Searching for Coppola
Rolando Recometa
the weekend. What a huge disappointment! It looks great
but it lacks narrative power. Whatever happened to the Coppola
who made such great films as the Godfathers(Part 3 not included),
The Conversation, and Apocalypse Now?
AM...@clust1.clemson.edu
discussion of THE GODFATHER PART III with myself. I had the discussion with
my boyfriend and he was the one who thought it was a washout comparted to I and
II.
Adrian
AM...@clust1.clemson.edu
As I screen through my 250 E-mail messages (I was on vacation last week and
forgot to sign off the list), I found very little I can comment on.
However, I will take this opportunity to comment on Coppola's THE GODFATHER
PART III. I realize that my comments will be severely colored by the fact
that I haven't seen the first two parts, a fact I plan to remedy as soon as
humanly possible. However, I, unlike the majority of you cinema-l'ers
thought Part 3 was great! I enjoyed the story and the score. I felt the
anxiety, pride, anger and helplessness of every character was portrayed well.
Except for the part of the Godfather's daughter. A robot could have played
her part better. I think I remember reading previous comments to that effect.
Was she in fact, Coppola's daughter? If so, that was a clear case against
nepotism. Anyway, I got into a discussion about the merits of this movie
compared to the first two and you'll be happy to know, he feels the same as
you guys. He says if I saw the first two, I wouldn't be as impressed with
the last. We'll see....
Adrian
Clemson
WDH...@owucomcn.bitnet
First off, if you haven't seen the other two films, you are missing out on the
entire mood and tone of the third movie. there is a sense of mystery to
michael corleone's character that is revealed to those who have seen
the other movies. also a mood of regret, something audience members
may have always suspected, but never clearly heard, that comes with this film.
however, in the final analysis, this film rates poorly both among the other
two in the trilogy and in the general scheme of mob movies.
first, The Godfather Part II is the best film in the series primarily because
of great performances from Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino. The first film was
very drawn out and lost some members of the viewing audience by just pausing
for so long. in the second film, it was meditative, but not boring. well
structured plot juxtaposed with brilliant acting and action sequences.
the third installment just goes from a to z without any clear direction.
kay is brought back into michael's life with little to no explanation. she
hated michael before, but now she comes back in with little believable
hostility. Secondly, Al Pacino just seems old in the role. his character
lacks anything to make us care about him. in the past, his character has
always been a three dimesional one, not like in Godfather III. Finally,
Sophia Coppola is not an asset to the movie. her acting novice abilities show
up quickly in dramatic scenes with andy garcia (the best part of the movie)
and others. her role could have been recast and her fate re-thought out.
the only other problem with the Godfather Part III was its romanticizing of
the mob. This form of expression is not as acceptable since
scorsesee (sp?) directed his masterpiece "Goodfellas" which, without a doubt
surpasses all mob movies with its realism and honesty.
just a view.
david hull
wdh...@owu.edu
Gary Graffagnino
>
>First off, if you haven't seen the other two films, you are missing out on the
>entire mood and tone of the third movie. there is a sense of mystery to
>michael corleone's character that is revealed to those who have seen
>the other movies. also a mood of regret, something audience members
>may have always suspected, but never clearly heard, that comes with this film.
>however, in the final analysis, this film rates poorly both among the other
>two in the trilogy and in the general scheme of mob movies.
A very good observation. The reason, I think for the lack of quality if the
film was that it was written by Coppola and Mario Puzo in about 2 weeks, where
as the other two came from the Best Selling novel which took 20 years for Mr.
Puzo to write.
>first, The Godfather Part II is the best film in the series primarily because
>of great performances from Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino. The first film was
>very drawn out and lost some members of the viewing audience by just pausing
>for so long.
I disagree. The first film was one of the most authentic gangster films in
movie history. And you talk about acting in the second movie, what about James
Caan, Robert Duval and Marlon Brando in the first film. Also, Al Pacino played
the perfect "son who doesn't want to follow in the father's footsteps but is
then forced into it" part. The second was equally as terrific, though, don't
get me wrong.
>in the second film, it was meditative, but not boring. well
>structured plot juxtaposed with brilliant acting and action sequences.
