Godfather Trilogy (1972-90)

Rating: 100%



(www.spotkon.com)

Also Known As:

Unknown

Year:

1972 - 1990

Country:

Predominant Genre:

Crime

Director:

Outstanding Performances:

Premiss:

Organized crime.

Themes:

Alienation | Destiny | Emotional repression | Ethnicity | Family | Humanity | Identity | Loneliness | Materialism | Narcissism | Personal change | Religion | Self-belief | Self-expression | Snobbery | Solipsism | Stereotyping | Totalitarianism | White culture

Similar (in Plot, Theme or Style) to:

Review Format:

DVD

Social Welfare for Gangsters

Summary: An offer one cannot refuse.

The only real problem with The Godfather is the overripeness of Marlon BRANDO’s performance.

BRANDO somewhat undermines the essential focus of the narrative, the sexual relationship between his youngest son and a non-Sicilian woman. His mannered acting purposely draws attention to itself and exposes the so-called great actor as the greatest ham in Hollywood history, the greatest showoff and the greatest attention-seeker.

BRANDO is at once the source of the many parodies of this film and the reason that the parodies only make what is parodied seem better than ever because no one ever parodies rubbish.

Yet, there is much here to enjoy in a deeply romantic film that repays frequent viewings. This is a serious version of the Addam’s Family especially because you are drawn into the various intra- and inter-personal family struggles and business shenanigans shown that you almost feel like a Corleone yourself. This is soap opera and melodrama at a peak of perfection; unlikely to be rivaled anytime soon as director Francis COPPOLA puts his own ethnicity into every frame. If Shakespeare had been a Hollywood screenwriter, this is what he would have produced since it relishes one of his favorite themes of character being the source and origin of ones fate. Moreover, the speech patterns employed here are as rhythmic as any verse by the great man.

Structurally, the lovely waltz theme and the fact that the end of the movie is highly reminiscent of the opening, emphasize the quintessential what-goes-around-comes-around theme. Technically, the dark cinematography by Gordon WILLIS makes the interiors appropriately dungeon like, while the shooting of intimate emotional scenes with a telephoto lens is counter-intuitive yet somehow works. Scenes play to their natural length and we are invited not just to watch but to take part. The characters are fully realized and the choice of actors spot on; this makes their behavior often highly regrettable but consistent with psychological truth.

Part II is less of a bloodbath than its predecessor and more character driven, this film fulfills the promise of the first movie; easily being the best of the three. Al PACINO’s majestic performance as the godfather is far more subtle and complex than anything BRANDO could have dreamed up. And he and Robert DE NIRO both produce some of the best acting either has ever done - helped by the mouthwatering period detail.

The characterization still rankles. Why Vito Corleone, for example, turns to crime in the first place is explained as self defense but not why he continues to pursue such a path – especially as he is clearly a loving husband and father. Yet, when all is said and done, this is still the film trilogy to end all film trilogies.

Part III ties up many loose ends while creating new ones for a potential Part IV. But it all feels a little like an affectionate parody of The Godfather rather than a meaningful extension into more modern times of this eloquent family saga since it adds little in its nearly three hours’ length. However, the plotting is still good, the characters vivid (particularly Andy GARCIA as the new godfather) and the warm glow of humanity – despite the carnage – still visible in every frame.

The central problem with the godfather movies is a psychological fuzziness. Characters sometimes behave in accordance with the needs of the plot rather than how such and such a person would behave in real life. This partly undermines a character based drama.

However, ultimately this movie is about the rise and fall of a US family that mirrors the rise and fall of the US as a major world power; dragged down by its inevitable tendency to live in a made up past. What disturbs – like seeing oneself in the mirror for the first time – is that the romantic style does not reflect reality but the characters own rosy tinted views of their own lives.

---

Copyright © 2014 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute this posting in any format; provided mention of the author’s Weblog (Esthetics) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved.