 |
 |
|
I
Couldn’t Refuse
Jeff Reichert on The Godfather
It seems fitting
that one of America’s best-loved (and oft-quoted)
cinematic touchstones should be set immediately
following Americans’ best-loved war, focus on
organized crime, one of America’s best-loved subjects
of fiction, and showcase an encounter in which
its protagonists (the Corleone crime family) assert
their influence over Americans’ best-loved art
form: the movies. There’s an air about Francis
Ford Coppola’s The Godfather—in its confluences
and conflations (family, Mafia, capitalism, America,
movies), in its accessible intricacy (three-hour
films this heavy on shadows and symbolism yet
so light on their feet remain rare), and in its
ultimate value as pure entertainment matched by
obvious striving towards serious artistry and
import—that’s a little too careful, perhaps a
little too perfect. At least that’s the sense
I had before I saw it, as I vaguely followed its
ever-shifting back-and-forth with The Shawshank
Redemption at the top of IMDb.com’s poll (The
Godfather is #1 at the time of this writing),
absorbed its near-fetishistic critical and popular
hagiography, and acknowledged and catalogued the
myriad cultural allusions to it, most of which
tend to center around imitations of Marlon Brando’s
Don Vito. I even worked for a time with a cheeseball
local television personality dubbed “The Sportsfather,”
who took more than a few of his show’s cues directly
from the source. By the Nineties, when I started
watching movies seriously, it’d become a popular
totem—an inviolable, sacrosanct text allegedly
on par with Citizen Kane in terms of import
and influence over American cinema. Reacting against
the orthodoxy, my only thought in relation to
The Godfather was: Did I need to spend
three hours on a film about the mafia (I’ve never
really had a yen for mob-related material) especially
when I’d already absorbed heaping portions through
cultural osmosis and had other, more exotic cinematic
curiosities from around the globe higher on the
agenda?
Many years later, my inaugural viewing left me with a ready answer: Plain and simple, for better and for worse, The Godfather represents the best of what commercial American Cinema has the ability to accomplish. It is perfect, in its way—no other nation’s cinema since World War II has so consistently offered filmmakers the level of resources of available in Hollywood (and perhaps in no other have they been squandered so regularly), and The Godfather is as absorbing and engrossing as Hollywood’s so-called “invisible style” demands yet as comprehensive, and epic in scope as its intense level of capitalization affords. It’s certainly the most coherent and digestible work of Coppola’s regarded four-film streak, also including The Conversation, The Godfather: Part II, and Apocalypse Now (although I’d call it five and add in One from the Heart, probably my favorite of the bunch), and if all movies made today were at least this good, the cinematic landscape would be in absolutely terrific shape. I was surprised by its effortlessness, having expected something more precious and convoluted (1972 was, after all, the year Scorsese and Altman turned out oddities like Boxcar Bertha and Images) and certainly more ponderous. But perhaps what was most surprising was how much there was in The Godfather that I didn’t know, even with years of peripheral exposure.
Coppola’s nearly imperceptible cinematic technique
(in marked contrast to the excesses of Apocalypse
Now and One from the Heart) is a more
than adequate precondition for The Godfather’s
briskly-paced, tightly woven narrative that stretches,
but never overwhelms the figures who inhabit it.
Perhaps the film’s greatest strength is its ability
to craft character—Brando’s Don Vito, Robert Duvall’s
Tom Hagen, and James Caan’s Sonny are indelible
and rich; even though Brando’s Don is most famously
flattened out into hefty jowls and a gravelly
whisper, there’s less talk of the urgency in his
attempt to avoid assassination, his remorse after
Sonny’s death (and subsequent remove that allows
him to label his dead son “a bad don”), or the
playfulness with which he chases his grandchild
through their garden. But perhaps The Godfather’s
cleverest trick is ceding the film slowly and
surely to a character that’s a little slipperier,
at least until one makes it through the trilogy’s
second installment: Al Pacino’s Michael Corleone,
fresh-faced war hero whose initial assertion—“That’s
my family, Kay. It’s not me”—is chipped away slowly
until murder is “strictly business.” By aligning
its perspective with Michael, The Godfather
feels not unlike watching Luchino Visconti’s The
Leopard through a looking glass—instead of
Burt Lancaster realizing at the final ball that
his time is past, we view the changing of the
guard from the vantage of the younger generation
whose time is about to come. Having spent more
time with Al Pacino the wide-eyed, greasy, raving
irrelevancy than Al Pacino the hungry young actor,
his Michael, here and in the sequel, surprised
me with a depth more often associated with novels.
