Sergio Leone Web Board

Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: drinkanddestroy on March 02, 2012, 09:53:38 AM



Title: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 02, 2012, 09:53:38 AM
AMC has been playing The Godfather films all week, in honor of The Godfather's 40th anniversary.

So I was thinking it would be nice to have Godfather thread here, there's lots of stuff to talk about across the 3 films.

I'll start it off by asking a few questions here, just as a way to kick off what I hope will be an interesting thread. Here goes:

A) I believe that as great as De Niro was (in an Oscar-winning performance) in GFII, Lee Strassberg was even better as Hyman Roth. Anyone agre?


B) GFIII is not very well-liked, compared to the first 2. Does anyone believe that GFIII is up there with the first 2?


C) One of the many amazing things about GF & GFII are all the characters: many movies have one or two great leads, but what separates the really awesome  movies is how unbelievable the acting is, across the board. Of all the great actors in GF & GFII, the only one I did not like was Diane Keaton as Kay. I enjoy watching her less than any other characters. What do you think of Keaton's performance, and are there any other characters that you did NOT like?


D) GF and GFII are on so many people's lists of the greatest movies of all time, often together as one entry. But if you had to choose, which do you think is better, GF or GFII?


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: titoli on March 02, 2012, 11:20:40 AM
A) I think Moschin is better than both.
B) Not me. Though I do not think is so bad. I am among the few who like Coppola's daughter.
C) I do not like Russo as Carlo. But It's Caan that I could never figure as Sonny: he looks Irish like hell. Keaton is alright.
D) I never liked so much the flashback part in GFII except for the Moschin's parts and especially after I heard De Niro speak in that strange half-dialect instead of being greatly dubbed. But I like all the modern story and the fact that you can't figure out what's going on until almost the end.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 02, 2012, 11:29:29 AM

 I am among the few who like Coppola's daughter.

C) I do not like Russo as Carlo. But It's Caan that I could never figure as Sonny: he looks Irish like hell. Keaton is alright.


I only saw GFIII once, but I agre with you about Ms. Coppola; I did not think she deserved all that criticism. She was alright.

Carlo has such a small part, I don't really care either way. yeah, he is not nearly as memorable as the other 20 characters, but I don't have a real problem with him.

It's true that Caan doesn't look like he has even an ounce of Sicilian blood in him. But he is so awesome as Sonny, that that doesn't bother me.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: dave jenkins on March 02, 2012, 01:50:29 PM
Apparently, there were anniversary screenings of the film in select theaters last night. Not much prior warning was given for some reason, but I guess they will rescreen it later (I'm not clear about when--maybe on the actual anniversary, Mar. 24?). The Godfather 2 will get a screening in April. Weirdly, if you live in NY or LA you're out of luck on these.

UPDATE: I found the date on the Cinemark website: it's Mar. 22 (why all the Thursdays?)


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 02, 2012, 01:54:34 PM
Casablanca will also be playing in theaters on March 21, 2012  O0


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: Groggy on March 02, 2012, 04:48:15 PM
Schematics, must we?

A. I liked Michael V. Gazzo better than Strasberg; he took a throwaway replacement part and made it something special. No problem with De Niro.
B. It's not terrible but definitely suffers in comparison to the first two. The main issues are an overly complex plot and some awkward casting (not only Sofia Coppola but George Hamilton, Raf Vallone and Bridget Fonda).
C. Keaton's fine. Talia Shire is terrible.
D. I think the second one has more depth and tragic pathos, and builds on the original film. I'd rate the two films so closely it doesn't make much difference.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: titoli on March 03, 2012, 01:05:42 AM
I don't know if I have written this already or somebody else did (not only on this board) but I'm certain that Moschin's treatment of his coffee was taken up and amplified by Leone in OUTA.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 04, 2012, 12:17:05 AM
Schematics, must we?

A. I liked Michael V. Gazzo better than Strasberg; he took a throwaway replacement part and made it something special. No problem with De Niro.

C. Keaton's fine. Talia Shire is terrible.

D. I think the second one has more depth and tragic pathos, and builds on the original film. I'd rate the two films so closely it doesn't make much difference.

A. Indeed, Gazzo was also awesome. It's just incredible how many amazing performances there were. Between the two films  there are about 15-20 memorable characters (counting those who appear in both films only once).
I have no problem with De Niro's performance either; I just think Strassberg's performance was even better. If I can pick a small nit with the writing for Strassberg: by the time you watch the movie over and over (as I did last week on AMC), it starts tio grate on you how in every scene in which Hyman Roth appears or in which Michael is talking about him to others, they go on and on about is health and longevity. There must be like 5 references to that and it really gets annoying after repeated viewings; I think they could have gotten the point across with only 2 or 3 mentions of his health.


C. I thought Shire was good is fine (But if you don't like her, luckily for you, she's only in like 3 scenes anyway -- the opening scene, the very brief part where she tries pushing Keaton out of the house before Pacino arrives, and the one long speaking part is where she begs him to forgive Fredo).

D. Interesting you say that, cuz indeed, so many "lists" do rate the films so closely together, or as a single  entry on the list. ( A notable exception being AFI, which rates GF #3, but GFII # 32). I wonder if it's really that they are that close, or if it's cuz it's just so hard to separate them and not to think of them as one long film.

While the modern-day sequences of GFII are equally awesome with those of GF, I find that it's hard to sit through repeated viewings of some of the flashback scenes.  I find myself forwarding many these scenes now.  I know the point of those scenes was to contrast Vito's career with Michaels's, but it's still hard to watch some of those scenes, not leats cuz they are interrupting serious action in the 1950's


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: cigar joe on March 04, 2012, 03:03:11 AM
I must be in a minority, I've watched the whole saga maybe at most once or twice, and its never really resonated with me. Growing up in an Italian neighborhood in the city I never met any Italians remotely like those depicted in the film.

BTW I have it on as background noise as I type.

But I suppose shit happens. It was only later in the early 70's that I knew some "wizeguys" (these guys weren't the brightest bulbs BTW) and saw an incident where someone was thrown out a window. ^-^


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 04, 2012, 03:23:31 AM
I must be in a minority, I've watched the whole saga maybe at most once or twice, and its never really resonated with me. Growing up in an Italian neighborhood in the city I never met any Italians remotely like those depicted in the film.

BTW I have it on as background noise as I type.

But I suppose shit happens. It was only later in the early 70's that I knew some "wizeguys" (these guys weren't the brightest bulbs BTW) and saw an incident where someone was thrown out a window. ^-^


I grew up in Bensonhurst, supposedly the epicenter of it all, though I guess a few years past its "heyday" (but supposedly they've always said  it ain't around anymore -- till it's discovered again, right?) Anyway, I love GF & GFII cuz they are great movies, even though I don't know people like this; that has nothing to do with loving a movie (I don't know men with no name who wear green ponchos either  ;))


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 04, 2012, 03:29:48 AM
As we know, Leone was offered The Godfather, but declined.

How would a Leone-directed [i Godfather [/i] saga have looked?


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: dave jenkins on March 04, 2012, 05:54:11 AM
While the modern-day sequences of GFII are equally awesome with those of GF, I find that it's hard to sit through repeated viewings of some of the flashback scenes.  I find myself forwarding many these scenes now.  I know the point of those scenes was to contrast Vito's career with Michaels's, but it's still hard to watch some of those scenes, not leats cuz they are interrupting serious action in the 1950's
That's a pretty good point. The 50s scenes are the ones I like re-watching as well. But Crapola wasn't thinking about the home video market in 1974.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: dave jenkins on March 04, 2012, 05:55:39 AM
How would a Leone-directed [i Godfather [/i] saga have looked?
Twice as long (and with a lot more food).


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: Groggy on March 04, 2012, 06:58:53 AM
I must be in a minority, I've watched the whole saga maybe at most once or twice, and its never really resonated with me. Growing up in an Italian neighborhood in the city I never met any Italians remotely like those depicted in the film.

BTW I have it on as background noise as I type.

But I suppose shit happens. It was only later in the early 70's that I knew some "wizeguys" (these guys weren't the brightest bulbs BTW) and saw an incident where someone was thrown out a window. ^-^

Well I don't think you're supposed to take The Godfather at anything like a realistic level. At the risk of infuriating Jenkins it approaches the Mob as a metaphor for big business/the US government/whatever respectable institution Coppola and Puzo wanted to tear down. It's definitely not pitched at the level of Goodfellas, for instance, which is probably closer tot he real thing.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 04, 2012, 09:01:34 AM
weren't Leone's Westerns also supposedly a metaphor for American capitalism?


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: Groggy on March 04, 2012, 09:06:34 AM
Aside from OUATITW I'm not sure how direct or deliberate it was.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: noodles_leone on March 04, 2012, 12:20:54 PM
I'm one of the happy few who know the truth: GF III >>>>>>> GF II
Of course GF III is flawed and was only done for the money (and you can definitely feel it), but GF II just does not make any sense from a scriptwriting point of view. There are 2 movies in this one, and absolutely nothing ties them together. That structural nonsense is way more of a pain in this ass (especially with repeated viewings as many mentioned here) than even many flaws here and there.

To me:
GF I : 17/20
GF II: 12/20
GF III: 14/20
GF Trilogy: 18/20


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: Groggy on March 04, 2012, 12:22:31 PM
Explain.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: noodles_leone on March 04, 2012, 12:24:23 PM
The two movies in one?
Vito sequences vs Michael sequences.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: noodles_leone on March 04, 2012, 12:26:38 PM
I should probably add that GF II is often mentioned as one of the best scripts of the last century probably, hence my (over)reaction.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: Groggy on March 04, 2012, 12:38:35 PM
That's what makes Part II so good. The contrast works perfectly for me.

If you're complaining about nonsensical writing how can you defend Godfather III? There you have to deal with an incestuous romance, yet another old friend of the family out for revenge, a convoluted and ridiculous scheme involving the Vatican and slimy bankers, a team of hitmen not introduced until the final reels... if you think about it, the story makes next to no sense.

Damn, maybe my rating of GFIII was way too high.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: stanton on March 04, 2012, 12:49:13 PM
For me GF II is excellent in every respect. The storytelling with the 2 time levels is excellent.

It loses for me a lot in the TV version which tells the story of I and II chronological.

GF I    10/10
GF II   10/10
GD III   6/10

Maybe 7 if I re-watch part III, maybe not


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: dave jenkins on March 04, 2012, 02:03:18 PM
At the risk of infuriating Jenkins it approaches the Mob as a metaphor for big business/the US government/whatever respectable institution Coppola and Puzo wanted to tear down.
How about . . . (get ready for your little mind to be blown) . . . : the Family is a metaphor for the family! [Check out the big brain on Francis!]


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: noodles_leone on March 04, 2012, 02:16:31 PM
If you're complaining about nonsensical writing how can you defend Godfather III? There you have to deal with an incestuous romance, yet another old friend of the family out for revenge, a convoluted and ridiculous scheme involving the Vatican and slimy bankers, a team of hitmen not introduced until the final reels... if you think about it, the story makes next to no sense.

Well I don't know. It either works as an ensemble film ("un film choral" as we say in French) or we could consider that the protagonist is the family.
The plot is "convoluted and ridiculous" in its own way in the three movies, so the fact that they went a bit too far on GF3 doesn't bother me much. GF2 is harder to follow to me (but maybe it's just the fact that I get usually more bored watching it so I can miss a few things here and there).

My main complain about GF3 is that Michael giving the power to Andy Garcia is what really does not make any sense to me. He's probably the last guy I would give my family to (i'd even consider Sonny prior to him if he was still alive: at least you could trust him). Andy is impulsive, does not know anything about the business and is far too individualist. Can you seriously imagine him dealing with the bankers, the Vatican or even Sollozzo? Running a Casino? If he had been in charge since the begining, the whole trilogy would have lasted a single short movie (he would have killed Sollozzo at the wedding OR made business with him hence being murdered 5 minutes after the wedding). But that's what happened to real life Mafia, so...


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: Groggy on March 04, 2012, 02:21:49 PM
How about . . . (get ready for your little mind to be blown) . . . : the Family is a metaphor for the family! [Check out the big brain on Francis!]

That works too.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 04, 2012, 08:26:24 PM
a convoluted and ridiculous scheme involving the Vatican and slimy bankers


wasn't that partially based on true events?


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 04, 2012, 08:34:19 PM
I once very briefly watched the commentary to GF3 (for about 2 minutes, at the very end); Coppola says that he'd intended to have a 4th GF: with the Andy Garcia character as the Godfather, and in it would be flashbacks to Michael Corleone's career -- in the same vein of GF2. But Mario Puzo died before they could write a new script.

So we can forever guess how it would have turned out.

Anyway, my ratings are 10/10 for the first 2 movies; the 3rd, which I've only seen once, I'd rate about a 6/10.  
The 3 movies have many similar scenes (eg. each movie opens with a big party, the Catholic Festa in Little Italy in the 2nd and 3rd, the final montage with all the killings in all 3,  etc.). It's done specifically to show family traditions and to compare/contrast generations of the family, etc., and perhaps Coppola thought the viewer would like to see great scenes reprised, but that really annoyed me by the time it got to the 3rd movie, how many scenes are references/reprisals of the first two. I rolled my eyes at GF3's the opening scene (the party for the dedication of the donation to the church); the festa in Little Italy; and the montage of killings taking place while Anthony is singing his opera. I was like, "Are you serious? Get some new material!"

The only new thing to really enjoy in GF3 is Eli Wallach, who is always a joy to watch. Also, I have always liked Andy Garcia (and I've always thought – even long before I ever saw GF3 – that he looked just like Al Pacino), but if they had actually made a GF4, I doubt he could have been anything close to as good as Pacino was as a godfather.

Finally, I just wanna say that I didn't think Sofia Coppola deserved all that criticism; she wasn't nearly as awesome as all the incredible characters in the first 2 movies, but she was far from awful.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: Groggy on March 05, 2012, 04:14:45 AM
wasn't that partially based on true events?

How's that relevant?


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 05, 2012, 10:45:59 AM
Since we were discussing some of the characters earlier, I have been thinking about how many amazing characters there are in the first two movies, and I decided to make a list here of all of them. As I said previously, the only character that I really did not like was Kay Adams Corleone; but one of the incredible things about GF1&2 is how many characters are just perfect. (Of course, some  characters  on this list have very small roles, but IMO everyone on this list is perfect in their roles eg. the nameless bodyguard/hitman played by Amerigo Tot – he doesn't say a word, but looks as perfect as you can possibly get for a bodyguard/hitman).

Do you think anyone on the list doesn't belong here? Or that anyone else should be on the list?

Here goes, in no particular order, combining GF1&2:


1. Vito Corleone
2. Michael Corleone
3. Santino Corleone
4. Fredo Corleone
5. Tom Hagen
6. Peter Clemenza
7. Virgil Sollozzo
8. Apollonia Vitelli-Corleone (Michael's Italian wife)
9. Young Vito (played by De Niro)
 10. Young Clemenza
11. Frank Pantangeli
12. Don Fanucci
13. Hyman Roth
14. Nameless Bodyguard (played by Amerigo Tot)
15. Senate Committee Chairman


And the ones I listed are just those whom I think are PERFECT in their roles, like Oscar-worthy. There are so many others that are damn good including Al Neri, Capt. McCluskey, Don Cicco, Sal Tessio, Johnny Ola, Luca Brasi, Senator Geary, Pentangeli's brother and perhaps more.

btw, I have looked through cast lists on imdb and Wikipedia, and have not seen the name of the person who played Don Cicio (the Mafia head in the town of Corleone who killed Vito's family, and whom De Niro kills at the end of GF2). Does anyone know who that actor is?




Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: cigar joe on March 06, 2012, 02:24:31 AM
Once I get past #6 (except for DeNiro) I don't remember any of them, I haven't seen the films in quite a long time, and the last time I did it was the 3rd installment.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 06, 2012, 07:53:05 AM
Once I get past #6 (except for DeNiro) I don't remember any of them, I haven't seen the films in quite a long time, and the last time I did it was the 3rd installment.

 I believe you remember Don Fanucci; that's the character played by Gastone Moschin  ;)


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: Juan Miranda on June 07, 2013, 03:20:24 PM
(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/Sicily/Forza3_zps96fba6e6.jpg)

“Any family who hides the boy Vito,” yells a man with a shotgun standing on the church steps “will regret it!” Dawn is breaking in the frightened village. Meanwhile, the hunted child makes his getaway under the noses of the pair of hunters, and they are disguised literally as hunters in their rustic corduroy suits and caps. Vito, hidden in a basket carried on the back of a donkey could be in a blasphemous re-enactment of the flight into Egypt to escape the slaughter of the innocents. The animal clatters in front of the church with a goat companion and exits down one of the alleys flanking the church.

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/Sicily/ChiesadellaSantissimaAnnunziataeAssunta2_zps83abf779.jpg)

Many years later Vito has returned, taken vengeance on his family’s killer and stands on the steps of the same small Baroque building as the tiny piazza fills with a Palm Sunday congregation spilling from la chiesa. In his arms the multiple murderer holds his youngest son Michael as another donkey saunters by. Indeed all his natural children are present including the doomed Sonny and Fredo on this trip back to the old country.

The same church appeared briefly in the previous film in the trilogy for just a few seconds, but such is its strangely powerful presence it seems to symbolise a whole idea of a village, an archetype of superstitious rural Sicily itself as the fugitive Michael strolls past in care of two bodyguards dressed as hunters with guns, just like his father’s tormentors. “Corleone.” one of them declared in a previous shot, the one who will later betray him, waving in a short montage of the place Michael has hiked to see, the hard but beautiful sun drenched land his father was born in and fled from and where he will spend a dangerous idyll, the village the mob clan was accidently named after on Ellis Island in New York. We see it one last time in Part III when many years later Michael and his ex-wife Kay visit Corleone once more, this time a joyful wedding bursts from the church as they arrive, an ironic reflection of their disastrous union.

This church however, which appears only briefly in five shots in a trilogy of films made over a twenty year period is not where the film makers would have us believe it to be. This only architectural constant in all three Godfather films is not in Corleone, now a large, ugly, overdeveloped modern looking town, but in Forza d’Agro, a tiny medieval hill village perched 1377 feet up on a coastal cliff overlooking the Ionian Sea.

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/Sicily/IMG_2702_zpsc4d105e4.jpg)

To the north are the Straits of Messina and the mountains of the toe of Italy, Calabria. To the south is the stunning coastal holiday resort of Taormina. Across the valley to the North West also perched on a hill is the even smaller settlement of Savoca where the majority of the Sicily scenes were filmed. Behind the town steep hills rise up to Monte Kalfa where goatherds sing across misty landscapes to each other.

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/Sicily/22StraitsofMessina_zps4d3b3325.jpg)
Straits of Messina

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/Sicily/26MonteKalfa_zpse9f66343.jpg)
Monte Kalfa

You see nothing of these views in any of the three films however. Co-writer, director and producer Francis Ford Coppola brought his cast and crew all the way to Forza d’Agro to focus almost entirely on one mid shot of the church of Santissima Annuziata e Assunta, and for these brief moments the building exemplifies a mythical ideal, it’s decorative scrolls, flaming urns, scallop shell and winged doors and windows all typical of Italian Baroque architecture.

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/Sicily/14ChiesadellaSantissimaAnnunziataeAssunta_zps2d463d92.jpg)

For me watching THE GODFATHER and THE GODFATHER PART II over the years it had become an icon (of the appalling 3rd movie the kindest thing to say is that it should never have been made). Who knows why we chose such icons, places which so intrigue us when seen in a film, painting or photograph? In mediaeval times vast populations would risk their lives to make arduous journeys to distant places to gaze upon and worship the bones of some saint (of usually dubious provenance). In April, wrote Chaucer, “Then do folk long to go on pilgrimages” so in April, pricked by Nature to ramp and rage I made my own pilgrimage to Forza d’Agro to see the place myself, a stone and brick star in two of the greatest films to be produced in the United States in a decade which saw an embarrassment of cinematic riches flow from its shores.

When I arrived I was lucky, there were no cars parked outside the church, a rarity I discovered. I had the place pretty much to myself as I strutted along the small flight of steps just as the hunters had. I imagined Robert De Niro standing here in that busy sun drenched shot, jutting out his jaw in imitation of Marlon Brando, dressed in his flashback Sunday best surrounded by palm waving extras and the donkey trotting by.

I went into the church, nobody there. The interior seemed huge; the façade of the building, hemmed in on its tiny piazza is deceptively compact.

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/Sicily/ChiesadellaSantissimaAnnunziataeAssuntainterior_zpsbcd71285.jpg)

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/Sicily/SantaCaterinadrsquoAlessandria_zps519688d0.jpg)

Built apparently in 1707, architect un-named or unknown, to replace the previous one built in the 400’s which, this being Sicily, collapsed in an earthquake. There was an organ loft and a sculpture of Santa Caterina d’ Alessandria. I imagined the American cast and crew wandering round the place too, out of curiosity amid the tedium of setting up a scene for the Technicolor camera. I said a silent thank you for the pilgrimage to the god I didn’t believe in and went outside to study the “reverse shot”, the scene you never see, from the point of view of the hunters, of Al Pacino and De Niro and Diane Keaton in Part 3.

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/Sicily/Forza10_zps7772bca4.jpg)
Reverse shot

I could picture Coppola standing beside Gordon Willis’s camera in the piazza surrounded by the usual assortment of crew watched by the two little winged angel faces carved from tuffa above the church door. On one of the piazza walls was pasted a funeral announcement. A local lady had been sent off from the church the previous week. She was just fifty five but in the already fading photograph she looked much older possibly through illness or a hard life up here on the mountain, certainly there are no shops in Forza d’Agoa apart from a little pharmacy. The other businesses were hotels and restaurants and a single bar and gelateria.   

I spent the night in the village and after a gigantic meal even Coppola or Brando couldn’t have finished I strolled round listening to the frogs and crickets croaking and chirruping in the valleys below and an owl hoot loudly from the steeple of the other main church in the settlement. I had to leave early in the morning to head back to Palermo, a journey which took all day. It was pouring with rain while I waited at the station in Sant ‘alleseo Siculo after exploring the deserted beach. High above me on its peak Forza d’Agro appeared and disappeared through drifting clouds of mist and drizzle with its church pretending to be Corleone, the one I’d come all this way to see. The train arrived and I looked up for one last time but the village had vanished. It was the day after my fiftieth birthday.

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/Sicily/Forza2_zps5035a919.jpg)

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/Sicily/18Forza7_zps83a2edb3.jpg)

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/Sicily/Forza8_zps3f017522.jpg)

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/Sicily/6_zpsd6e0dec8.jpg)

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/Sicily/Forza9_zpsd1e2e717.jpg)

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/Sicily/PiazzaGiovanniXXIII_zpsa244ea2e.jpg)
Piazza Giovanni XXIII

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/Sicily/ChiesadellaSantissimaAnnunziataeAssunta3_zps90ae6d7f.jpg)


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: Groggy on June 07, 2013, 10:34:00 PM
Excellent stuff Juan. Thanks for sharing. O0


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: cigar joe on June 08, 2013, 04:37:32 AM
Nice images


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: titoli on June 08, 2013, 01:31:20 PM
btw, I have looked through cast lists on imdb and Wikipedia, and have not seen the name of the person who played Don Cicio ( the Mafia head in the town of Corleone who killed Vito's family, and whom De Niro kills at the end of GF2). Does anyone know who that actor is?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0798077/

"Ciccio" is common diminutive of Francesco.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: emmo26 on September 25, 2013, 05:33:03 AM
The two movies in one?
Vito sequences vs Michael sequences.


