 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.100.118.210
I have a limited variety of films that I like even though I've always considered myself a movie geru. I figure it's time I see the movie many have touted as one of the best so a copy of it from ebay is on its way. I remember bits and pieces from it when I was a kid, like the horse head and I think Lenny Montana got a knife in the hand at some point, but that's it. I expect to be scolded, but that'll be part of my therapy for waiting so long to see this movie. I hope I like it!
Follow Ups:
had complete artistic freedom, and in it he attacked the Japanese syndicate, the Yakuza, as having a false brotherhood and being nothing but a murderous, malicious, disease upon society.
Contrast that with the American love affair with gangsterism which came about at some point during the Wild West, well before it reached fever pitch with the Roaring 20s, Capone's Chicago, and then later on with the competing big city families spread throughout the land.
"Drunken Angel" is a far greater film than the Godfather trilogy because it shows mankind can rise above base instincts.
The Godfather, no matter what Copolla says, glorified murderers, casting the two most charismatic American actors of its generation and showing them as brave family men (with faults, sure).
It is amoral garbage, for all of its obvious artistic merits. That it is so praised, with no discussion of its absolute meaning, shows how corrupt this society truly has become.
NT
How can you discuss the Godfather trilogy, claim that it reflects "how corrupt this society truly has become," and not mention Sicily?
*
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." - Albert Einstein
it is about an AMERICAN family in America. The Sicilian part of the film is but a moment.
Jewish, Colombian, African-American.... it doesn't matter. The members of ANY organized crime syndicate are human garbage and do not merit worship, which is what Coppola grants them.
nt
d
"My God, sex and gratification? What next,war, invasion of foreign lands, spreading the Gospel of Christ and Democracy/Free Markets?"
Let the spinning begin...
a comparison of the topics listed, not a review of the treatment in the film. I thought that was quite obvious.
... are very moral films or, probably more accurately, films about morality, deeper than they seem, once you get over the surface glitz or yukkiness (depending on your politics!).
...at least GF 1 and 2, as 3 is a more or less failed film and an afterthought.I thought the GFs showed the darkness and greed at the heart of the "American Dream", how power without limits corrupts, how the greed emotionally bankrupted the tale's hero (Pacino's character). I don't feel the principals need to be "redeemed" in the least - that would undermine the point. It's meant to be an Amerian tragedy.
It's entirely appropriate to cast the appealing Pacino as the lead - audiences would't emotionally invest in the character otherwise. Coppola wants us to see the promise as well as the fall. Evil seldom wears an ugly face, especially ordinary evil. Charisma isn't limited in RL to just good guys.
The American fascination with violence and gangsters on the big screen demands a book length essay on its own. But I think one reason for this country's obsession with gangsterism is that it's the dark reverse image of the American dream, the flip coin of entrepenurial spirit - capitalism unbridled and power unfettered.
The GFs aren't my favorites either, my favorite Coppola movie is The Conversation.
A brilliant portrait of corruption and how it changed a good man into a monster. It is far from morally ambiguous.LITTLE CAESAR told essentially the same story in 80 minutes.
I thought the GFs showed the darkness and greed at the heart of the "American Dream", how power without limits corrupts, how the greed emotionally bankrupted the tale's hero (Pacino's character). I don't feel the principals need to be "redeemed" in the least - that would undermine the point. It's meant to be an Amerian tragedy.
****Yes, Coppola showed the darkness and greed but almost as good attributes: Michael is a war hero, he fights against the terrible other family with its murderous, sneaky ways, he is victimized by that terrible Irish captain (we're obviously meant to hate this guy), then we're caught up in his "righteous" revenge. We are, quite obviously, being played by the director into rooting for this murderous young thug. He is portrayed as unselfish (giving up the life he wanted to help his family), brave! in taking on the murderous rivals, protective in risking his life to protect his father and then killing his attackers, and a good businessman, cold and dispassionate in contrast to his foolhardy, overly violent brother.
