The Godfather

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top100films.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

...totally agree that this is a much, much better list than IMDB.

[Michaelson]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't know that the actual difference in quality between Citizen Kane and La Règle du jeu is as large as the numbers indicate, but it is the greatest film ever made by a noticeable margin. it's just that virtually everyone agrees Kane is number one and few agree on what should be number 2, so it's easy to imagine someone slotting La Règle du jeu as far down as, say, 10 or 11, since there's probably 15-20 films you could make a good case for as #2. Hence, the gap.

[/ QUOTE ]

You talk like there's some objective standard of film-making.

[mosta]

I like it, but one aspect I was a little disappointed with was that for as much as they talked about "the family business" I felt like it was all talk and we never really saw any of it. Like the meeting between the families and discussion about going into drugs--it was so far removed from any actual reality, it was like something you'd read here (like a discussion about whether a ninja could kill a tiger with a knife). I'm not going to make any kind of rankings between these movies or other comparisons, but at least in Goodfellas and Blow, when they were in drugs, we saw some drug dealing and some drugs, and in Casino, we got into the operation and all. not just talk about it and never do it.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
I like it, but one aspect I was a little disappointed with was that for as much as they talked about "the family business" I felt like it was all talk and we never really saw any of it. Like the meeting between the families and discussion about going into drugs--it was so far removed from any actual reality, it was like something you'd read here (like a discussion about whether a ninja could kill a tiger with a knife). I'm not going to make any kind of rankings between these movies or other comparisons, but at least in Goodfellas and Blow, when they were in drugs, we saw some drug dealing and some drugs, and in Casino, we got into the operation and all. not just talk about it and never do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can understand your disappointment that there was not as much ‘action’ in the film as you would have liked, but I would ask you to consider the following:

The absolute brilliance of Puzo’s book and script was his ability to communicate the essence of the culture that lead to the Sicilian version of organized crime, or as it is popularly know, La Cosa Nostra.

As in poker, most pay more attention to the results of a hand…….better players attempt to step it up a level or two in thinking to understand ‘why’ the hand played out the way that it did.

Puzo’s script gives us much of that information, and Coppola’s familiarity with the essence of that particular culture, topped off with great filmmaking skills led to the films ability to communicate a texturally much more accurate and detailed accounting of what “things were really like” in that lifestyle.

As there are in virtually all movies, some liberties were taken. For example, I’ve always felt that James Caan was miscast as Sonny. He did a very good job of acting the role of a ‘bull in a china shop’ character with a hair-trigger temper based upon his inability to control his rage within, but IMO, he physically did not fit the part that Puzo portrayed in his novel.

In any case, it was exactly because of The Godfather (Part 1) that movies like Goodfellas and Casino were able to be made. The Godfather established the baseline and raison d’etre: those movies that followed had the luxury of being able to build upon that baseline and focus more upon action.

FWIW, I am Sicilian and grew up in the 50’s and am quite familiar with the lifestyle. Because of my upbringing I think I may be able to validate the complex nuances of the culture that Coppola brings to the screen.

A few of examples………

The opening wedding scene: watch it again…..It is amazingly accurate in conveying the dynamics of the hierarchical, peasant-based society that is such a large part of that subculture.

The absolute rage of Sonny when he brutally beats Connie’s husband Carlo to within an inch of his life. Carlo’s absolute reluctance to defend himself, knowing that if he dared raise his hands in defense, that he would be killed. I have seen that kind of rage in real life, and understand, on a visceral level, where it comes from.

The “Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer” mentality. Part Machiavellian/part Sicilian, but definitely in line with the yin/yang hypocrisy of the ethics of the Sicilian criminal subculture.

It is for these, and the many other character expanding details that Coppola takes from Puzo’s novel and transfers to film that justify, IMO, The Godfathers high ranking on the list.

[mosta]

good post.

[ed8383]

I think you will appreciate it more if you read the godfather book. Great book btw.

[fyodor]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't know that the actual difference in quality between Citizen Kane and La Règle du jeu is as large as the numbers indicate, but it is the greatest film ever made by a noticeable margin. it's just that virtually everyone agrees Kane is number one and few agree on what should be number 2, so it's easy to imagine someone slotting La Règle du jeu as far down as, say, 10 or 11, since there's probably 15-20 films you could make a good case for as #2. Hence, the gap.

as for Citizen Kane itself, part of the magic is in how many of the rules of cinema it created. from the narrative to the deep-focus photography to the extensive special effects (most people don't realize just how many effects the film has). Welles puts so much in the film that it can be nearly impossible to take it all in on the first, or even 5th viewing.

actually, Roger Ebert can probably say it better:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...401010334/1023

to call it a stunning film isn't entirely accurate. more to the point, it's the type of film that rewards study. it doesn't so much stun as it slowly reveals itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny how some posts stay with you. While viewing 'The Rules of the Game' the other day I remembered this post and the reference to deep-focus photography.

I actually misremembered it because I was sure pryor had said 'Citizen Kane' was the first use of deep-focus. Renoir however uses it in 'Rules'. So then I started trying to remember (while viewing) which was made first. I was sure 'Rules' was the earlier flic. And I'm trying to read the subtitles and follow the action. But I like to watch twice with subs anyhow so I didn't miss anything.

Anyhow Renoir certainly made good use of the technique. Often there was something going on in the background that seemed even more important than the idle conversation taking place front and centre.

And for those who might be interested and not know off hand: 'Kane' (1941) 'Rules' (1939)