I feel very differently about this film every time I see it. Sometimes I am content to drink up the atmosphere and the menace and just roll with it. But recently I’ve come to see this film as a challenge to cinephiles. We, of course, like to take movies seriously, but I think we can only take The Godfather seriously at our own peril.
Studying an audience’s reaction to The Godfather is very revealing: the way they will chuckle with illicit delight in anticipation of the moments of violence. Indeed, it is depressing but I believe true, that many if not most people who love The Godfather love it mostly for the stylishness of its violence. after Tom Hagen is refused, he leaves, and yet the next morning, someone (Tom Hagen? Or some invisible and anonymous family connection?) has managed to sever the head of Woltz’ prize stud, carry it into his bedroom, tuck the huge bloody thing perfectly under the covers right next to Woltz’s sleeping body, all without being noticed by anyone, let alone Woltz.
So let’s take one of the iconic moments: the severed horsehead in Harry Woltz’s bed. It gets giggles every time, and it affirms what is to me one of the most problematic assumptions of the film: the mob violence occurs mysteriously, even magically; that when the mob sets out to do something, it will simply happen, without human risk or mistake. And that’s what the scene is:It just appears there in his bed as a nightmare; waking up covered in blood. The Godfather is a great film; I believe it is very pretty, quite well-acted,
Everyone loves this scene, right? To me it has always reeked of phoniness. Oh, sure, it can get away with the horsehead alone as a one-off stunt; this is a thriller after all. But the movie then adds insult to injury. The point of Tom Hagen’s visit was to intimidate Woltz into putting a family scion into one of his pictures. He refuses, gets the horsehead. But then after the retribution, we cheerily learn that Woltz has reconsidered. Doesn’t this violate the very logic of threats and carrying them out that so much of the movie depends on? Why would Woltz knuckle under when what is precious to him has already been taken away, as apparent punishment for not doing the Corleones’ bidding? The only rational response to the horse head is to hire security guards for his mansion, and dedicate yourself to never allowing that actor in another picture again.
But the movie prefers to exist by the credo that anyone can be killed without consequences, or rather that the consequences will always be favorable for the killers.
Magical violence allows the film to perform some rather incredible narrative fudging. One of the most forgettable sequences of the film is Michael’s long exile in Sicily, while the killing of the police captain cools down. He spends time with the old family, and actually marries a girl. The whole point of being in Sicily is that no one knows he is here; it is the old country, it is safe. And yet his young wife is blown up in a car bomb, an event that has no apparent consequences throughout the rest of the film, other than to heighten the sense that we need more killing.
Vito’s realization that “It was Barzini all along”, i.e., he is responsible for all the double-crosses, the gunning down of Sonny, etc., is another instance of plausible plot fudged by violence. In all the times I have seen this film it is has never been clear to me how Vito arrives at this knowledge. It is just information, just plot delivered to excuse the story’s continued progression into a great montage of murders
Great films, to me, achieve a balance between entertainment and narrative gravity or seriousness; between the illusionist’s quickness of the cut, and narrative plausibility. I do not believeand a tremendously overrated film. Where I am undecided is whether the problem with The Godfather is the weakness of its plotting, patched up by deaths, or if there is a deeper root of fascism in the film. Is the magical violence that pervades the movie merely empty showmanship, or an actual endorsement of brutality?
I drew a line through the things I disagree with.
Then instead of saying what you disagree with you might try disagreeing with it.
ahahahaha. Oh man, so mean.
I think you’re a little harsh… it was violent for it’s time… now it seems tame compared to the pornography level violence that is so prevalent.. it devalues films that could be so much better, and is only pandering to a game boy mentality.
As a film it’s not his best… Conversation and GF2 beat it, but for me it’s still an elegant and insightful piece of work. Imitations and an over exposure to soap opera type plots may have lessened it’s impact to succeeding generations, but it’s still a great film, full of brilliant performances….
Orpheus, I really don’t think I have it in me tonight. I hope someone else does. I don’t mean to insult your thoughts on the movie, I just literally disagree with nearly everything you wrote. And to respond properly I would feel compelled to reply to nearly every sentence specifically (although I don’t have the answer for why Vito knew it was Barzini all along. I sort of chalked that up to Don’s intuition, which you may consider part of the weak plotting or whatever) and that would take a lot of time. I think we just saw different movies.
I’m sure some people will have some opinions here, though. I’ve got to make din-din! Maybe I’ll pipe up later.
