without enough time for all his relationships to fall apart yet. It certainly doesn't feel as rich as his arc in the first film.

bgmnts

Yeah i'd probably agree. I mean once you've killed two men, one a policeman, in cold blood, you can't really go too far beyond that in terms of character development.

Maybe instead of the Michael and Vito stories it should have been Michael in 2 and Michael in 3 put into one film, because in 3 he does start to go through another arc, one of guilt and repentence, which is more interesting.

Kelvin

#12
Quote from: bgmnts on August 08, 2019, 02:57:50 AM
Yeah i'd probably agree. I mean once you've killed two men, one a policeman, in cold blood, you can't really go too far beyond that in terms of character development.

Yes, remembering more of it, even Fredo's death is building on the scene in 1 where he has his sister's husband killed.

QuoteMaybe instead of the Michael and Vito stories it should have been Michael in 2 and Michael in 3 put into one film, because in 3 he does start to go through another arc, one of guilt and repentence, which is more interesting.

I think having Vito as a second story would have worked if it had felt more tied to the events of Michael's story in 2. Maybe showing a more direct contrast between the early days of Vito running the business and Michael running it in the present. The fact it focuses so heavily on Vito first resorting to murder means it doesn't really parallel Michael's current situation or what he's going through. It isn't really comparable situations - the Vito flashbacks really need to be in the first film for them to have relevance to Michael's story.

kalowski

2 is about the consolidation of power. All Michael does, and most of what Vito does, is to conserve what he has. And don't forget we were given a bit if Vito's backstory, not as a parallel, but just to see his backstory.

greenman

#14
Quote from: kalowski on August 07, 2019, 11:23:44 PM
Once Upon a Time in America is not better. It's great, but too sprawling and has that awful "rape but she likes it" scene.
What don't you like following the restaurant shooting? Surely you love the killing of the families set piece?

The scene is more "askes to get beaten up to hide involvement in robbery, gets raped instead and goes along with it", by itself it might be a bit dodgy(although shows a confident female character who isn't merely a victim) but surely the point is that it leads into Noodles raping Debra that isn't underplayed in terms of nastiness/consequence. Overall the film does feel more focused on its characters to me and has the more interesting visuals/better soundtrack that links into the drama better, Coppola didn't hit his best visually until Apoc Now/Rumble Fish IMHO.

I wouldn't say I dislike the Godfather after the restaurant scene, I just remember it becoming a bit less focused after that point, more standard crime drama rather than showing Michael slowly being drawn in and indeed the general atmosphere.

The main advantage of the second film I'd say is that its IMHO Pacino's best ever performance and I do think theres a very definite arc revealing the real nature of family to him, rather than it coming first its ultimately just selfish egotism, they only matter in their relationship to him.

popcorn

I resisted watching The Godfather for years because it always looked a bit old and boring. Finally watched Part I a few years ago. It is old and boring. I watched it in increments over four days because it kept making my brain seize up. It is just men in rooms talking. That is my final word on the matter and no more replies in this thread please.

Blumf

I think you accidentally turned on BBC Parliament.

Jerzy Bondov

I like old movies, like Godfather III. It's not considered the best one, but that's just me!

Dex Sawash


I don't care for these films at all. Bit dull.
/threadshitting

Chollis


EOLAN

For me it has to be; the Best of the Godfather.

Still haven't seen any. Guess I should. Not on my never to watch list like Star Wars.

Chollis

1 and 2 are masterpieces of film and anyone who disagrees is an unmitigated cunt

Blumf

Anybody seen the straight-to-video Godfather 4? Thought the CGI was a but naff, should have done it with tradition cel animation if you ask me.

gilbertharding

Quote from: Dex Sawash on August 08, 2019, 11:25:49 AM
I don't care for these films at all. Bit dull.
/threadshitting

I've only seen the first one. And I saw it on a tiny tv screen on a coach which was travelling through Italy 23 years ago.

I liked it, but apparently not enough to ever watch it properly, or see any of the sequels. How's THAT for threadshitting?

I like old movies. Like The Godfather III. It's not considered the best one. But that's just me.

Jerzy Bondov

Quote from: thecuriousorange on August 08, 2019, 12:41:32 PM
I like old movies. Like The Godfather III. It's not considered the best one. But that's just me.
*turns around to look at you across the music shop*

QDRPHNC

Has anyone said it insists upon itself yet?

Only seen the trilogy once. The first one I didn't see what the big deal was. Second I enjoy. Third I don't remember at all except the crap sniper taking ages.

Gulftastic

Al Pacino is so magnificent in the first two. It saddens me how far he fell in terms of acting performances, and how much more praise he got for his later, shitter work.

kalowski

I think the richness comes from how well defined all the minor characters are. I don't mean Clemenza and Tessio, I mean people like Don Barzini, Willy Cicci, Al Neri, Frank Pentangeli

Gulftastic

The story of how Clamenza came to replaced by Frank Five Angels in part two makes interesting reading. Talk about pissing on your chips.