the Godfather movies

have been rewatching I and II recently. just realised that in II the two "play-within-a-play" scenes mirror each other. young vito corleone, poor but with a happy family, has his first spark of ambition when he encounters 'the black hand' don fanucci at a musical. decades later his heir michael, immensely powerful and wealthy but with his marriage disintegrating and an estranged sister, watches a sex show in cuba with his brother fredo, and realises that it was fredo who betrayed him. symbols that further link the two scenes: the white suit and hat first worn by vito's enemy don fannucci, and then by vito's own son fredo, signifying extravagance but internal moral sickness; the beautiful dark-haired girl on stage, first admired by vito and his friend when they're poor in new york, then tied up and abused in the cuban sex show for the amusement of the rich clientele, signifying first the respect for and then the loss of familial harmony.

 

:bears::bears::bears:

I neve rnotice things like this. I just see the big picture.

 

Now, THESE are brilliant, engrossing films. Wonderful. It is a tribute to Francis Ford Coppola that he was able to weave such brilliance and nuance out of what is essentially a vulgar pulp novel. The book is a veritable trash-heap from the mind of Mario Puzo. Coppola wrung the humanity out of it and made it high art.

 

Great spot

 

Indeed, Rooster is the goods

 

You're a huge fan of Rooster. That's good. He should hire you as his personal bodyguard.

 

I wish Brando would have taken the cotton balls out of his mouth.

 

I love the story about Brando refusing to learn his lines. All those memorable pauses and gazes were really his trying to locate the cue cards for his next line.

 

you're not?

 

I like GF1 and GF2 about equally, but I still wasn't clear about some things in part 2. Who killed the two guys who tried to kill Michael at his house? Fredo was useless and couldn't kill time. Was it Rocco? Maybe Michael deduced that Rocco was in on it, killed the two hitmen, and then sent Rocco on that mission to kill Roth, figuring Rocco would get killed in the process.

It seems kind of strange to me that Roth would intentionally have his hitmen bungle the hit on Frankie...but one belief is that he did that to make Frankie turn on Michael, thinking Michael ordered it (Danny Aiello says "Michael Corleone says hello"). Is that what Tom meant when he later said that Roth played it beautifully? That it was a plan all along to make it look like Michael unsuccessfully tried to have him killed, so he'd testify against him?

Has Coppola ever commented on this?

 

you answered all of your own questions... Roth indeed set it up exactly that way

 

i'm pretty mixed up by it all too. whatever the explanation is, it isn't really clear for the viewer.

 

The book is better. Seriously, everyone should read the book. I read it in 1 day. I couldn't put it down.

 

:l3:disagree

 

The Godfather the MOVIE is superior to the book...by a lot...usually that is not the case.

 

It would mean more if either of you were capable of literacy.

 

I'm capable enough to realize a cheap pulp novel when I see it.

The book is utter trash. Puzo's vulgar fascination with damaged vaginae dominates a good 30 pages of that book. It's about as wonderful a literary creation as one of Dean Koontz's numerous, interchangeable piles of crap.

The story, the characters are great in theory, the execution by Puzo is mangled, low-brow and meandering.

Coppola eliminated all of Puzo's rambling and cheap, sensationalist nonsense and created an evocative masterpiece.

Puzo is a hack.

 

I don't see it quite as negatively. I think the contrast between vulgar violence and naturalistic sex scenes and the family values and the 'development story' is very intentional. Understanding criminals and portraying them as 'good guys' is nothing exceptional in modern literature and thus I don't see Godfather as a particularly important book, but it has more point to it than most pop culture literature.

I agree with you in that Coppola did great work with his film, it is an exceptionally good and creative interpretation of a book that many other directors would have turned in an R-rated action flick

 

Yes, the book as it stood would have been perfect fodder for a b-movie. Coppola made it Shakespearean