Precisely....the movie should´ve been made into 2 separate films. The Vito sequences are way too much and it compromised the integrity/duration of the Michael scenes.  Why have the crux of the film when Michael finds out the betray of his brother in a 5 minute seedy cuban strip show were Friedo spills the beans "Oh.......Hyman Roth would never take us to a place like this"


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on September 25, 2013, 06:00:20 AM
yeah, Roger Ebert has criticized the use of the flashback scenes in GF II http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-godfather-part-ii-1974


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: dave jenkins on September 25, 2013, 09:13:01 AM
yeah, Roger Ebert has criticized the use of the flashback scenes in GF II http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-godfather-part-ii-1974
Well, that IS a relief. Now we know we are licensed to think that way.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on September 25, 2013, 02:09:05 PM
I'm quoting Ebert because I agree with him here; it's easier for me to provide a link to what he wrote than to repeat the reasoning  ;)


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: emmo26 on September 27, 2013, 05:07:40 PM
I heard that The Godfather Saga that was aired on tv back in the 70´s was shown in full chronological order with deleted scenes slotted in.


Anyone here have any idea where I can purchase this version?  Preferably with the longest cut.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: Groggy on September 27, 2013, 06:09:06 PM
I don't know if it's on video but it turns up on television a lot.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on September 04, 2014, 08:17:25 PM
I just bought the BRD boxset, The Coppola Restoration, all three movies (plus a fourth disc of bonus features) in one boxset.

I haven't watched any of the discs yet, but I have read DVD Beaver's page on the movie http://goo.gl/V3JXO4 plus a separate page of screencap comparisons http://goo.gl/NvZgOw.
The movie looks very different from previous DVD's.

is this really (closer to) how the movies looked when first released? or is it just Coppola making the movie look as he wants it to look today?

(we've been discussing color accuracy of BRD's so much RE: GBU recently, I actually wondered if I should just mention it in the GBU thread rather than bringing it up here .... but hey, this is The Godfather Thread  ;) )


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on October 03, 2014, 08:00:56 AM
just saw the BRD of GF1 & GF2 for the first time.

on GF1, there are a few scenes where the color changes from one cut to the next. Like the scene in the Corleone home where Michael first announces that he is going to kill McLuskey and Solozzo; the camera is on Michael, then it cuts to Tom, then cuts back to Michael but it looks yellow. I don't know if this was a screwup by the camera people or if maybe those frames were damaged over the past three decades

Otherwise, the BRD's were real nice to look at.

----

A while ago, I discussed how many great characters there are in GF1&2, but now I have to add that IMO the one glaring flaw in GF1&2 (besides for disliking the flashbacks in GF2, as I discussed previously) is the two main actresses, Diane Keaton and Talia Shire; I thought they were both awful and cringed every time they opened their mouths. (Again, I am only talking about their performances in GF1&2; I don't remember their performances in GF3, cuz I only saw that movie once and it was quite a while ago.)


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 05, 2015, 05:02:39 AM
Groggy:

I was looking through this thread and came across a question you asked a while ago, on the second page of this thread, that I hadn't answered. To summarize the conversation: n_l had mentioned that he didn't like the script of GF2, you replied that you did like it, and then went on to criticize the writing of GF3:
If you're complaining about nonsensical writing how can you defend Godfather III? There you have to deal with an incestuous romance, yet another old friend of the family out for revenge, a convoluted and ridiculous scheme involving the Vatican and slimy bankers, a team of hitmen not introduced until the final reels... if you think about it, the story makes next to no sense.

and in response to your complaint about "a convoluted and ridiculous scheme involving the Vatican and slimy bankers," I replied, "Wasn't that partly based on true events?" To which you replied, "How's that relevant?" I never replied to that question of yours, but I will now:


(IF - and this is a big "if – for argument's sake, the movie is indeed depicting, reasonably accurately, the real-life Vatican/Immobiliare scandal), then that is very relevant because then you can't complain that this incident is "ridiculous." When you used the term "ridiculous," I assumed you meant as in "contrived" or "not believable." I don't see how you could say that about a story that actually happened.
Maybe I am not understanding your complaint correctly. Can you please explain specifically what you think is "ridiculous" about the Vatican/Immobiliare incident? I don't mean to harp on the definition of one word (and I certainly am not out to defend the script of – or anything else about – GF3), I just want to understand what your complaint is, simply because if you are complaining that it is not believable, then I don't think that is a fair complaint on a story that actually happened ....


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 05, 2015, 05:09:48 AM
In regard to the problems with GF3:

In the book Al Pacino: In Conversation with Lawrence Grobel http://goo.gl/1kkWq5 Pacino talks about how what he thought really hurt GF3 was that Winona Ryder and Robert Duvall were not in it.

(I believe Ryder withdrew shortly before filming began – she was to play the role that eventually went to Sofia Coppola – because she was exhausted after having just finished a grueling filming schedule on another movie, and just didn't feel like starting another movie then; and Duvall wanted more money than the studio was willing to pay. I am not certain as to the reasons why they did not appear in the movie. And I can't recall for certain whether Pacino mentions any other causes for GF3 not living up to the previous Godfather films. But I do remember very clearly Pacino bemoaning the fact that Ryder and Duvall were not in the movie.)




Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: stanton on May 05, 2015, 05:39:40 AM
GF 3 is simply a lesser film. Everything in it is not on the level of the first 2. Coppola was at that time not the Coppola of the 70s anymore. But most of the films he made in the 80s are better than GF 3, so there was more wrong with the film than only the director being beneath his peak.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 05, 2015, 06:41:11 AM
GF 3 is simply a lesser film. Everything in it is not on the level of the first 2.

No doubt.

The only attribute of GF3 over GF1&2 is Eli Wallach  :)


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: noodles_leone on May 05, 2015, 08:53:35 AM
1 > 3 > 2

But I know I'm alone here. Many American screenwriters agree though: G1 and 3's scripts have been ranked in the top 5 screenplays ever by I don't remember which association of screenwriters. G2 was not in the list. But hey, I don't think G1's script is that great (the movie is great, the script is just very good: 1970's Coppola transcended it).
Still, the most powerful scene from the whole trilogy is in the second one (Fredo's murder).

About real life events being considered as "ridiculous" in a film:
Screenwriters struggle with this all the time. Not only in films inspired by true events: every movie is stuffed with real life lines, stuff that the screenwriters heard/saw in the street or at a Starbucks when he's not plain quoting his girlfriend. Audiard use to spend his time in coffee shops in Paris to steal from real people. More recently, Aaron Sorkin admited to turn to Twitter everytime he needs something that rings "real". The thing is (and really, it sucks): as a filmmaker, you cannot hide behind the good old "BUT IT HAPPENED!" claim. It doesn't work. Because people don't want to double check your facts when they leave the theater. It needs to feel real in the world of your film. That's something the real world never worries about, but a filmmaker has to.

So I'm with Groggy on that one: if it seems ridiculous, there is something wrong with the film. That being said, in the Godfather 3, the Vatican plot is cool, not ridiculous. So I'm also with Drink. I like everybody. Don't shoot at me.

A true example of what LOOKS ridiculous in the film but happened in real life: Michael handing out the power to Andy Garcia. Garcia's character proved to be faithful, but all in all not that smart (just street smart) and he certainly won't lead the family in the right direction. Michael would never do that. Still, that's more or less what happened with the Mafia: the power went from the old school guys to stupid street thugs. But you just spent 9 hours with a guy called Michael who would never ever do that, however broken he is in the end.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 05, 2015, 10:18:08 AM

About real life events being considered as "ridiculous" in a film:
Screenwriters struggle with this all the time. Not only in films inspired by true events: every movie is stuffed with real life lines, stuff that the screenwriters heard/saw in the street or at a Starbucks when he's not plain quoting his girlfriend. Audiard use to spend his time in coffee shops in Paris to steal from real people. More recently, Aaron Sorkin admited to turn to Twitter everytime he needs something that rings "real". The thing is (and really, it sucks): as a filmmaker, you cannot hide behind the good old "BUT IT HAPPENED!" claim. It doesn't work. Because people don't want to double check your facts when they leave the theater. It needs to feel real in the world of your film. That's something the real world never worries about, but a filmmaker has to.