Orpheus, I think you have completely misread this movie. You focus on the violence to the exclusion of everything else. Yes, the violence is well-done and theatrical and exciting, but that’s not what makes this a great American film about crime, capitalism and family life. It’s a gangster flick on an epic scale, with a brilliant narrative that draws you in from the beginning, and introduces you to a host of characters that were perfectly cast and are deeply memorable. Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan and John Cazale all deliver career-defining performances.
I think you misunderstood the horse’s head scene — the point of it was “If you do not do as we ask, this decapitated horse is just the beginning of your troubles.” That’s why Woltz caved in so quickly. Remember that as the scene begins, both Woltz (and we) suspect HE has been physically attacked, like maybe he’s lost his legs. Instead, it’s poor old Khartoum. But next time? Well, Woltz quickly makes sure there is no next time.
You likewise fail to grasp the Italy sequence, which you regard as forgettable, which may be why you also regard it as a case of “incredible narrative fudging” The whole POINT of the killing of Appollonia was that Michael is not safe, that despite all his safeguards he has been lulled into a false sense of security. The consequence is that it ultimately drives him back to America, where he has to tackle the family’s problems head on. None of the killings in the film are gratuitous; they’re all motivated. It’s a family that deals in violence by its very nature.
As I remember, Don Corleone gets the feeling that it was Barzini all along because of the way Barzini treats him at the meeting of the five families, that Barzini wants to muscle in on his influence-peddling. It’s not all that important a detail though, really, in the end. I think there are several moments in the movie that aren’t perfectly explained, but these lapses never get in the way of the story, which moves along almost effortlessly.
Some people might indeed have responded to the horse’s head incident by doing what you said. Mr. Woltz, however, existed in the screenplay as a character who would not do this, who would “fold” as it were. The existence of a second, logical course of action does not negate any other course of action no matter how irrational. Think of that situation like a game of poker. Mr Woltz said “I will not hire him”. Mr Corleone/Hagen raised him a horse’s head. Mr. Woltz then folded. The screenwriter could have written further escalation, but did not. Therefore Mr. Woltz had no choice but to fold. And scream. And scream some more. The screenwriter, possibly with the assistance of a very fine editor, further decreed that the horse’s head killing would be clean and consequence-free. We dissolve then to show Marlon Brando simply shrugging his shoulders (it’s that part that gets the laugh, btw).
Don’t make me go all Rosencrantz and Guildenstern on you with this.
With Barzini and several other of Michael and Vito’s instincts in both films, I kinda grew to accept that criminals don’t really look for logic and evidence when they’re trying to sort out who’s gonna do what. Instead, they go by instinct.
But the thread does ask “Complaints About The Godfather?” Let me add 2. In Part 2, it shouldna taken Mike 1/2 the movie to figure out Fredo was the traitor in his family. Who got stepped over and just sorta taken for granted — there’s your man. I realize that this was not a big narrative force, it wasn’t that big a mystery but to survive so many years at the top like Mike did, I have to figure he’da put 2+2 together a lot quicker than he did.
Oh, and by “2” complaints I meant “1”
What a blasphemous thread title! It’s easily one of my favorite films, and I so so would love to claim it to be my most perfect film, if it weren’t for the ridiculous garbage can beating James Caan dishes out… and not to mention the shot choice of him pulling punches a mile away from the face. It’s near laughable every time.
You want a better Godfather story, read the book… You get a lot more of Fontaine, Hollywood and the Vegas backstories… plus a lot more of the realistic violence and shakedowns they gave around the neighborhood.
“But the movie prefers to exist by the credo that anyone can be killed without consequences, or rather that the consequences will always be favorable for the killers.”
I guess it depends on what you want from your consequences. Many of the killings take place because of a tit for tat war between the families predicated on deaths attempted or otherwise. Do people go to jail? No. And through these murders Michael (and his family) become more powerful than ever, at the expense of Michael’s relationships with those closest to him.
I just wish AMC would change up a little bit…instead of playing it every three weeks as if it were a world premiere.
Lawrence-Why would anyone watch it on AMC-butchered for commercials and language/sex. AMc won’t run anything R rated without edits.
I remember watching a friend playing the Godfather game a couple of years ago, and I remember a mission where we are required to sneak into Woltz’ bedroom and tuck the horse’s head under his covers and he did get it through. It’s funny I was reading this and I thought “aaah is it possible?” then I knew in Cinema anything is possible.
