this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
127 points (88.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26664 readers
1233 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I watched it recently for the first time, and I really don't get why it's so loved. IMDB rates it as the second-best movie of all time, but it seems far worse than that to me. I like most old movies and see their hype, but The Godfather didn't do it for me. What am I missing?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 225 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (15 children)

Sometimes works of art (paintings, music, film, sculpture, architecture, literature, doesn't matter) are so profoundly influential as to become a part of the fabric of that medium. I think the Godfather is one of those films that inspired an entire generation of filmmakers to weave the special bits into everything they created since.

The problem with watching it now is that the craft of filmmaking has spawned from it and molded around it, and the things that made it special are now mundane. Try to watch Citizen Kane, or 2001 A Space Odyssey, or Seven Samurai, and you'll see every trope and flaw because their impact is no longer unique. But that's not because they weren't amazing films, it's because they have all be copied and modernized and lampooned to death.

With the Godfather, a film buff could talk for hours about the lighting, the symbolism, the mise en scene, the music, and how it was all seminal to half the movies made since. Watching it with virgin eyes, though, and you'll see reflections of Goodfellas and Casino and Scarface and Once Upon a Time in America and The Irishman and A Bronx Tale and Donnie Brasco and New Jack City and Road to Perdition and We Own the Night and The Departed and The Untouchables and probably 50 other movies I can't think of off the top of my head.

You can't help but see it as a relic, a source of inspiration for the movies you saw before and loved. That's why you don't see it the way they did, and why it seems over hyped.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I had this weird sensation when I watched Metropolis. I found myself thinking "ugh every trope and this is hacky as hell" then I remembered: "oh wait, this is the source of all of those things." It made it a lot easier to appreciate.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

Not too different from reading Shakespeare, so full of cliches.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Fantastic answer.

Also, Citizen Kane was one of my worst watches ever, even in film class.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

I watch it every five years or so and still enjoy it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Absolutely, painfully true.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (3 children)

'The Maltese Falcon' seems like the most cliché ridden movie imaginable. Then you realize this is the movie that created all the cliches.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Was thinking that the other day. I love the Maltese falcon, it's got so many tropes for film noir. Then I remember, and then I recall showing my wife The Matrix and her eye rolling so hard at things that became so popular they were overdone. Didn't expect a laugh at the slow mo bullet scene but it definitely cracks me up now too.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I rewatched this recently, and yeah, all the cliches are there (some rather clumsily filmed even by 40s standards) - but fuck me if Bogie still doesn't blow it out of the water with that performance. I can't think of a single film noir protagonist that matches what he pulled off in that film. He's better here than he is in Casablanca by a long shot imho.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Great write up. 2001 a space odyssey is a great example. The story holds up, but the effects were blown away (with star wars etc being a main example). It's interesting, but not at all a good watch except in the context of film evolution. That said, it changed so much in cinema, storytelling, and more.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Having read the book some time before seeing the movie, I was pretty unimpressed with how much of the story was left out. Most notably the reasons behind Hal going off the rails.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

2001 A Space Odyssey is still 100% watchable and just as thought provoking today as it was in the 70s.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 64 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

This could be a case of the Sienfeld is not funny trope

A movie or other work of media is quite revolutionary when it is released, it gets copied so much that many of its features become common in later projects. Then someone goes back to the original and thinks, Why was everyone so impressed with this?

Citizen Cane is another example.

Or:

It could be that you personally don't like the movie. Taste is not universal and not everyone likes everything.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Did you find that it insists upon itself?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

It's shallow and pedantic

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's a masterclass in acting, cinematography, and soundtracking. Not only that, but Mario Puzo's novel which came out shortly before the movie was produced was a smash hit.

In the 70s, movies didn't look like The Godfather. They looked like weird objective cameras put on a tripod and just filming actors, with not as much thought put into the "feel" of the film. FFC (as well as other directors such as Hitchcock and Kubrick) essentially invented modern cinematography. Remember watching Avatar for the first time? It was kind of like that for movie going audiences.

It was always hailed as an "epic drama" so you have to kind of temper your expectations based off that. It's not a "murder a minute" gangster flick like a Scorsese picture.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Francis Ford Coppola.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If you don't get it, you don't get it, and that's fine.

From someone who's went through film school:

It's a great movie. I wouldn't call it second ever, but it's up there. The cinematography is some of the best put to film, the writing is excellent, and the acting is phenomenal. I love the music as well, personally. Mafia stories are/were big hits for film in general, dating back even to the black and white era.

