What makes The Godfather great? What makes it the best in the eyes of many? It seems to just be taken for granted that it is. While you can cite the committed and thought provoking acting, which can be analyzed and acclaimed for its subtlety and impact, many other movies have such a thing. Many others have great stories and epic scales. Many others are historical in nature. One element that both adds and subtracts to this is the great length of the film. The risk is being too slow or uneventful. However, such a length yields a much greater level of development for the characters than would normally be possible for a shorter story. It also will naturally appeal to critics that want to see something different or more atmospheric, especially when living in periods of sameness in the industry. Despite this, it does hit on various aspects that critics typically like, such as crime, novel adaptations, and roots in non-American cultures.
Another key factor is surely the time. After the “Hays code” that had a stranglehold on the film industry finally started to die off, many filmmakers jumped at the opportunity of making more violent stories. While this film is certainly violent, it is also noticeably less so than other examples of the gangster genre, being less inclined to celebrate or bask in its own gruesomeness. Many reviews of movies in general mention the time they came out in, being particularly biting in the culture it’s coming from. The less bloody Godfather can be compared with the later more bombastic Goodfellas. The later film uses rock and R&B music queues and a more cavalier attitude to its brutality that may be considered too excessive or glorifying of its subject matter. The earlier outfit treats its few killings as tragic, with them representing the failures of the characters to physically stop it, the government, or the methodology and nature of this sort of lifestyle as a whole. No one romanticizes their situation. There are a lack of shots that soak in the scenery and music that pumps adrenaline or greatly intensifies a scene, treating it as popcorn affair. The music as used is less noticeable and more of a backdrop. While Goodfellas ends with a loud punk anthem, here we end with a somber orchestral score. Even the last scene of the film is primarily about a life of crime being detrimental to a healthy family, a theme that is prevalent in many, many scenes of this three hour epic.
Understandably this story has been analyzed heavily since first premiering. Notably protagonist Michael Corleone, played by Al Pacino, constantly evolves in different ways, with almost nothing directly stated, but instead suggested. Take his sunken eyes after intense encounters and progressively aged face, as if succumbing to what goes on around him. He nicely, but firmly, pushes his family to accept him in whatever thing he wants or has to do. He is typically barely touched by events on the outside, losing control to only get his way, like he wants to impress someone or seem tough. Why he might want to feel tough is expanded upon in the second film. Events in this story are often driven by small moments that may either lead to little or brash responses, with them hanging around in the minds of those involved but not confronted beyond a potential reference. The famous restaurant scene is one example. Another is the baptism one. Especially that latter scene makes use of contrast, which this movie engages in often.
Considering the desire of the film to be extremely detail-oriented, it is a minor shame that various plots and characters are relatively thin. Examples include Michael in Sicily not having the significance it could. What is something he can learn other than what he learns in his final scene there? Some of the characters that appear in those segments also lose relevance. There are some you’d think would have an opinion on Michael or his lifestyle, so what is it they think or feel? The characters of Luca Brasi and McCluskey clearly have a point, especially when taken as part of the themes of the government’s participation in crime and loyalty to your own pack, but a little more of them would simply emphasize those moments better due to more clarity of what they’re here for. Considering the needs of the story to not be longer than it has to be, these issues are excusable and frankly very minor. A more egregious issue caused by this is the roles of Fredo Corleone, played by John Cazale, and Tom Hagen, played by Robert Duvall. Both characters are featured all too briefly. Considering the nature of the film, there is potential over how they would affect the journeys of the more prominent roles. However, there is inadvertently a way to fix this that anyone can apply, which will be discussed later.
