The Godfather Part 1 (1972) - Coppola
The Godfather is the 16th film in my study, and the second one that I saw in its initial release in theaters. It's considered one of the best American films of all time, ranked #2 by the American Film Institute (Citizen Kane is #1). In the BFI polls, it's regarded even higher by Directors (#7) than by Critics (#21). Based on the Mario Puzo novel, it was awarded Best Picture, Best Actor for Marlon Brando (who famously refused the award), and Best Screenplay for Puzo and director Francis Ford Coppola.
Seeing this film in theaters in 1972 was a memorable experience. It was such a sweeping story, with great acting and beautiful attention to period detail. Pretty violent at times, especially for the early 1970s, it had an edge yet made you care for the characters despite their deplorable life and actions.
Seeing the film twice again for this project, my feelings are still very similar. I've mentioned before in this blog that I'm not usually a fan of mob/mafia films, and while I'm not bothered by violence it doesn't interest me if it's gratuitous and not motivated by the story. Yet I liked this film.
I also keep considering why we like certain films. Some films just have an emotional connection for us. They may not be high art, but we find ourselves drawn to watching them repeatedly. Some films have such incredible technique that they can be appreciated for that aspect alone. Through this study, I'm finding that the films that are my absolute favorites are those that have both an emotional and a technical connection for me - that's just what has the strongest impact on me.
So why do I like The Godfather? For me, it's the epitome of epic storytelling. Yes, it has beautiful acting. I love the warm, organic look and period authenticity. It does have artistic technique, but in an understated way that doesn't call attention to itself. But ultimately I am most drawn to the magnificent storytelling. It has a unique combination of tenderness and violence that somehow makes you care about characters that probably don't deserve it. It's really an American family saga.
Some writers feel the sequel film is even better. After the success of the first film Coppola was given more budget and more creative freedom for Part II. I've never seen it, and look forward to that - it's in Tier Two of my list of movies for study.
I was fascinated by the lore of the film...
I found the entire trilogy on blu-ray on a brief special sale for about $30 at Amazon. It also includes excellent commentaries by Coppola and an entire disc of extras (which I have not viewed yet). As always, the Wikipedia.org entry includes a wealth of information about the film.
This is a wonderful film that is indeed one of the best American films. Stanley Kubrick has been quoted as saying it was "possibly the best movie ever made, and certainly the best-cast." Roger Ebert said it "comes closest to being a film everyone agrees...is unquestioningly great."
Seeing this film in theaters in 1972 was a memorable experience. It was such a sweeping story, with great acting and beautiful attention to period detail. Pretty violent at times, especially for the early 1970s, it had an edge yet made you care for the characters despite their deplorable life and actions.
Seeing the film twice again for this project, my feelings are still very similar. I've mentioned before in this blog that I'm not usually a fan of mob/mafia films, and while I'm not bothered by violence it doesn't interest me if it's gratuitous and not motivated by the story. Yet I liked this film.
I also keep considering why we like certain films. Some films just have an emotional connection for us. They may not be high art, but we find ourselves drawn to watching them repeatedly. Some films have such incredible technique that they can be appreciated for that aspect alone. Through this study, I'm finding that the films that are my absolute favorites are those that have both an emotional and a technical connection for me - that's just what has the strongest impact on me.
So why do I like The Godfather? For me, it's the epitome of epic storytelling. Yes, it has beautiful acting. I love the warm, organic look and period authenticity. It does have artistic technique, but in an understated way that doesn't call attention to itself. But ultimately I am most drawn to the magnificent storytelling. It has a unique combination of tenderness and violence that somehow makes you care about characters that probably don't deserve it. It's really an American family saga.
Some writers feel the sequel film is even better. After the success of the first film Coppola was given more budget and more creative freedom for Part II. I've never seen it, and look forward to that - it's in Tier Two of my list of movies for study.
I was fascinated by the lore of the film...
- Coppola was a relative unknown who was hired because he was cheap, of Italian descent, and because the studio thought he would be easy to control.
- Coppola was really better known as a writer (Patton) and with Puzo collaborated on the Oscar winning script.
- Amazingly, the studio wanted to change the setting to the present day, but Coppola convinced them to keep the 1945-1955 setting of the book.
- Part of the reason the studio wanted a present day setting was to save costs - the period cars and wardrobe required doubling the budget (from minuscule to merely small).
- The studio seemed intent on dismissing Coppola and he made the entire film in various stages of panic trying stave off studio interference and being fired.
- The studio did not want Marlon Brando, pushing instead for actors like Lawrence Olivier, Ernest Borgnine, and even Danny Thomas!!
- The studio actually required Brando to do a screen test, which the embarrassed Coppola told Brando was just a makeup test.
- These same studio geniuses also did not like Al Pacino, preferring Robert Redford or Ryan O'Neal!!
- Coppola actually planned to have a bit less violence/action in the film, but was required by the studio to add more.
- A young, unknown Robert De Niro was awarded a supporting part, but was traded to another film in order for Coppola to secure Pacino. Later, De Niro would play the young Vito Corleone in the sequel, winning a Best Supporting Oscar.
- The cinematographer was the influential Gordon Willis who worked with Woody Allen on many of his best films. However, Willis was a purist and didn't use a lot of camera movements or unusual angles. He was constantly battling with Coppola about approaches the younger director wanted to try.
- Coppola's father Carmine was a musician, and wrote parts of the score and appeared in the film as a piano player.
- The rest of the music, including the famous theme, was done by Nino Rota. Rota famously did the music for many of Fellini's films - you can't get more Italian than that. Speaking of the theme, it was actually recycled from an earlier Rota film score. That previous version was done at an uptempo fashion for a semi-comedic scene of a character running around city streets.
- I could go on and on - the famous horse head scene was a real horse's head that they got from a dog food factory - Brando's use of cotton and other objects in his mouth to look jowly - the Frank Sinatra-like Johnny Fontane character - Coppola's other family members in the film - Coppola's young friend George Lucas serving as a second unit director on certain scenes...
- Coppola was advised to just make the film and never contact anyone from the actual Mafia for information. That's what he did, and I was surprised to hear in the commentary that he has never heard any feedback or repercussions of any kind from making the films. In fact, there are many reports that a number of crime family members loved the movie because it so accurately portrayed their world.
I found the entire trilogy on blu-ray on a brief special sale for about $30 at Amazon. It also includes excellent commentaries by Coppola and an entire disc of extras (which I have not viewed yet). As always, the Wikipedia.org entry includes a wealth of information about the film.
This is a wonderful film that is indeed one of the best American films. Stanley Kubrick has been quoted as saying it was "possibly the best movie ever made, and certainly the best-cast." Roger Ebert said it "comes closest to being a film everyone agrees...is unquestioningly great."