|
   |
|
But there is
the nagging matter of “at leasts” that demands
a bit of attention. Perhaps I’m a curmudgeon,
and perhaps years spent rummaging through the
mediocre foreign sections of the video stores
of my youth for Ozu, Herzog, and Tarkovsky turned
me too far from the pleasures of American studio
cinema at exactly the point when I should have
been enveloped in them, but I can’t help but admire
greatly without really loving The Godfather,
a film that, for me, only barely hints at the
personality of its creator through its camera
and editing (admittedly to appropriate effect
for film’s needs) and seems a little more invested
in boosting the American Dream than its simultaneous
moves towards teasing out the symptoms of malaise
at its core. (Contrasted with Brian De Palma’s
Scarface, where America was a “big wet
pussy waiting to be fucked,” The Godfather’s
first line is “I believe in America.”) I imagine
this duality results in some of The Godfather’s
appeal—instead of characters striving to get “made,”
we have a focus on a figure drawn into family
business through a mixture of filial ties, curiosity,
pride, and seeming aimlessness, but this tidy
prodigal son narrative coupled with the reserved
aesthetic leaves the impression of fastidiousness.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, sure, but
I still wished for more sequences like the finale’s
blood-soaked baptism, or more garish bloody horse
heads resting on silk sheets. And even though
I found The Godfather Part II’s temporal
shifts a bit too jagged, a little of that kind
of rambunctious energy might have proven welcome
in its predecessor.
If all movies were as good as The Godfather,
we’d never be forced to reckon with tripe like
Everything Is Illuminated or Wedding
Crashers, but we might never be leveled by
works like A.I. Artificial Intelligence,
Before Sunset, and Eyes Wide Shut,
as well. Coppola’s film may represent the best
of what commercial American Cinema can accomplish,
but it certainly isn’t the best that American
Cinema has accomplished within the commercial
studio system. With history being written by the
victors, the films of my generation may someday
come to supplant the American Seventies in the
canon, but this is not to say that I feel my generation’s
cinematic choices are necessarily better, or above
The Godfather, even if I do like it less.
Personally, I’ve always been fascinated by lurid
train wrecks: to bring Welles back for a second,
I tend to prefer a film on the order of Lady
from Shanghai over the sturdier Citizen
Kane, or King of Comedy over Raging
Bull, hence my appreciation for the bizarro
One from the Heart over The Godfather.
For as much as movie love comes from what we grow
up with, there’s a simultaneous element of discovery
and ownership over the impossibly rare; The
Godfather’d been with every guy at the dance
by the time my turn came. And as much as I was
delighted to see that consensus need not necessarily
align itself with the lowest common denominator,
it wasn’t long before I was hungry for new ground
to break. Bring on the next Manoel de Oliveira.
“You haven’t seen _____??” being the nervous moment
of traditional cinephilia, I’ll admit I’m glad
to have shed this fairly hefty albatross, even
if I’d started to wear it proudly, and stupidly,
like a badge. Given the immense, ever-expanding
production of films worldwide, even with those
cherished programmers who dedicate themselves
to seeking cinema’s apocrypha so that filmgoers
today can get a look at the works of an Andrzej
Munk, Valerio Zurlani, or Mikio Naruse, there
will always be pockets couched in obscurity, never
to see the light of day, and there’s no way to
know how many masterpieces will remain lost to
the ages. The best the new generation of film
lovers can do, with over 100 years of cinema behind
us, is to take cues from our elders, and carve
out our own personal canon—some may find refuge
in genre pictures, others in a certain nation’s
cinema, others in the work of a particular director.
No one way of reading film history is better or
more valid than another, but there is something
satisfying in being able to chime in—yes, everyone’s
right, The Godfather is really quite good.
The best American movie ever made? In my mind,
not by a long shot. Even though there is something
to be said for a film that daringly shrinks its
most outsized performer through the course of
its length until he’s left inelegantly, dumped
like a sack on the ground, in the end it’s still
not really my bag. |
|