Let me ask you, the reader, a question you've probably never had to answer: Why is The Godfather so great? Great does not mean iconic; I'll certainly agree with that it's one of, possibly the most iconic films of all time. If you glance through Rotten Tomatoes you'll see a deluge of blunt definitive statements like "One of the greatest movies of all time. Period." (Leigh Paatsch) and "Without a doubt, one of the best films of all time. As far as crime drama/mobster genre goes, it starts and ends with this masterpiece. Period." (Fico Cangiano). Even Roger Ebert said in 2006: "comes closest to being a film everyone agrees is unquestionably great." But I would like to question it. Now before you get your knickers in a twist, I'd just like to point out that I too love The Godfather. It is great, but I don't think it's quite the divine artwork bestowed from heaven that everyone has worshipped it as since it came out in 1972. In fact, I don't think it's the best film in the series (Part II, which actually is divine) and for that matter, I personally enjoy it the least of the whole trilogy (The recent Godfather Coda was a revelation, but more on that another time). If I were to give an objective review though, I think Andrew Collins of RadioTimes summed it up best: "This elegiac organised-crime saga from the young Francis Ford Coppola is one of the all-time high watermarks of American Cinema, rich with subtle acting and blessed with stunning cinematography from Gordon Willis." I can't argue with any of these points, and would even go further that it is one of the high watermarks in cinematic musical soundtracks in Nino Rota's melancholy score. I know you know it, you're humming the "daaaa-dah-dah-dah-dah-dahda" theme right now (again, somehow enriched even more in Part II). It's a great film, I love to watch it if I can devote three hours (or more properly, 10 hours for the whole trilogy), but I don't think it's immaculate.
I usually go into the plot here, but this is a rich, layered film, and I want anyone who hasn't seen this film to really enjoy the first viewing. I'll keep it brief: During a beautiful wedding scene in 1946, we establish the Corleone crime family, led by Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) working in the shadows. His sons: hothead Sonny (James Caan), pipsqueak Fredo (John Cazale), and adopted son Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) help out, but after a botched assassination attempt and in failing health, his ex-soldier son Michael (Al Pacino), who states he quite definitively that he hates the Mafia business, takes over. If you've seen past this point, you know what happens like the back of your hand.
I'll laud over the overwhelming positives before going into what I don't think gels perfectly in the next paragraph. Willis underexposing the film stock in order to create a "yellow tone" in outdoor shots invokes a nostalgia you can almost feel for the "Greatest Generation" era. When inside the dark corridors where business happens, the oranges in the shadows made by underexposure similarly evoke a warmth and pine for "the simpler days"... involving underworld dealings based on murder, racketeering, extortion, and drug manufacturing. This was the first time the Mafia organization was shown with compassion from the viewpoint of the gangsters, not from a viewpoint of the upstanding, hysterical public. This film would set the stage for the evolution from fear of to idolization of the crime syndicate in future Mafia pieces like Goodfellas and The Sopranos. The acting, made up of screen legends at wildly different stages of their careers (Pacino got his big break here, Brando got a second wind in his career sails for his performance), is subtle. Everyone, including the hothead Sonny, has a relatively quiet disposition in the case of Brando, very quietly), rarely yelling in anger. They know it's their actions, not their words that make them powerful. Cross them and they won't yell at you, but they will have their violent revenge. All this: the cinematography, costume design, soundtrack (not just the legendary theme), and the acting blend together to make you sympathize with, at least on paper, cold blooded killers. Through narrative and cinematographic trickery, these well-off, intelligent, and devoted family men seem like great people on the surface. And even having seen this film so many times I can't say I feel most of the characters are outright villains, even by though definition they are; They straddle a very thin line between antihero and bad guy. Even Michael at his worst in this film (and especially the next film), seems reasonable in his actions: go against the family and you pay the consequences. It was like Little Bill Daggett in Unforgiven, just surrender your firearms when you come into town, is that too much to ask?
There are two flaws in my opinion, though not fatal (and completely subjective; again what do I know? I'm just a blogger). The first is Marlon Brando. Yes, I said it: I know he won Best Actor for this role (though he famously had a Native American accept it on his behalf), that it's been imitated and outright parodied to death. But is it really one of the all-time power house performances in cinema history? I don't think it is, and I don't think it comes close. Much was made about his method: he saw a stray cat on set and is always stroking it like a James Bond villain. He put cotton in his cheeks to puff out his face. I think it visually makes him look...distinct. But, shocker, putting cotton in your mouth makes you mumble. This video unfortunately sums up his performance pretty well, and the video's supposed to be a joke: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOubaqf3c08). But in all seriousness it feels like he overprepared (that constant cheek brush he does feels very overcooked) whereas Brando was best when he was raw and just laid it all out there; ironic again as Brando was so lazy at this point in his career he couldn't remember his lines and they had to tape cue cards to Robert Duvall in a couple scenes. In my opinion, Marlon Brando is just O.K. as Vito Corleone. Vito, played by Brando, is not my favorite character in the trilogy (probably not even cracking the top-10), or even gives the best performance as the character (De Niro's work as Vito in the prequel scenes in Part II are miles better, but again more on that at another time). The best part of Brando's performance is ironically not dialogue driven. When he does dies in the orange grove, it does feels like the titanic passing of a giant when he thuds to the ground.
The second part I don't think pays off perfectly is Michael deciding to get into the family business. This is a three hour movie, there's a lot of moving parts (20 characters are played by recognizable names and all have a significant role in the plot). But Pacino is so adamant to not want to deal with the family business, and Pacino sells it so well in the wedding scene, it's always been a stretch for me to believe just because he saw his father (who he respects but clearly doesn't love) weak in the hospital, he's going to dive into shoot a cop in a revenge killing over the course of a 5 minute conversation with his brothers (he also says for some reason "it's not pwesonals" instead "it's not personal" which I think is distracting everytime I see it). But that's it, that's my two cents, and I can't argue if these two things work well for you. If you've seen or repeatedly seen this film, you don't question these aspects, because the film has been showered with accolades for almost 50 years (the 50th anniversary is next year). Part of me wishes The Godfather wasn't a watershed movie. I think it's an amazing film, I just wish our culture didn't put it on a pedestal. It feels like a great song overplayed to death on the radio.
Rating: ***1/2 out of 4
Comments