I watched it recently for the first time, and I really don’t get why it’s so loved. IMDB rates it as the second-best movie of all time, but it seems far worse than that to me. I like most old movies and see their hype, but The Godfather didn’t do it for me. What am I missing?
Are you familiar with the Nickelodeon show The Fairy Oddparents? Well if you ate not, that show is about how sad kids get fairy godparents to fulfil their wishes, so that they are not so sad any more.
Well that show is like a prequel to The Godfather, except that it takes place after The Godfather. It takes you through similar events to what happened to make the character of the Godfather how he is.
You see when he was a child he had Fairy godparents to furfil his wishes and make him happy. So when he grew up he also wanted to make people happy, by fulfilling their wishes, and he called himself The Godfather, after his Godparents. Who now was gone to help another kid in need.
A fun fact is that in The Fairy Oddparents we are actually following the same Godparents, just with a different kid, but on a similar journey. It was a very experimental form of a prequel, but one that worked marvellously well.
Oh yes, that is definitely the actual plot of “the GOD-FATHER” and I, Margot Robbie, am very interested to hear more big, strong men explain the intricacies of this movie while we do nothing suspicious in the background at all!
My theory is that The Godfather suffers from pioneer syndrome. It was incredibly modern at the time of its release, with ultra-naturalistic acting and new techniques of cinematography. Which everyone proceeded to copy. So that now it looks like just a decent film, maybe from the 80s. But at the time it was a breakthrough. That’s what it’s getting the credit for.
It’s a masterclass in acting, cinematography, and soundtracking. Not only that, but Mario Puzo’s novel which came out shortly before the movie was produced was a smash hit.
In the 70s, movies didn’t look like The Godfather. They looked like weird objective cameras put on a tripod and just filming actors, with not as much thought put into the “feel” of the film. FFC (as well as other directors such as Hitchcock and Kubrick) essentially invented modern cinematography. Remember watching Avatar for the first time? It was kind of like that for movie going audiences.
It was always hailed as an “epic drama” so you have to kind of temper your expectations based off that. It’s not a “murder a minute” gangster flick like a Scorsese picture.
IMHO, while most fans of the series say Part 1 is the best, Part 2 with De Niro as Young Vito is arguably far superior. The first movie is quite dry and you really have to be paying attention to names and conversations, while the 2nd movie has a lot more going for it dynamically and is easier to follow.
It’s the end result of pushing everyone away for the sole pursuit of power. It’s an old man realizing the life that he was trying to recreate (his father’s life), is nothing but a twisted version of the real thing.
It’s supposed to be depressing because the movie is in dialogue with the two that came before it.
Many people say that Sofia Coppola ruined the movie for them, but IMO it’s more so the stark contrast between a young/middle aged Michael coming into his own in the 1st 2 movies, and a senior citizen Michael regretful of his choices in the final act. The party comes to a close and we’re reminded of the terminus of all things.
Please read John Truby’s book “The Anatomy of Genres”, and have your mind BLOWN by all the psychology in the different 14 Genres of story, dominating our cultures throughout the world, now…
It will make fiction in book AND movie form sooo much richer for you, and it will make other-people much-more-understandable, as well…
I’m autistic, am NOT likely to ever watch another movie in my life ( waaay too overwhelming ), but now I understand story so much better…
Truby’s got a special place in his heart for both Godfather I & II.
With reason, his explanations show.
There are an amazing number of awesome stories identified in that book, as examples demonstrating this, or that, aspect of story…
Please read it from beginning to end, so the explanations ( which build on each-other ) weave into the whole, properly ( instead of just hitting 2 chapters & not getting why it doesn’t make as much sense as I’m suggesting it does ).
The only significant error in the book worth noting, is the misunderstanding of Comedy:
Improbably-violated-expectations is the PROPER definition of it, and there is no requirement for any “drop”, which seems an American subset of humour.
I appreciate book recommendations as much as the next person, but just a book recommendation without answering the question isn’t super helpful. I’m not going to read a book before I continue scrolling.
It’s better if you watch other movies from the same time and a bit earlier so you can appreciate the direction and cinematography. Comparing it to modern films is akin to comparing modern games to Half Life 1. You lose something without the context of the contemporaries of the time.
Add comment