Posted on 09/13/2022 6:28:36 PM PDT by Rummyfan
The ostensible premise of The Godfather, the film version of which celebrates its 50th anniversary this year, is that American society is so prejudiced against Italians that extraordinary men such as Vito and Michael Corleone have no choice but to turn to crime. In a way, then, author Mario Puzo was a kind of goombah Ibram X. Kendi, director Francis Ford Coppola the dago Ava DuVernay, and The Godfather the guinea 12 Years a Slave.
If you doubt my claim, consider two scenes. In the first, Michael, back from hiding in Sicily, finally decides to get married (again) and so tracks down his college girlfriend. Kay, the daughter of Yankee protestants (including a minister), has long known the real nature of the Corleone “family business” but had been willing to overlook it because Michael seemed to reject that life for himself. But after the shooting of Sollozzo and McCluskey, Kay knows that Michael has entered that world forever. (In the film, her realization is implied when she visits the Corleone compound and speaks with Tom; in the book, it’s made explicit when, on the same visit, she speaks with Mama.)
To convince Kay to marry him—the word “woo” hardly captures his cold approach—Michael must rationalize his family’s activities...
(Excerpt) Read more at compactmag.com ...
At the end of the original book (and the first movie) -- supposedly around 1959 or 1960 -- the Corleones become the sole mob family on New York City. While in the real world it was the "five families" in that era.
So even allowing for a certain amount of fictionalization and romanticism, The Godfather does *not* take place in our own timeline. As it might be The Man in the High Castle or some such.
Well gee, all movies are like that unless you're entertained by them for a few hours. Which is the point of it all anyway.
Don't watch any movies if they're just a waste of time for you and your problem with them is solved.
The other story is that the Government made the choice to let the Mob run the unions, to avoid the Communists controlling them.
Casino was excellent as well.
Well, you could become a politician. Pretty much the same thing..
The film that I found to be a huge disappointment was The Irishman. It was promoted as Scorcese’s masterpiece....blah,blah,blah. It was good and I'm glad I saw it. But a masterpiece? Gimme a break!
Running casino action, a brothel and ordering hits . . maybe . . but a career politician? No way. How could I sleep at night? I couldn’t live with my selves.
Next: The author takes on the police brutality in Die Hard I, II and III.
That's what ruined GFIII for me, I couldn't even believe he was really the same person from the first two Godfather movies, I know supposedly he had changed, but it was too much of a disconnect for me.
Mario Puzo clearly didn’t understand the relative worth of cannoli versus guns.
I thought is was a good movie.
It was a great movie. No movie is perfect.
wayyy too much....yeesh.
GF3 was such a frustrating movie—moments of brilliance but definitely over-acted in parts.
Yeah, me too. And the part where Michael finally gets the ring to the volcano and can't throw it in and Fredo comes along and bites it off his hand. They don't make movies like that anymore.
maybe the only time ever where the sequel might be better than the original....Godfather part 2 is a very good film, the flash back sequences to the young Vito make it a masterpiece. Just a stunning re-creation of that era.....
When Kurosawa made his list of 100 best movies, Part II was on the list but the original wasn’t.
one of the most cringe movies ever...then again, it was going up against the first 2...but the “hit” on Michael using a helicopter?...that was just too “Bruce Willis” action movie for me...just absurd.
thats just weird...both are amazing film making...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.