So I'm with Groggy on that one: if it seems ridiculous, there is something wrong with the film. That being said, in the Godfather 3, the Vatican plot is cool, not ridiculous. So I'm also with Drink. I like everybody. Don't shoot at me.

This is a very good point, but I think that in the case of the Vatican/Immobilaire scandal, the filmmaker is expecting the viewer to instantly recognize that story from the news. Presumably, adults alive in the early '90's watching GF3 would immediately recognize the story of Vatican/Immobilaire (just as adults in the early 70's would immediately recognize that Moe Green is inspired by Bugsy Siegel, Hyman Roth is Meyer Lansky, the whole Cuban stuff was based on real facts, Johnny Fontaine was obviously inspired by Frank Sinatra, etc.)

So I agree, the fact that some story happened in real life to me and some babe 27 floors above Union Square on New Years Eve, that doesn't make it believable – when truth is stranger than fiction, tone down the truth. But nobody watching this movie when it was released would ever dream of complaining about the Vatican/Immobilaire story being nonsensical, because they all knew that it happened. That's the difference: This isn't something that just the screenwriter and a few special friends know really happened; this is something everyone watching in the theater knows really happened.

So, now you wanna call it dated? That's a whole other complaint. But nonsensical? Definitely not.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 05, 2015, 10:53:08 AM


A true example of what LOOKS ridiculous in the film but happened in real life: Michael handing out the power to Andy Garcia. Garcia's character proved to be faithful, but all in all not that smart (just street smart) and he certainly won't lead the family in the right direction. Michael would never do that. Still, that's more or less what happened with the Mafia: the power went from the old school guys to stupid street thugs. But you just spent 9 hours with a guy called Michael who would never ever do that, however broken he is in the end.

Firstly, I am not sure what other option Michael had. Who else was he going to give the family over to if not Andy Garcia?


But more importantly, I think you may be missing a little bit of the continuity across the three films – the connection between Vito giving power to Michael and Michael giving power to Andy Garcia (that goes to show what a shitty movie GF3 is: we don't even know the characters' names! The only characters' names anyone knows from GF3 are those who appeared in the earlier movies. There's no character that only appears in GF3 whose name anyone knows. Even Andy Garcia - all I or anyone else remembers is that he is "Sonny's illegitimate son."  ;D But i digress, as usual). Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, Coppola's intention was to make a fourth movie, with Andy Garcia as the godfather and with flashbacks to a younger Michael – just as GF2 had Michael as godfather and with flashbacks to a younger Vito – (but once Mario Puzo died, that plan was abandoned). And this was already being set up, with the death of Michael at the end of GF3 mirroring the death of Vito at the end of GF1.

GF2 is showing the difference between Michael and Vito. The generations have deteriorated. Now between Michael and Andy Garcia, a further deterioration. Michael was no Vito. And Andy Garcia is no Michael.

It's ultimately a tragedy of the deterioration of a family, or if you want to get into the metaphors, the deterioration of the American Dream.

of course, we'll never know what would have happened if GF4 had been made: Would it have been great? Would people today like GF3 more than they do? Would the parallel with GF2 have worked? Who knows. And the fact that GF4 was never made, maybe that makes GF3 more awkward. And maybe the fact that they intended to make GF4 shouldn't change your opinion of what happens in GF3. Still, I think that when criticizing Michael's handing the reins over to Andy Garcia (I still don't know the character's name. This movie is shit), it's worth noting why it was done, as a part of what was supposed to be a bigger story.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: stanton on May 05, 2015, 12:15:39 PM
But that all doesn't change the fact that it isn't convincing, and that Garcia isn't a character who "comes to life", and that generally there aren't any charcaters and events in GF 3 which are remarkable compared to the incidents in the earlier films. I assume that with GF 4 it all would have become only worse. It's good it was never made.
GF 3 is an ok film, but not one I really needed.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: stanton on May 05, 2015, 12:20:16 PM
1 > 3 > 2

But I know I'm alone here. Many American screenwriters agree though: G1 and 3's scripts have been ranked in the top 5 screenplays ever by I don't remember which association of screenwriters. G2 was not in the list.


Shurely shome mistake ...

What they meant was part 2, but they got confused with the numbers. It's so confusing with all these sequels, prequels, cross-overs these days.

But then, like General Custer once said, only a dead screenplay is a good screenplay ...


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 05, 2015, 12:55:35 PM
But that all doesn't change the fact that it isn't convincing, and that Garcia isn't a character who "comes to life", and that generally there aren't any charcaters and events in GF 3 which are remarkable compared to the incidents in the earlier films. I assume that with GF 4 it all would have become only worse. It's good it was never made.
GF 3 is an ok film, but not one I really needed.

Oh, I am not defending GF3 in any way. It is a shitty movie.

As to whether or not it's believable that Michael would hand over the reins to Andy Garcia, that's like asking me if it's believable that Joan Crawford would have a crush on Mercedes macAmbridge (or that any human being could wanna fuck Crawford or that any human being could wanna fuck Macmbridge) : Johnny Guitar is so bad, I really don't give a damn about believability, I'm just happy when it's over.

Maybe I'd care more about the believability issues if I gave a damn about the movie. I don't, so I don't.

Do I have many characters I enjoy watching like in the first two movies? No.

Do I like seeing the godfather crying in a confession to a priest rather than having his brother's head blowed off? No.

Do I like seeing endless parodies of scenes from GF1&GF2? No.

It seems like it got to this point where Coppola & Puzo said they'll just endlessly recreate scenes from the first two movies. It got tiring. And they'd killed off too many great characters from the first two movies and didn't have enough great characters to replace them. And ... whatever, why bother. Would I have liked it more if it was its own movie, not part of the GF series? Who knows. Who cares. As a Godfather movie it is shit and that's that.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 05, 2015, 12:57:02 PM
I'm one of the happy few who know the truth: GF III >>>>>>> GF II
Of course GF III is flawed and was only done for the money (and you can definitely feel it), but GF II just does not make any sense from a scriptwriting point of view. There are 2 movies in this one, and absolutely nothing ties them together. That structural nonsense is way more of a pain in this ass (especially with repeated viewings as many mentioned here) than even many flaws here and there.

To me:
GF I : 17/20
GF II: 12/20
GF III: 14/20
GF Trilogy: 18/20


can you explain to me how the trilogy gets a higher grade than any of the individual movies?


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: noodles_leone on May 05, 2015, 02:52:27 PM
Shurely shome mistake ...

What they meant was part 2, but they got confused with the numbers. It's so confusing with all these sequels, prequels, cross-overs these days.

But then, like General Custer once said, only a dead screenplay is a good screenplay ...

Screenwriters are not that good at maths so you must be right.


can you explain to me how the trilogy gets a higher grade than any of the individual movies?

1 - Michael Corleone has a trajectory that works better in the trilogy than in any of the individual film.
2 - Grandeur. I like it.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 06, 2015, 07:09:50 AM


1 - Michael Corleone has a trajectory that works better in the trilogy than in any of the individual film.
2 - Grandeur. I like it.

It's funny you say that.

Roger Ebert (rather infamously) gave GF2 only 3 out of 4 stars in his original review, and then years later added that movie to his "Great Movies" list, and said he still wouldn't change one word of his original review  ;D

in case you're interested, here is the original http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-godfather-part-ii-1974 and here is the Great Movies review http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-the-godfather-part-ii-1974

The relevant portion of the "Great Movies" review says:

Of all of the reviews I have ever written, my three-star review of “Part II” has stirred the most disagreement. Sometimes it is simply cited as proof of my worthlessness. I’ve been told by many that “Part II” is a rare sequel that is better than the original. Have I changed my mind? No. I have read my review of “Part II” and would not change a word.