As much as I love The Godfather (it’s probably my favorite film), I do admit that Orpheus makes some good points. What I find most interesting about his post is something that I have also noticed – the way audiences seem to “enjoy” or laugh at the violence or think it was for entertainment value. The same is true of a film like Goodfellas. Some people think it’s cool the way the Corleones dish out violence, and the same for the mob in Goodfellas. Whereas it seems to me that Coppola and Scorsese clearly deplore violence, and their message is getting misinterpreted.
Of course it’s well made and acted, and engrossing, feels a very rich experience. But I think its enormous popularity should be cause for concern and a sign that its violence has wide appeal, just as it appeals to critics who like to read in it a serious critique of gangsterism and corrupt society. I think Scorsese has a similar problem, his violence glamourised even if he likes to play on a balance with redemption, and a sensitive spiritual side.
I have sat through many a viewing of this film and quite honestly just not found it appealing to me,maybe another viewing is in order.
My feelings about this series have always been negative, largely because I am Italian and these movies have been almost as bad for Italians as Stallone. They romanticize and universalize an image both stupid and bloody, which fits almost none of us.
Orpheus M.
I feel very differently about this film every time I see it. Sometimes I am content to drink up the atmosphere and the menace and just roll with it. But recently I’ve come to see this film as a challenge to cinephiles. We, of course, like to take movies seriously, but I think we can only take The Godfather seriously at our own peril.
Studying an audience’s reaction to The Godfather is very revealing: the way they will chuckle with illicit delight in anticipation of the moments of violence. Indeed, it is depressing but I believe true, that many if not most people who love The Godfather love it mostly for the stylishness of its violence.
So let’s take one of the iconic moments: the severed horsehead in Harry Woltz’s bed. It gets giggles every time, and it affirms what is to me one of the most problematic assumptions of the film: the mob violence occurs mysteriously, even magically; that when the mob sets out to do something, it will simply happen, without human risk or mistake. And that’s what the scene is: after Tom Hagen is refused, he leaves, and yet the next morning, someone (Tom Hagen? Or some invisible and anonymous family connection?) has managed to sever the head of Woltz’ prize stud, carry it into his bedroom, tuck the huge bloody thing perfectly under the covers right next to Woltz’s sleeping body, all without being noticed by anyone, let alone Woltz. It just appears there in his bed as a nightmare; waking up covered in blood.
Everyone loves this scene, right? To me it has always reeked of phoniness. Oh, sure, it can get away with the horsehead alone as a one-off stunt; this is a thriller after all. But the movie then adds insult to injury. The point of Tom Hagen’s visit was to intimidate Woltz into putting a family scion into one of his pictures. He refuses, gets the horsehead. But then after the retribution, we cheerily learn that Woltz has reconsidered. Doesn’t this violate the very logic of threats and carrying them out that so much of the movie depends on? Why would Woltz knuckle under when what is precious to him has already been taken away, as apparent punishment for not doing the Corleones’ bidding? The only rational response to the horse head is to hire security guards for his mansion, and dedicate yourself to never allowing that actor in another picture again.
But the movie prefers to exist by the credo that anyone can be killed without consequences, or rather that the consequences will always be favorable for the killers.
Magical violence allows the film to perform some rather incredible narrative fudging. One of the most forgettable sequences of the film is Michael’s long exile in Sicily, while the killing of the police captain cools down. He spends time with the old family, and actually marries a girl. The whole point of being in Sicily is that no one knows he is here; it is the old country, it is safe. And yet his young wife is blown up in a car bomb, an event that has no apparent consequences throughout the rest of the film, other than to heighten the sense that we need more killing.
Vito’s realization that “It was Barzini all along”, i.e., he is responsible for all the double-crosses, the gunning down of Sonny, etc., is another instance of plausible plot fudged by violence. In all the times I have seen this film it is has never been clear to me how Vito arrives at this knowledge. It is just information, just plot delivered to excuse the story’s continued progression into a great montage of murders
Great films, to me, achieve a balance between entertainment and narrative gravity or seriousness; between the illusionist’s quickness of the cut, and narrative plausibility. I do not believe The Godfather is a great film; I believe it is very pretty, quite well-acted, and a tremendously overrated film. Where I am undecided is whether the problem with The Godfather is the weakness of its plotting, patched up by deaths, or if there is a deeper root of fascism in the film. Is the magical violence that pervades the movie merely empty showmanship, or an actual endorsement of brutality?