Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by tinear (A) on September 12, 2008 at 14:03:47

In Reply to: RE: I drew just the opposite conclusion from the Godfathers... posted by Harmonia on September 12, 2008 at 05:35:51

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.