Then why is it a “great movie”? Because it must be seen as a piece with the unqualified greatness of “The Godfather.” The two can hardly be considered apart (“Part III” is another matter). When the characters in a film take on a virtual reality for us, when a character in another film made 30 years later can say “The Godfather” contains all the lessons in life you need to know, when an audience understands why that statement could be made, a film has become a cultural bedrock. No doubt not all of the gospels are equally “good,” but we would not do without any of them.

“The Godfather: Part II” then becomes a film that everyone who values movies at all should see.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 08, 2015, 03:03:26 PM
after all this discussion, I got in the mood to watch the movie again. I just watched GF1 last night on BRD (will probably watch GF2 sometime next week).
When ranking my favorite movies I usually keep separate lists for Westerns and non-Westerns (how can you compare Stagecoach and The Godfather?) Among non-Leone, non-Western movies, The Godfather is one of my 5 favorite movies of all time. Also on that list are Double Indemnity, Casablanca, and a few others  ;)


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: dave jenkins on May 09, 2015, 07:03:07 PM
It's funny you say that.

Roger Ebert (rather infamously) gave GF2 only 3 out of 4 stars in his original review, and then years later added that movie to his "Great Movies" list, and said he still wouldn't change one word of his original review  ;D

in case you're interested, here is the original http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-godfather-part-ii-1974 and here is the Great Movies review http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-the-godfather-part-ii-1974

The relevant portion of the "Great Movies" review says:

Then why is it a “great movie”? Because it must be seen as a piece with the unqualified greatness of “The Godfather.” The two can hardly be considered apart.
Of course they can. It may be that 2 isn't completely coherent without 1, but 1 can certainly stand on its own. To such an extent, in fact, that it is very easy to watch 1 and pretend 2 and 3 don't even exist.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 10, 2015, 12:54:26 AM
Of course they can. It may be that 2 isn't completely coherent without 1, but 1 can certainly stand on its own. To such an extent, in fact, that it is very easy to watch 1 and pretend 2 and 3 don't even exist.

I think Ebert's reasoning is dumb. Even if it were true that GF 1 and GF 2 are two parts of one whole, that doesn't mean that GF2 should necessarily be considered a great movie.


As to the question of whether you can watch 1 and pretend 2 and 3 don't exist: For the most part it's true. However,  the ending of 1 makes it very obvious that a sequel is coming. The final sequence of GF1, showing Michael taking over and then the door closing on Kay's crying face, I don't think that would have been a good ending to a movie without a sequel.

But even forgetting just the selection of the final shots and focusing on the story: a major element of GF1 (or perhaps even the whole GF series) is that of succession. (In fact, I distinctly remember Coppola talking about – I don't recall if it was an interview or commentary or what – how this is a story of succession.) The whole story – the tragedy – of Michael's succession I think really only works if you show Michael as godfather also – not just for those few minutes at the end, but a full story of him as godfather. I think most of the movie works on its own, but the end makes it clear that you'll have to have another movie showing Michael as godfather, IMO. (But the end of GF2 in no way requires a GF3.)
Not that I agree with Ebert's reasoning here; IMO,it would have made more sense if Ebert would have simply said, GF2 is terribly flawed but it is still a great movie." I have said that about many movies and I have said that about GF2.
So I disagree with Ebert's reasoning here; if he didn't think GF2 was great on its own, he shouldn't have put it in his "Great Movies" section. But if you forget about Ebert and just talk about the issue of whether GF1 necessarily requires GF2, IMO it does – the end of GF1 is setting up the story of Michael as godfather.

I wasn't around in 1972. I never read Puzo's book. And I don't know much background of the making of The Godfather movies. Did viewers watching GF1 in 1972 knew another movie was coming. Are the stories of both GF1 & GF2 contained in Puzo's book "The Godfather"? (And was the story of GF3 written straight for the screen?) I.e., was it known immediately upon GF1's release that a GF2 was coming? Cuz to me, watching it today, it seems clear that GF1 is not the end of a story.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: stanton on May 10, 2015, 02:07:21 AM
The story of the young Vito was taken from one chapter of the novel, a classic flashback in the book, not interwoven with the main story. The story of Michael in the 50s was written for the screenplay. I doubt that a sequel was planned before it became obvious that G1 became an unexpected and massive success.

G1 ends similarly to the book. And I disagree that the ending of G1 needed a sequel. And it is definitely not obvious that a sequel is coming. It is instead a perfect movie ending.

G2 is a new film, one which one can watch on his own, but also one which is more rewarding to watch with the knowledge of the first one.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 10, 2015, 02:13:26 AM
The story of the young Vito was taken from one chapter of the novel, a classic flashback in the book, not interwoven with the main story. The story of Michael in the 50s was written for the screenplay. I doubt that a sequel was planned before it became obvious that G1 became an unexpected and massive success.

G1 ends similarly to the book. And I disagree that the ending of G1 needed a sequel. And it is definitely not obvious that a sequel is coming. It is instead a perfect movie ending.

G2 is a new film, one which one can watch on his own, but also one which is more rewarding to watch with the knowledge of the first one.

so the book basically contains everything chronologically from Young Vito until the end of the first movie, when Michael takes over? And everything after that – all the "present-day" scenes of GF2, and all of GF3 – was written straight for the screen?


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 10, 2015, 02:23:48 AM
G1 ends similarly to the book. And I disagree that the ending of G1 needed a sequel. And it is definitely not obvious that a sequel is coming. It is instead a perfect movie ending.

G2 is a new film, one which one can watch on his own, but also one which is more rewarding to watch with the knowledge of the first one.

My opinion of course is affected by the fact that I know all along that there is a sequel. But it just feels to me like GF1 is not satisfactory as the ending of a story:

Even if you say you don't need to actually see extensive scenes of Michael as godfather – that the story is simply the tragedy that Michael takes over as godfather in and of itself, not that we need to actually see him as godfather – why is it necessary to show all the stuff about the move to Nevada? Why can't he just take over in New York and stay in New York? Is it just because Puzo was basing some of the book on reality and wanted to stick in a mention of how Las Vegas was founded by the Mafia? To me the whole move to Nevada is completely unnecessary if the point is merely showing the succession of Michael rather than to set up the story of Michael in Nevada.

Also, the final shot of Kay crying and the door closing on her just doesn't seem right. I don't care enough about Kay per se to have her feelings be so important that the end of a story is how sad she is. The door closing in and of itself could be a good ending – an indication that Michael is now a man that has meetings behind closed doors, that Michael has now taken over the role of godfather. But to show how it affects Kay specifically is not something I care that much about – unless it is to set up how Michael's succession will ultimately lead to their marriage crumbling in the next movie.

(Maybe Kay's feelings per se don't mean that much to me because I just have no interest in Kay as a character. I've mentioned previously that the only two actors in the first two movies that I really don't like are Diane Keaton and Talia Shire. [I also didn't care much for Gianni Russo as Carlo, he is not very good.] But Keaton and Shire I really, really dislike.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: stanton on May 10, 2015, 03:00:24 AM


Also, the final shot of Kay crying and the door closing on her just doesn't seem right. I don't care enough about Kay per se to have her feelings be so important that the end of a story is how sad she is. The door closing in and of itself could be a good ending – an indication that Michael is now a man that has meetings behind closed doors, that Michael has now taken over the role of godfather. But to show how it affects Kay specifically is not something I care that much about – unless it is to set up how Michael's succession will ultimately lead to their marriage crumbling in the next movie.


When the door closes Kay realises that Michael lied to her about Carlo's death, that he is now a very different man than before, and that from that moment on she will no longer be a real part of his life, she realises that she is trapped.

Staying in the last shot with Kay and not with Michael is also a comment from Coppola, a way to distance himself from Michael.

And I'm glad that Coppola did not use the scene of Kay ligthing a candle in a church and praying for the soul of Michael Corleone. So ends the book, and so ends the 4parted TV version. But thankfully not the movie.