The first film was far from booring (I thinks that's what you're implying here)
in fact, quite the contrary. I though the development of the families and the
inner working of the mafia was quite engrosing.
>the only other problem with the Godfather Part III was its romanticizing of
>the mob. This form of expression is not as acceptable since
>scorsesee (sp?) directed his masterpiece "Goodfellas" which, without a doubt
>surpasses all mob movies with its realism and honesty.
Yes, but GoodFellas (one of my all-time favorite movie) also glorifies the mob.
All of the characters were portrayed as rich and powerful able to get tables in
the best resteraunts while the other "poor shnooks" waited on line. The only
difference between GoodFellas and The Godfather movie was the Goodfellas
portrayed the lower element of the mob, whereas the Godfather was the "capo di
tutti capo" or, "the head of all heads" there was nobody with more power than
him.
______
Gary Graffagnino \ / "I go back to the immortal words of Socrates
acc...@hofstra.bitnet \ / who said 'I drank what?'"
acc...@vaxc.hofstra.edu \/ -Val Kilmer (Real Genius)
WDH...@owucomcn.bitnet
did not in my preface message.
first, i think the GODFATHER PART II was extremely well made. i do not think
it was boring in any capacity. the meditative scenes where michael was simply
pondering his actions were edited well with action and violent scenes. however,
i will not validate this for the GODFATHER which was not a bad movie
by any means. however, the juxtaposition of the corleone history mixed
in with michael's role as the family head made the GODFATHER PART II a much
more effective mob film.
however, both movies have romanticized the mafia somewhat. all the women were
magnificent beautiful women, all the men were getting their way. the only
drawbacks to being in the mafia was that you might be killed. but, you were kil
led with high italian opera music behind you, coppola's way of lighting and
mixing the film never captured and uncomfortable mood to the film, unlike
GOODFELLAS which did accomplish a disturbing undertone throughout the movie.
I must disagree about the romanticizing in GOODFELLAS. there was a different
scene of the mafia portrayed, however,t he infrastructure of the family---high
elite mobsters to low-life hit men---was portrayed both in THE GODFATHER and
GOODFELLAS. Paulie from GOODFELLAS lived very well, used disturbing
techniques to get what he wanted, and was a frightening figure. However,
in THE GODFATHER, there was a respect to Don Corleone (Brando's character)
which was not disturbing, just ominous. further comparison to the gritty
characters of Sonny (Caan) in THE GODFATHER and Jimmy (DeNiro) in GOODFELLAS
reveals the closest similarity between the two movies. However, I never
felt that Sonny was as violent towards men as he was abusive of women. plus,
his character never hid his constant rage and hate. Jimmy did. he lived the
double lives of a man who could beat a guy to death with Pesci (his character's
name escapes me now) and then hand out $100 bills at a restaurant. DeNiro
portrayed a hood who was at least trying for the image of respectability.
Caan just portrayed a romanticized, stereotyped hood.
Finally, consider the undertone of violence from everyone in GOODFELLAS.
Ray Liota's character hitting the guy with the gun then giving the bloody
gun to his girlfriend. Pesci in the restaurant when Liota made the slight
joke and Pesci pulled out his gun. you didn't know what was going to happen,
because everyone had proven to be so angry. When Pesci killed that kid
who he had previously shot in the foot. When DeNiro and Pesci stabbed
that guy in the trunk. Constant, pulsing violence, rage, and disturbing
scenes. All the violence in THE GODFATHER films was tabled, held back for
the big finale scene. The violence was coupled with a romantic, italian-esque
soundtrack and slow, pan shots from the camera.
just an observation
wdh...@cc.owu.edu
david hull
Scott E Farwig
Dracula, which opens tomorrow. The previews looked good. And so did Winona
Ryder. :)
FAC_J...@jmuvax.bitnet
discussion on their romanticism/realism vs. Goodfellas and what not, since I've
already brought them up a while back.
Yes, I do think they're largely romantic in tone, without most of the detailed
verisimiltude that seems to come more naturally with the lower echelons and the
portrait these receive in Goodfellas. But I don't think the Godfather films
lack completely a sense of realism about empirical operations of the mafia, in
their given historical period, nor especially do they lack that elusive sense of
realism of the way things work, once we stop harping only on the gee-that's-t
he-
way-things-look-in-everyday-life standard of measure. I'm particularly partial
to Pauline Kael (whom I usually disagree with) and her noting the films for
their "tragic realism" about the American history of its free enterprise system.