Yeah, we see Michael later on as having horrible traits, but we're already empathic to him and his methods. What else could he have done, have become? HE'S a victim! Look, even his brother is a whiny, slimy creature so that when Michael commits fratricide, the audience almost applauds the worm's death.
It's entirely appropriate to cast the appealing Pacino as the lead - audiences would't emotionally invest in the character otherwise. Coppola wants us to see the promise as well as the fall. Evil seldom wears an ugly face, especially ordinary evil. Charisma isn't limited in RL to just good guys.
****His father, DeNiro and Brando, are cast as great guys, defenders of their families and neighborhoods. Why, they're almost good, for chrissakes, not touching drug business! Michael also becomes a tragic figure, his wife being killed by cruel murderers. Don't you realize how manipulative the film is? No matter how bad Michael is, his tormentors, be they politicians or other syndicate figures, are worse. In effect, by default, Michael is the best guy in the film.
The American fascination with violence and gangsters on the big screen demands a book length essay on its own. But I think one reason for this country's obsession with gangsterism is that it's the dark reverse image of the American dream, the flip coin of entrepenurial spirit - capitalism unbridled and power unfettered.
****There were plenty of gangster films of the 30s and 40s which depicted criminals in a truer light, truer in terms of morality. What this film seems to be saying (to me, of course) is that Michael is no better or worse (that by extension, the organized crime world) than an executive or leader in another profession.
I'd take major exception with that outrageously cynical and contemptible belief.
...I think you've misread the films, and Coppola's intent. We're just gonna have to disagree on this one.
The Corleones are most definitely not the good guys. They have money, power, a certain glamour - they love their families and are nice to their dogs (not so kind to horses). They're 3 dimensional humans, but profoundly flawed. They're not monsters but they commit monstrous acts (directly or indirectly).
I'm quite familiar with gangster movies and noirs from the thirties on. Coppola chose a pulpy book of fiction and turned it into an operatic morality tale. But he didn't make the Corleones good guys. I honestly don't understand how anyone could think that after seeing the films.
d
Japan, Russia, Italy, Eastern Europe, and other regions all deal with organized crime. All gangs achieve their unity based on an appeal to their own twisted view of honor and loyalty. We are no more or less obsessed than any one else. Your attempted link to "the flip side of the American dream" is juvenile, at best.
*
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." - Albert Einstein
It is not anyone's responsibility to make films with a moral perspective
of which you and your illiberal buddies approve.
Mike
...on the other hand Scorsese's "Gangs of New York" (2002) presented an interesting slant on the moral high ground perspective. That film's view that no factional organization is totally free of corruption, which basically make them only gangs like any other, was pretty illustrative especially in todays politic climate - as you've pointed out.
Gangs and grief shape cities like NYC, acting like fertilizer to some extent.
I find the Godfather trilogy hard to watch, although I greatly enjoy Copolla's other works.
I love I & II and have probably seen them more than any other film (or films) - I alternate which is my favorite of the two every five years...
They had new prints at the local Repertory Theater last weekend and I was tempted to see them on the big screen... yet again... but previous commitments interfered, dammit!
Absolutely fantastic filmaking on every possible level.
ENJOY!!!
"...You're all welcome to stay for the next set...we're going to play all the same tunes, but in different keys..." -Count Basie
A LOT of times when a movie goes to 3 parts or more, 2 is often the best(Star Trek, Superman, Police Academy, and some others like Alien and Mad Max where 2 was at least a VERY worthy sequel). If I really like the first Godfather, i'll grab part two.
It really is. As I said, it's like one long movie in two parts. Each is stronger in the context of the other. I always recommend people see them together, or only a short space apart.
Many critics list GF1-2 as one film on their best of lists.
I haven't seen The Godfather in its entirety either. I finally gave in when I stumbled upon a DVD copy at Best Buy for $3.99. I couldn't get past the interminable wedding sequence near the beginning. Painfully boring. I skipped ahead to the famous "horse head" scene. Yawn. One of these days I'll try to sit through the whole thing, but I have a more pressing list of chores to accomplish. Watching The Godfather will be somewhere underneath scrubbing the toilet on that list.