For me a perfect ending.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 18, 2015, 08:35:04 PM
Just watched GF2 again.

I often skip the flashback scenes, but this time I watched it all, mostly cuz I wanted to time it to see how long the flashback scenes are. The flashback scenes take about an hour and two minutes – including the opening scene in Italy, and the final flashback of the Corleone family, with Sonny; I am including all scenes that don't take place in the "present day" – 62 minutes out of a total running time of 200 minutes. More than 30 percent. Some of the flashback scenes are good on their own, some are not (THE ANNOYING SCENE WITH THE OLD LADY AND THE DOG  ::) ) but I think from now on whenever I watch this movie I'll mostly skip the flashback scenes.

There's a little mistake in this movie – the Senate committe chairman (Kefauver?) says that Michael killed McLuskey and Solozzo in 1947. It actually was in 1945 or 1946 – in that scene in GF 1 shortly after Vito is shot, Tom Hagen says, "This is almost 1946; nobody wants bloodshed anymore." When Michael kills McLuskey and Solozzo, I am pretty sure it is only a few days or at most a few weeks after that – so it's end of 1945 or beginning of 1946. Not 1947.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: noodles_leone on May 26, 2015, 12:47:29 PM
When the door closes Kay realises that Michael lied to her about Carlo's death, that he is now a very different man than before, and that from that moment on she will no longer be a real part of his life, she realises that she is trapped.

Staying in the last shot with Kay and not with Michael is also a comment from Coppola, a way to distance himself from Michael.

And I'm glad that Coppola did not use the scene of Kay ligthing a candle in a church and praying for the soul of Michael Corleone. So ends the book, and so ends the 4parted TV version. But thankfully not the movie.

For me a perfect ending.


Have you seen the TV version? I never had the courage to start it but I may be missing something. What do you think?


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: stanton on May 26, 2015, 01:20:42 PM
I watched it as a child, it was my first contact with the GF universe. It doesn't make sense for me to watch it again in that chronological order cause part 2 works best with the 2 time levels told parallel. And the scenes with the young Vito make only sense for me after having watched the first film.

But it is interesting to watch the additional scenes, which are as bonus in the GF box. I wouldn't mind to have some (but not all) of them integrated in the films.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 26, 2015, 01:25:12 PM
the 4-part TV version you are talking about, that is the whole series in chronological order, including extra scenes not in any of the movies?


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: Groggy on January 17, 2016, 08:09:07 AM
Late notice, but HBO is airing the eight hour Godfather Epic today at 5 pm.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: Groggy on January 18, 2016, 12:04:32 AM
I made it through most of HBO's airing of The Godfather Epic tonight. Here are some thoughts on the experience, for any interested parties.

http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-godfather-epic.html (http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-godfather-epic.html)


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: noodles_leone on January 18, 2016, 01:39:35 AM
I made it through most of HBO's airing of The Godfather Epic tonight. Here are some thoughts on the experience, for any interested parties.

http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-godfather-epic.html (http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-godfather-epic.html)

Brilliant writing. Really.
Maybe add a line about the score before DJ sees this?


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: Groggy on January 18, 2016, 08:30:39 PM
Thanks. I would if there had been original music written for the TV cut.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 18, 2016, 08:43:55 PM
Great article, Grogs!

I've seen each of the first two GF's several times (the third only once) but I have never seen any of these chronologically ordered recuts. Are any currently available on DVD/BRD?

I've always had a problem with the interspersed flashbacks in GF2 breaking up the action.

I agree with you that the Kefauver Commssion scene in GF2 just comes out of nowhere (although Hyman Roth briefly alludes to it in Cuba). I have always wondered if there was a missing scene that shows Michael getting a subpoena to appear before the commission.

Also, in the beginning of GF2, Pantangelli is sitting at dinner with the Corleones, and suddenly they're all in the Michael's study and Michael is saying, "Clemenza promised the Rosado brothers ..." That was an odd cut for me. I wonder if a scene was shot showing Pantangelli & Co. being called into the office.

And IMO one of the saddest things about GF2 is Castellano refusing to appear, so they had to sub Pantangelli for Clemenza. As great as Gazzo was, A) he wasn't Castellano; and B) you just don't feel the same sort of betrayal/sadness you'd have felt if it was Clemenza, knowing how close Clemenza was to the family. Having Clemenza betray Michael woulda just been incredible.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: Groggy on January 19, 2016, 06:01:25 PM
The best resource re: the different chronological edits is this article:
http://www.godfathermuseum.blogspot.com/2012_05_02_archive.html (http://www.godfathermuseum.blogspot.com/2012_05_02_archive.html)

Looks like several of the extended editions are available on VHS and Laserdisc, but the DVD/Blu-Ray releases only have the deleted scenes as extras. It's definitely the case with the Coppola Restoration, the most recent release.

I read the Godfather II shooting script awhile back. Michael and Tom talk about the Senate investigation right after he gets back from Cuba, and several of the Senators visiting Michael in Havana (not just Geary) turn up at the hearings. Not a lot more but enough set-up that it isn't so abrupt.

I agree with you about Clemenza/Pentangeli; with Castellano's absence, it dilutes Clemenza's presence in the Part II flashbacks. One of the deleted scenes shows Clemenza bringing Hyman Roth into the gang, for even more irony.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 19, 2016, 06:47:06 PM
In the official version of GF2, we never see young Hyman Roth, correct?

 Into the flashback scenes of GF to, we see two of vetoes close friends –  Tessio and Clemenza, right? There is also a third one, as I recall - who is that?


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 19, 2016, 06:53:44 PM


Looks like several of the extended editions are available on VHS and Laserdisc, but the DVD/Blu-Ray releases only have the deleted scenes as extras. It's definitely the case with the Coppola Restoration, the most recent release.



I have The Coppola Restoration boxset.

"The Coppola Restoration" is just a restored disc of the theatrical cut, correct?

While there are many chronological versions of the movie made for TV, there is just one, official version of the movie that was released theatrically, and then on BRD?



Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: Groggy on January 19, 2016, 07:03:00 PM
Into the flashback scenes of GF to, we see two of vetoes close friends –  Tessio and Clemenza, right? There is also a third one, as I recall - who is that?

Genco, I think? He's the one Vito works with at the market. I think young Hyman Roth is visible in a long shot or two but he's never identified.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: Groggy on January 19, 2016, 07:05:20 PM
I'm not aware of any alternate cuts of either movie, aside from TV versions trimming violence, etc. Anyone else care to weigh in?


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 19, 2016, 07:11:05 PM
 So basically, these TV versions have everything that is in theatrical releases, but also add in some deleted scenes and put everything in chronological order?


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 19, 2016, 07:11:35 PM

 I imagine that in the chronological movie, Tessio's betrayal of the Corleones (which occurs at the end of GF1) is much more shocking than it is in the theatrical release. In the theatrical release: in GF1, when Tessio betrays the Corleones, we  don't know yet about the background of Young Tessio and Young Vito cuz we have not yet seen GF2. But in the chronological movie, when we see how Young Tessio was one of Vito's close friends, I imagine it is much more heartbreaking when he later betrays Michael after Vito has died (in much the same way that Clemenza's betrayal would've been heartbreaking if Clemenza had appeared in GF2).


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: Groggy on January 19, 2016, 07:12:53 PM
So basically, these TV versions have everything that is in theatrical releases, but also add in some deleted scenes and put everything in chronological order?


Yes.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 19, 2016, 07:16:03 PM
Yes.

Cool.

I don't have HBO (like 12 or 15 bucks a month for one channel???!)  but if these version show up on any other channels, I definitely watch.

By the way, I don't think that any GF films have ever played on TCM. (not that I care much, as I already have the Coppola Restoration boxset).  But I would like to see one of these chronological versions


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 19, 2016, 07:18:42 PM
 I have mentioned previously that I thought there was an odd jump from the dinner at the beginning of GF2 straight to the study with Michael and Pantangeli. Do you recall if any of the deleted scenes add something in there, like of Michael calling Pantangelli into the study?


