Films/DVD Asylum

Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: I drew just the opposite conclusion from the Godfathers...

Posted by tinear on September 12, 2008 at 14:03:47:
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.