“Mom! I’ve got to see The Godfather! By this weekend.”
This was my son, a few days into freshman year at SRM University – Kattankalathur.
I looked at him quizzically, “Sure, but what’s the hurry? Is it an assignment?”
“Nooo… Dennis asked me if I’d watched it… He said I should be ashamed not having seen it, being a VisCom student!”
Dennis was one of his new pals in the undergraduate course in Visual Communication.
“Let me see what I can do.”
A colleague of mine at work was kind enough to lend me her copy on CD and I settled down to watch it a second time.
My first time was about two decades ago and somehow I didn’t much care for it – for several reasons.
My comprehension of the English language is, may I say, above average but I found the dialog hard to follow – especially with Brando mumbling right through I wanted subtitles! And the violence, the extortion and arm twisting, the power hungry shenanigans – all against their own kind – and not least of all the underlying fear all too visible on their women’s faces – left me cold.
So, to quote Meg Ryan’s character in You’ve Got Mail:
“What is it with men and The Godfather?”
I have a theory – a takeoff on the 80:20 rule – 80% of men (and 20% of women) represent the bloodthirsty half of the human species.
Do note that I agree wholeheartedly when critics praise The Godfather in terms of its technical brilliance…
As Thomas Delapa of the Boulder Weekly put it: “One of those sublimely rare movies in which every element–casting, acting, directing, script, cinematography, score–comes together.”
My question is – where is the humanity?
Contrast the Tamil movie Nayagan – said to have been inspired by The Godfather. Perhaps. But an equally good movie technically – and better because it shows a humane side to the don – portrayed as helping the disadvantaged and those in need. Deservingly on Time magazine’s list of “All-TIME” 100 best movies – as was The Godfather.
© Sosha Srinivasan
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 23, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Mona
You *didn’t* just quote Meg Ryan in “You’ve Got Mail!” to critique “The Godfather!” No….!
On a different note, I thought “The Godfather” was about humanity.
August 25, 2009 at 2:16 am
cathedralist
Yes, all the men whom I’ve discussed the movie with literally drool when talking about it! Bloodthirsty lot!
Humanity as in mankind yes – but the other meaning: humane, benevolent? No!
September 19, 2009 at 4:04 am
vired
It is very presumptuous and judgmental of you to assume that it is just the blood and the violence that makes men like the godfather. And anyways, the godfather has nowhere near as much violence as movies like Apocalypse Now or Rambo. So by your logic, we should like ‘em more than the godfather.
Godfather is all about the humanity. The perfect example is Fredo’s death. No one enjoyed watching him die. But it is an immortal scene.
And methinks that in Godfather, Coppolla was trying to create a realistic take on the Italian mobsters of the east coast. Unfortunately, none of them were humane or benevolent. Hence, neither were his characters.
Btw, wtf is a humane, benevolent mafia don? Does he decapitate people with one hand and give away money with the other? Sounds like an idea only possible in the one-dimensional “hero-is-always-a-good-guy” movies of India.
September 19, 2009 at 2:33 pm
cathedralist
Don’t get wired, Mr Vired! First off, I am entitled to make a personal observation and it does not have to agree with the next person. The same applies to you. I did mention it was technically brilliant and by implication it would also carry appeal for aesthetes across the sexes! My theory and my comment on the ‘bloodthirsty” was tongue-in- cheek – you seem to have missed that. Btw, loosen up – and don’t pick a fight – your verbal violence (i.e. “wtf”) seems to be proving me right, don’t you think? Anyway what exactly do you mean when you speak of “the humanity”? I was talking about kindness, mercy, benevolence… Have you seen Nayagan? I think not. The character is NOT, as you imply, a one-dimensional, good guy. It’s about being pulled in two directions, choices and conflicts within and not losing empathy, your finer feelings… Are you implying that through-and-through bad guys make better “heroes”? And why do you generalize about (and put down)”movies of India”? We have some great cinema here.
September 19, 2009 at 7:27 pm
vired
Verbal violence? Seriously? Surely you jest. Either that or you have never ventured beyond your little patch of the internet here. (The supreme irony is that you suggest that I should loosen up in the same sentence.)
“It’s about being pulled in two directions, choices and conflicts within”
If you think the godfather doesn’t cover those ideas (and a helluva lot more), you’ve probably missed the point of the film entirely.
And yes I have seen Nayagan. Several times. All I was trying to say is that, in an Indian movie the hero is incapable of doing wrong. Even when he does something obviously wrong, his actions will be (somewhat) justified. This just detracts from the realism of the film. You cannot justify murder. You cannot justify suppression of witnesses and evidence. And it is attempts to do this, to make the viewer still see the protagonist in a positive light even after he does this, that make me rate Nayagan below the godfather -which btw, despite portraying the human side of the don, also makes it quite clear that there is no justification for what he’s doing.