You may extend that and entertain other notions about history and system in
looking at what the films deal with on a metaphorical level. But certainly they
can be considered honest, truthful or realistic by one definition or another
of
those terms.
I'm not sure how all three films will cut together chronologically when Coppola
releases his reedited version next month. But I didn't dislike III, and am
uncertainly wondering if my lesser affection for it is the combined result of
the long passage of time since the first two (me and my/our cultural milieu are
now different...) and the new content and very recent historical period it's
set in--rather than merely a logical falling off of Coppola/Puzo's craft and
art. And though I love II the most of the individual films, with its very
artful and telling juxtapositions of theme and behavior and the cross-cutting
used, I still feel that the chronological stringing together of the films is
its best overall form. If the films can be said to be about a history of our
country in some particular aspect, as well as the history of an individual
"family" and segment of society, then the chance to draw together the parallels,
developments and repetitions of theme and behavior over the whole course of a
ll
those hours, can engage the viewers faculties in a way that's less "forced" or
and more "rich" than even in the excellent II. And, of course, the chronolo-
gical version can show just to what extent Coppola and crew had a deep and
carefully articulated overall vision and style, that can withstand stringing
together the disparate pieces and looking at their components as part of a
larger creation.
As for Goodfellas, I think that's a work of its own kind of genius, too.
Scorcese isn't only "realistic" about his subject in the way we usually mean,
but is exemplary (as Scorcese usually is) at putting you inside the situations
it evokes. Flashy film technique almost always pays off in Scorcese.
Jeff Clark
ELGFR...@psuces.bitnet
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 12-Nov-1992 12:49pm EST
From: Ellen L. Gfroehrer
ELGFROEHRER
Dept: Independent Learning
Tel No: (814) 865-5403
TO: VMSMail User _IN%"CINEMA-L ( _IN%"CINE...@AUVM.BITNET" )
CC: _AUVM.BITNET"::IN%"AFCO...@PSULIAS.BITNET"
CC: _AUVM.BITNET":: IN%"B...@PSULIAS.BITNET"
CC: _AUVM.BITNET":: IN%"ELGFR...@PSULIAS.BITNET"
CC: _AUVM.BITNET":: IN%"TJMC...@PSULIAS.BITNET"
Subject: RE: Searching for Coppola
Re: Realism vs. Romanticism - I would not describe either Talia Shire or Diane
Keaton as "very beautiful women" -attractive maybe, but very beautiful, no.
And yes, the men in the Godfather movies did all seem to get their way - at
least the ones in the Corleone family. That's the way the mafia works, the
most powerful family wins. It is also how most Italian American families of
that generation worked. The men get what they want, period.
I think both The Godfather and Goodfellas had a mix of romanticism, realism,
and highly stylized (albeit different) filming techniques. I enjoyed both
films. The Godfather was unusual in that it was released at a time when there
was tremendous fascination with the mafia. There was a great scramble for
power among the five New York families and it was played out on the pages of
most New York newspapers. Almost everyday you could count on reading that some
soldier or capo from one family or another was hit usually at a neighborhood
restaurant. And of course, a few days later you would read that someone else
was hit in retaliation. The Godfather was probably the first movie to
effectively explain the mafia historically and (relatively accurately) show
the Italian American culture and the mafia with its contradictions (the Baptism
of Michael's son, while he is having his brother-in-law "hit") its splendor,
and its atrocities. I think that that makes it stand out from the other mafia
movies.
To some extent maybe these movies do make romantic figures out of mobsters, but
I think that that is a cultural thing. Americans need heros. Also, there is a
certain mystery conected to the mafia - the code of silence, etc.. It is
forbidden and therefore intriguing. I also think that in order to make a
character believable, you must make him sympathetic to some degree. As a
member of the audience, you must find something about a character (no matter
how despicable he/she might be) that is redeeming or else you won't care about
him and therefore won't care about the movie.
Anyway, just my two cents.
Ellen