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 19, 2016, 07:26:30 PM
In GF2, Rocco appears out of nowhere. He is not in GF1 at all, is he?
Also, in GF1, Willi Cicci seems to be some low-level Corleone soldier, and in GF2 suddenly he is Pantangelli's right-hand man? Maybe they should have switched roles - Cicci should have been Michael's hitman, and the unknown guy, Rocco, should have been Pantangelli's, whom we are not familiar with anyway ...  Or maybe they figured that putting Cicci, whom we know as a Corleone soldier, with Pantangelli, would make us believe that Pantangelli is really a member of the Corleone Family?


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: Groggy on January 19, 2016, 07:29:49 PM
Rocco killed Paulie and Tattaglia in the first movie so he was already a presence (though I don't recall him having any dialogue). I don't recall anything more with Michael and Pentangeli, at least with that scene.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: chris on January 20, 2016, 02:58:43 AM
There's a page on Wikipedia giving fairly full details of the extended versions of The Godfather including The Godfather: The Complete Novel for Television:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Godfather_Saga (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Godfather_Saga)

Some of the deleted scenes are on YouTube e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmPtHSVFl4c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmPtHSVFl4c)

I've not watched it yet but it's reported that one of the main differences between it and the Saga that aired on NBC back in 1977 is the closing scene of Kay lighting a candle, a scene originally shot for the first film. This ended with the standard close of Godfather Part II.

Some hope that this means that a Blu-ray is coming although there's a DVDR and a couple of recent low res (720 x 404) torrents that say they are uncensored and run for 7 hours 3 mins.

  


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 26, 2016, 12:24:59 PM
Abe Vigoda, who played Tessio, died today

 :'(

RIP

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3d5790d3db654178a86b9ddc148c3927/abe-vigoda-sunken-eyed-character-actor-dead-94

Abe Vigoda, sunken-eyed character actor, dead at 94
By HILLEL ITALIE




NEW YORK (AP) — Character Abe Vigoda, whose leathery, sunken-eyed face made him ideal for playing the over-the-hill detective Phil Fish in the 1970s TV series "Barney Miller" and the doomed Mafia soldier in "The Godfather," died Tuesday at age 94.

Vigoda's daughter, Carol Vigoda Fuchs, told The Associated Press that Vigoda died Tuesday morning in his sleep at Fuchs' home in Woodland Park, New Jersey. The cause of death was old age. "This man was never sick," Fuchs said.

Vigoda worked in relative obscurity as a supporting actor in the New York theater and in television until Francis Ford Coppola cast him in the 1972 Oscar-winning "The Godfather." Vigoda played Sal Tessio, an old friend of Vito Corleone's (Marlon Brando) who hopes to take over the family after Vito's death by killing his son Michael Corleone (Al Pacino). But Michael anticipates that Sal's suggestion for a "peace summit" among crime families is a setup and the escorts Sal thought were taking him to the meeting turn out to be his executioners.

"Tell Mike it was only business," Sal mutters to consigliere Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) as he's led away.
 

The great success of the film and "The Godfather Part II" made his face and voice, if not his name, recognizable to the general public and led to numerous roles, often as hoodlums.

But it was his comic turn in "Barney Miller," which starred Hal Linden and ran from 1975 to 1982, that brought Vigoda's greatest recognition.

He liked to tell the story of how he won the role of Detective Fish. An exercise enthusiast, Vigoda had just returned from a five-mile jog when his agent called and told him to report immediately to the office of Danny Arnold, who was producing a pilot for a police station comedy.

Arnold remarked that Vigoda looked tired, and the actor explained about his jog. "You know, you look like you might have hemorrhoids," Arnold said. "What are you — a doctor or a producer?" Vigoda asked. He was cast on the spot.

"The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows," a reference book, commented that Vigoda was the hit of "Barney Miller." ''Not only did he look incredible, he sounded and acted like every breath might be his last," it said. "Fish was always on the verge of retirement, and his worst day was when the station house toilet broke down."

Vigoda remained a regular on "Barney Miller" until 1977 when he took the character to his own series, "Fish." The storyline dealt with the detective's domestic life and his relations with five street kids that he and his wife took into their home.

The show lasted a season and a half. Vigoda continued making occasional guest appearances on "Barney Miller," quitting over billing and salary differences.

But he remained a popular character actor in films, including "Cannonball Run II," ''Look Who's Talking," ''Joe Versus the Volcano" and "North."

His resemblance to Boris Karloff led to his casting in the 1986 New York revival of "Arsenic and Old Lace," playing the role Karloff originated on the stage in the 1940s. (The murderous character in the black comedy is famously said by other characters to resemble Boris Karloff, a great joke back when the real Karloff was playing him.)

Born in New York City in 1921, Vigoda attended the Theater School of Dramatic Arts at Carnegie Hall. In the early 1950s, he appeared as straight man for the Jimmy Durante and Ed Wynn TV comedies.

For 30 years, he worked in the theater, acting in dozens of plays in such diverse characters as John of Gaunt in "Richard II" (his favorite role) and Abraham Lincoln in a short-lived Broadway comedy "Tough to Get Help."

Vigoda attributed his high percentage in winning roles to his performance in auditions. Instead of delivering the tired soliloquies that most actors performed, he wrote his own, about a circus barker. At a surprise 80th birthday party in New Jersey in 2001, he gave a spirited recital of the monologue to the delight of the 100 guests.

Reflecting on his delayed success, Vigoda once remarked: "When I was a young man, I was told success had to come in my youth. I found this to be a myth. My experiences have taught me that if you deeply believe in what you are doing, success can come at any age."

"Barney Miller" became his first steady acting job.

"I'm the same Abe Vigoda," he told an interviewer. "I have the same friends, but the difference now is that I can buy the things I never could afford before. I have never had a house before, so now I would like a house with a nice garden and a pool. Hollywood has been very kind to me."

He was married twice, most recently to Beatrice Schy, who died in 1992. He had his daughter with his first wife, Sonja Gohlke, who has also died. Vigoda is survived by his daughter, grandchildren Jamie, Paul and Steven, and a great-grandson.

Reruns of "Barney Miller" and repeated screenings of the two "Godfather" epics kept Vigoda in the public eye, and unlike some celebrities, he enjoyed being recognized. In 1997 he was shopping in Bloomingdale's in Manhattan when a salesman remarked: "You look like Abe Vigoda. But you can't be Abe Vigoda because he's dead." Vigoda often appeared on lists of living celebrities believed to have passed away.

___

Biographical material in this story was written by The Associated Press' late Hollywood correspondent Bob Thomas.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: titoli on January 26, 2016, 12:58:45 PM
He looked like a moribund in Godfather. Never thought he could make it this far. R.I.P.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: dave jenkins on January 26, 2016, 01:31:42 PM
To me he'll always be Fish from Barney Miller. RIP.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: Groggy on January 26, 2016, 04:37:03 PM
One of those actors who always seemed to be the same age. RIP.


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: Groggy on January 31, 2016, 04:04:47 PM
Not strictly Godfather-related, but I came across this blog detailing the voluminous deleted scenes from The Conversation. From, it appears, our own Jordan Krug!

http://theeditroomfloor.blogspot.com/2012/01/lost-scenes-of-conversation-pt1.html (http://theeditroomfloor.blogspot.com/2012/01/lost-scenes-of-conversation-pt1.html)


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: dave jenkins on January 31, 2016, 04:10:18 PM
If there is no thread for The Conversation, why not create one?


Title: Re: The Godfather Thread
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 31, 2016, 09:11:13 PM
The funeral for Abe Vigoda (who, I was shocked to learn, was not Italian; his parents were Russian Jewish immigrants) was held today. Here are some articles about the funeral, with pics.

Associated Press: http://goo.gl/AHKV8l

NY Post's Page Six: http://goo.gl/2h1szt

NY Daily News: http://goo.gl/DYbsQ6