I guess this is going to have to remain one of those movies I don't "get". The glimpse into the family lives and "code of honor" among mafia criminals has been done in a more entertaining fashion in many newer films, and I really don't care for the genre anyway.
that recent box set presents the films better than they've ever been. I'm actually envious of someone who will be watching them for the first time. I'd love that feeling of amazement again! Pay especially close attention to the transformation of Michael Corleone from the wedding scene through the hospital scene. Among the best performances of Al Pacino.
Baba-Booey to you all!
I imagine there are quite a few folks here who could admit to not seeing a famous movie classic or two (or three).
Just my opinion, but I think Godfather I and II need to be seen together. They are like two chapters of the same film. I tend to feel II is a bit better too.
III is not in the same league.
Can you be a movie guru liking a narrow range of films? Or did you mean that you only like movies of a few specific genres? I'd think to qualify as a guru you should have seen a lot of movies. ;-) Not a criticism, just askin'.
See if you can find Godfather II to watch with your eBay purchase.
I've seen PLENTY of movies, but I avoid things like English Patient, documentaries, chick flicks(save a few), and middle of the road dramas. I haven't seen any other of the older staples like Lawrence of Arabia, Streetcar..., Bridge/Kwai, those types(I did like The Great Escape though). I mainly like sci-fi, adventure, some horror, and twisty dramas. I thought Shawshank Redemption was really good, so I do give some movies a chance if at first they seem outside my genres.
....seeing Streetcar Named Desire, it's notable for Brando's performance but a pale imitation of William's play live onstage. If you're cirious about classic movies there are many many others to see first.
David Lean's must see movies would be Great Expectations, Lawrence of Atabia and Bridge Over The River Kwai. Since you like adventure and action, I'd start with Bridge. Doctor Zhivago is one of the gorgeous movies ever made but it doesn't sound like it's up your alley.
But if you aspire to true uber-guru-dom, not just geek guru-dom, you need to expand your horizons a bit.
Plenty of great movies were made before 1980-something. See them not because they're "staples" but because they're really cool movies.
Be warned the first 12-15 minutes of Godfather 1 has a lot of set-up, there's more going on there than first meets the eye, so watch it when you're in a relaxed mood. Be patient and wait for the payoffs.
For some reason I haven't seen Ben Hur either and I really like Heston, so maybe it just comes down to simply being lazy. I'm also partial to submarine, Bronson, and prison movies, which is why Papillon is high on my favorites list(I guess that might count as a classic, at least to me).
Papillon is well remembered, if not as great art, then as a great view.
I'm not really into war movies per se but for some reason I love submarine movies (The Hunt For Red October, Das Boot) and movies and books about the British Navy (Master & Commander).
I should think Ben Hur is a natural for BD. I was in love with Charlton Heston when I was 7, and in love with this movie. I fell out of love with it later in life but the chariot race is one of the great jaw dropping scenes in film history. If you're a Heston fan BH is a must see, but ir needs to be seen on a sizable screen. I also think you should try to catch Zulu - it stars a very young and dashing Michael Caine.
One thing about being an old broad is that I saw a lot of these films in theatrical release, so I have far less catching up to do. Cable T can be your friend for testing the waters - TCM is a prime source of a wide variety of classic movies, and IFC is the place for indies.
A lot of my favorite films were made long before I was ever born. A great movie is a great movie no matter its age or genre.
and though I know I probably should, I don't plan to any time soon.
"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy….I was able to get a sense of his soul." -- George W. Bush on Vladimir Putin
...but I don't think you're missing all that much. (There! I've said it.)
GWTW has some great moments. I loved it when I was 14.
Don't care to ever see it again.
I recommend everyone see it once, just because it's such a touchstone for American movies - and movie discussion. It does contain many iconic scenes. I just don't think it's a great film. YMMV.
I'll have to pause and think - I'm sure there are some famous movies I've never seen.
I hate Jaws - will that do? I only saw it once and nearly walked out.
If this goes very far I will give this its own topic. I don't want to hijack the thread!
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