Vito Corleone, played by Marlon Brando, is portrayed as generally ethical and thoughtful. However, considering his much more hotheaded children, namely Sonny, played by James Caan, this does suggest Vito may have raised them with too much influence from the criminal life, as if this corrodes even the more well meaning of people that would choose this. Even beyond the core Corleone family, someone like the new in-law of Carlo takes their seeming vast control as a challenge and he in turn creates issues due to his desire to have power over them. Despite Vito not liking Carlo, Vito’s own children are similarly shortsighted. Vito’s meeting with the “Five Families” shows novitiate in how to get his way, wanting to better things, but too late. What does help Vito quite a bit is his willingness to do favors for people and act confident, both of which are less honest and more shady, so there is a beautiful contrast where much of the film focuses on him while old and essentially retired.
This novitiate doesn’t come from Brando poorly portraying someone supposedly used to power and set in his ways, but of someone simply tired of the old troubles, though also far too familiar with them for his own good. It’s even mentioned that some don’t like him due to being stuck in the past. While Michael and the others look up to him, they also show a desire to improve on his ways. Note that Vito is often surrounded by claustrophobic and gloomy spaces. While there are many shots of depressing and claustrophobic scenes of characters in business rooms discussing death, the shots in Sicily are much wider, being filled with open areas of grass, blue skies, and community, all of which lack elsewhere in the story.
The few times something inane or methodical happens, like someone shopping, there is always about to be something big. It gets to the point where it’s extremely obvious what is to occur based on that way of halting the pace. Another difference between the cold and quick “whackings” of Goodfellas is that here, many of the killings are botched. It gets a bit absurd and removes some of the threat of the opposing forces. Some scenes like the horse one feature a bit of hammy acting, though that is not much of an issue overall.
SPOILERS
To go against his brother’s bloodlust, it might have been more interesting if Michael initially was not so inclined towards violence. If he did commit violence, he’d only do it out of a necessity. The movie is about Michael’s development and how he changes, so it would help in this theme for Michael to be the nonviolent one. Perhaps after his brother is killed, Michael finally feels pushed to bloody retribution? Even as is, it seems that going through World War 2 changed him into being desensitized to such brutality, but it’s still a shame we couldn’t see more of “innocent Michael”. If we started with some scenes before Michael goes to war, that would add to the tragedy by giving him more to lose.
Other minor issues are some scenes, like Michael talking to Sollozzo at dinner, not having English subtitles. Him saying Michael’s father is outdated and his shooting is business are important motifs of the story, which would be emphasized by right after Michael escalating his development by shooting him merely for revenge, with the event actually putting stress on his family. Tessio was betraying the Corleones since the beginning. More of an understanding from the leads that someone is trying to sabotage them would create suspense. That would in turn mirror the suspense of Michael. Will he get killed? Will he escape the failings of or legitimize his family? The tragic nature at the heart of the story is of someone doing what many do, trying to make their family proud, ultimately creating destruction for everyone involved. One key scene that represents this is the death of Michael’s wife in a car bombing intended for him. Her only existing in the romantic Sicily scenes idealizes her to Michael, with her representing his ideal mate that would act as he’d like. Considering Michael’s apparent safety and ties to a normal person who is now his father-in-law, he is offered freedom from the family business while also embracing his roots due to his father coming from Sicily. When she dies, so does his chance to move on. He now has almost no choice but to return to his girlfriend Kay…
Despite his respect, Vito also fails to do the right thing. This is mainly shown with Sonny, someone who lacked self control to compose himself when needed. As opposed to Vito, he didn’t typically show respect to those he had issues with, like in the excellent introductory scene of him smashing a camera then throwing money on the ground, not respecting the cameraman enough to look at him. He ultimately died after essentially a petty quarrel. Considering this, you’d think that if Carlo hadn’t been a problem, then odds are someone else would’ve come along and killed him as retaliation in a similar manner. The “be a big shot” mentality Vito gave his children only goes so far, especially when you are in a profession where doing that will cause people to want to shoot you and your family. Even in more minor ways, Michael being forced to quickly get in Sonny’s shoes and find himself a wife leads to unhappiness for him and Kay, even if you don’t factor in the sequels.