Also, if you compare the stories of the godfather and nayagan, you will find that there are several narrative threads too similar to ignore as coincedence. Which brings me to the conclusion that nayagan is a poor rehash of the original, with the added goodness factor (refer above) without which indian audiences wouldn’t have accepted it.
And finally yes, i know india has made some pretty good cinema over the years. But you have to accept, the majority of indian cinema is just utter tripe. The signal to noise ratio is terrible. The best cinema to ever come out of India is by Satyajit Ray and I’d be surprised if even 2 or 3 out of every hundred average Indians have ever heard of him, let alone seen his films.
September 20, 2009 at 7:57 am
cathedralist
You got away with wtf only because you abbreviated it. I suggested you loosen up because you seem to be take this stuff too seriously, too personally. Don’t get so worked up about others’ opinions that you probably cannot change anyway – you run the risk of popping a few blood vessels…
I don’t think you read my post properly – I did acknowledge that Nayagan got its inspiration from The Godfather; I do not hold to your view, though, that it is “a poor rehash of the original”. Its not just me – it has been critically acclaimed the world over…
The point you have missed is that human beings are not all bad or all good – not black and white but of varying shades of gray, which I think Nayagan captured pretty well along with a few other colors…. The Godfather is almost unremitting black (I concede that Michael’s character does portray the slide of a basically decent individual into the depths of moral corruption, ironically given the push by “family” compulsions.) No, the subtleties were not lost on me, as you imply…
Btw, ever heard of Robin Hood of Sherwood Forest? And he wasn’t Indian either…
After I pointed out that you were India bashing in your previous comment, you now tack on a modifier about Ray’s films. That may be, but do I detect a whiff of parochialism here, Mr Sen? Can you claim to have watched regional movies from across the country before making that observation? Now who is being – what were those adjectives you used? – judgmental and presumptuous?
I still think TGf is an overly violent offering. Since we both hold to our own views, I think we can agree to disagree.
Finally I suppose I have to thank you for injecting my “little patch of the Internet here” with your (misplaced) fervor.
September 20, 2009 at 9:13 am
vired
I’d just like to say that, with that paragraph about Satyajiit Ray and parochialism, you’ve just walked into a complete ambush. It is still you who is being presumptuous, the presence of a “sen” in my name doesn’t automatically make me Bengali. I am a native telugu speaker, born and brought up in Chennai, who also speaks quite good hindi and enjoys satyajit ray’s cinema. Yes, I can honestly say I have watched regional movies from across the country. (well, more than most anyway.)
And about the swearing, I’d just give you the same advice you gave me. Lighten up. On the internet, (as in the real lives of most people under 25) wtf is a very common phrase uttered completely casually. It doesn’t carry the serious connotations it seems to carry for older Indians. This is an essential fact you have to learn to enjoy the internet, otherwise you’re just going to get offended out of every site.
I guess neither of us will ever change our views, but I quite enjoyed the verbal sparring. Cheerio.
September 20, 2009 at 10:18 am
cathedralist
Oh! So now meaning changes with age… and you’ll have me believe that neonates enter this world spouting imprecations. The fact is an obscenity remains one – common usage does not confer it with another meaning or make it more acceptable – it only makes the user seem common – if you follow my gist.
I agree about the bit on the verbal sparring, though. Keeps the mind keen?!
September 20, 2009 at 3:28 pm
vired
I applaud your usage of the language there. Very well done.
But I completely disagree. Meanings of words do change with generations. Words like “damn” or “shit” which I’m sure even the most hoity-toity gentlemen and ladies utter from time to time, were considered completely taboo in polite society up until a century ago. Words by themselves have no meaning. It is how the speaker intends the word and how the listener perceives it that make them meaningful – the societal defintion if you will. The word “cool” was not used to express appreciation a few decades ago, practically everybody uses it these days.
And as for “making the user seem common”, that phrase just smacks of pretentiousness. But I guess it is only to be expected. Have you read Ulysses by James Joyce or The Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger. Both are today regarded as masterpieces of modern fiction. And yet when they first came out, there was violent objection to their liberal use of profanity. Probably by people who held very similar views to yourself. They did not swear because it was fun. They did it because it was appropriate in a particular sentence to express something. As did I. Time has exonerated their “wrongs”, as I am sure it will mine too.
September 20, 2009 at 5:15 pm
cathedralist
Tenacious scrappy fellow, aren’t you? Or are you trying to make me lose it and cuss? You better give up, because I won’t.
Let me return the compliment on not only your language but your perverse argumentative skills. Are you a lawyer by any chance? Debater in college?
Btw, don’t you have anything better to do on this wonderful Sunday in September?
Getting late – no time to argue… Yaawn… gtg … back to work tomorrow.
Not so good night to you. Hope the bugs bite… correction, feast! LOL!
September 20, 2009 at 5:31 pm
vired
Nope. Not trying to make you cuss. You have a right to your views and principles. I just like a good argument.
Still in my 1st month of college, so too young to be any of those things.
I’ve had my fun now. I will leave you to get on with your life.