In simple terms: basically everything about it is made better than your average film, and if there's something you specifically like about films (music, cinematography, etc.) It's usually an easy example to point to for a quality example of said thing

But yeah, there are too many movies in existence to put any real stock on "x best movie of all time" things

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I said it elsewhere in the replies, but it's like calling 2001 a space odyssey boring.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

2001 absolutely is a boring film though. Impressive on a technical level, but very slow burning, and there is so much that they don't bother to explain to the audience that the books actually cover, for example Hal's reasons for going off the rails.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Idk, I'm not bored by it at all. Maybe I'm a boring person

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

My theory is that The Godfather suffers from pioneer syndrome. It was incredibly modern at the time of its release, with ultra-naturalistic acting and new techniques of cinematography. Which everyone proceeded to copy. So that now it looks like just a decent film, maybe from the 80s. But at the time it was a breakthrough. That's what it's getting the credit for.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

It's better if you watch other movies from the same time and a bit earlier so you can appreciate the direction and cinematography. Comparing it to modern films is akin to comparing modern games to Half Life 1. You lose something without the context of the contemporaries of the time.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Honestly, I think time hurts the movie. Coppola is excellent at his craft. It's cinematically pretty (though aged) Pacino and Brando nailed it, but the content is no longer relevant. The movie is over 50 years old, it's not paced for the appetite of this decade. It's a big, complicated, dark, slow burning movie as a lot of the stuff from the 70's and 80's was. At the time the subject matter was fresh-ish, There was still a lot of interest in the Mafia and almost nothing of quality on the topic had been published since the 30's. If was absolutely the best, for it's time.

You're not alone in your feelings on the flick. As some have said, Part II was better, but if you really didn't care much for Part I, you shouldn't expect to love part II.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Movie pacing has changed a lot. I remember as a kid or even an adult, trying to watch movies from the 70s, and even if I was enjoying it, they moved soooo slooow. Fast forward and I'm trying to share my favorite movies from the 90s and IF it can keep their attention for more than a few minutes, I find myself thinking "I remember this being better."

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I have a very difficult time getting my kids to watch most of my most favorite things because the hook doesn't come in the first 5 minutes.

Ghostbusters, man, I'm sitting there anxious for them to get to the library so i kids don't check out before they even see a ghost.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Please read John Truby's book "The Anatomy of Genres", and have your mind BLOWN by all the psychology in the different 14 Genres of story, dominating our cultures throughout the world, now...

It will make fiction in book AND movie form sooo much richer for you, and it will make other-people much-more-understandable, as well...

I'm autistic, am NOT likely to ever watch another movie in my life ( waaay too overwhelming ), but now I understand story so much better...

Truby's got a special place in his heart for both Godfather I & II.

With reason, his explanations show.

There are an amazing number of awesome stories identified in that book, as examples demonstrating this, or that, aspect of story...

Please read it from beginning to end, so the explanations ( which build on each-other ) weave into the whole, properly ( instead of just hitting 2 chapters & not getting why it doesn't make as much sense as I'm suggesting it does ).

The only significant error in the book worth noting, is the misunderstanding of Comedy:

Improbably-violated-expectations is the PROPER definition of it, and there is no requirement for any "drop", which seems an American subset of humour.

Salut, Namaste, & Kaizen, eh?

( :

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

I appreciate book recommendations as much as the next person, but just a book recommendation without answering the question isn't super helpful. I'm not going to read a book before I continue scrolling.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

While we're at it: why is part 3 so weird?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

It's the end result of pushing everyone away for the sole pursuit of power. It's an old man realizing the life that he was trying to recreate (his father's life), is nothing but a twisted version of the real thing.

It's supposed to be depressing because the movie is in dialogue with the two that came before it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I love The Godfather. But I don't get the hype behind Pulp Fiction. It's alright I guess

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pulp fiction was my jam. It wasn't cookie cutter. It didn't just start at the end, it wrapped around a bit. Unexpected things happened. Where's it going next? WTF knows, Quentin goes wherever he wants. The dialog was unusual for the time, intentionally unpolished. It wasn't a bunch of big named actors trying to make you believe they were in the scenes, they were there to take the scenes over the top. In an age where everything was honestly kinda boring, Tarantino put this flick outside the box. But that's his thing, the scenes are there to look good, the dialog is there to be memorable, the overall story is not all that compelling and the the scenes are barely stitched together.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe I should re-watch this. It has been a while...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

What I really liked about Pulp Fiction is how much better it gets in the days after you've seen it for the first time. A confusing mess of a story that you piece together after the fact. I enjoyed Memento for similar reasons.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Try part 2.

load more comments
view more: next ›