Unlike movies that jump ahead in time at the end to tell us what the protagonist is up to, this movie ends almost immediately after the climax that resolves some of the plots and characters. The film deals with constantly escalating stakes. To keep us all on edge, it ends at a point of uncertainty if it is all over or to get even more maddening. Seeing as this story is about Michael’s arc, it makes sense it ends at just the point he is at the top. Just like how we started the movie in Vito’s office, now that office is Michael’s and he’s ready to do his own deeds.
While the ending works fine, it works better as essentially the end of one part. This is the break before the rest of the story. It’s hard to look at this movie on its own without the second. More notably, various plot threads, like witnesses seeing Michael kill two people in a restaurant, his relationship with his wife Kay, and even just seeing more of what Michael will become as the Don are just not elaborated on much. They aren’t the concern of this film. That is a shame, due to them being brought up, but there is a resolve.
The first two films are far stronger treated as one six and a half hour movie, which may be how people watch them on home media. There have even been official edits that combine them. Many of the side characters, namely Fredo and Tom, have comparatively little to do here compared to in the second movie. As such, it could make you wonder why they’re included when taking this first epic on its own, but the second film pays off on this. Not only that, but it makes use of the fact they have minimal roles here. Obviously once Vito and Sonny die, they and to a lesser extent Connie will feel distress from the shift this creates in their lives. While before they had the opportunity to keep to their own devices due to a stable family unit and Sonny and Vito to do the heaviest lifting, now a jaded Michael is running the show.
Vito calling for peace because of what happened to his son means a lot more when we see what happens with his family in the next film, as if Vito can see the future and wants to leave a positive mark while he can. We see the violence he faces as a young man in part two and obviously that would be traumatizing. While most mobsters claim their murders are “business”, Michael’s are typically personal, but that eventually evolves, which furthermore emphasizes the new vs old. Vito’s view on killing also clearly changes, with parallels stretching across both pictures. One benefit of specifically the chronological edit of the story is seeing Michael pre-war before getting sent off as a child, though admittedly even in the one scene of him pre-war played by Pacino isn’t so upbeat.
Even part two suffers due to being separate. We don’t learn much about Vito’s friends, but their minimalist roles work more when you think of them growing in prominence and diversity in the events of part one, just like how Vito’s kids progressively fill his role. The sequel is overtly about the contrast of Vito and Michael, but the first film is no less about that. We start with Vito making criminal deals in the dark while Michael sits outside in a bright party. At the end, Michael’s way of concluding the main threats is exactly opposite what Vito wanted. Vito’s idealism is elaborated on with him actually having to be in Michael’s youthful perspective. The last scene of part one is Michael literally being closed off from family, which we see Vito never did or would want his kids to do.
OVERVIEW
Essentially, the reason why this effort is considered the best is because of many factors. These span from complex storytelling and characters, while managed expertly here, are sometimes done wrong in other stories, thus that in and of itself doesn’t make the film; to simply attractive scenery and a large scale. There are many memorable and iconic moments, some perhaps due to including humor, like the fish scene. Such scenes almost are cheats, as is the trend for critically acclaimed films to be about real tragedies, to be long, and historical. Namely, it comes down to the right time. 1972 was the moment to burst through the scene with new and old faces, all filled with credentials to bring together a beautifully told story about the human experience and a lot else from feminism to family to embracing your culture to managing a claustrophobic business life to doing things you don’t want to do but are expected to. However, not every movie, like a short one, can be an experience in the way this film can. While some movies are criticized for being too broad in appeal or too busy, this film makes it work due to only including what can fit in a throughline of the story of these characters’ reflective experiences. Such a well balanced work erases some of the admittedly minor quibbles. And just like the fact that this film is based in history, it in turn begs to become history, with its depiction of aging and going on through generations. The Godfather is great because it is and has everything.
ON THE CORNER AND OFF THE WALL
I was talking about the cat.
The Filme Diary 