Vote in the Great Godfather Smackdown: An Offer You Can't Refuse...
The Smackdown. By now it's all become a part of our collective cultural memory -- the horse's head showing up in the bed, making an "offer he can't refuse" and that haunting score by Nino Rota. Imagine being in the theaters though, almost four decades ago when the original "The Godfather" was in release back in 1972. 
For years new viewers of the Godfather Trilogy were exposed to either increasingly degraded theatrical prints or VHS or DVD copies that were, in many cases, even worse. For the past two years, though, Francis Ford Coppola and a small army of digital restoration experts have been at work reclaiming the golden glory for high-definition Blu-ray, standard DVD and even a few more theatrical prints out in some major cities. It's not the purpose of this Smackdown to lay out that process but if you want to know more about "The Godfather: The Coppola Restoration," there have been some excellent articles including The New York Times and Slate Magazine.
What is most astonishing about "The Godfather" which won the 1972 Oscar for "Best Picture" is that two years later "The Godfather, Part II" also won the Oscar for "Best Picture." This pretty much qualifies the second film as the unquestioned best sequel of all-time. And, of course, it triggers a Smackdown to find out which of these two extraordinary films is the best. We'll give them our usual treatment but, unusually, we'll let a number of our critics weigh in with their own analysis and then, at the end of this review, you can put in your own two cents by voting in our Smack-Poll. Also, if you're up for it, we'd love for you to leave a comment that describes the circumstances where you first saw "The Godfather."
The Defending Champion. If you think about it now, the "Godfather" films are the modern world's version of those Shakespeare plays about kings and princes. This is the film where Vito Corleone, the aging Don of a powerful Mafia family hands off the power, reluctantly, to his youngest son Michael, delivering one of the saddest lines in cinema, "Michael, I never wanted this for you." Al Pacino's Michael Corleone is one of the greatest acting performances on screen ever and his transformation from shy son to ruthless criminal makes you forgive any of the actor's excesses over the years. The film opens on a wedding where Michael has returned from World War II just in time to see his sister Connie get married. All of the men in Michael's family are involved with the Mafia and it's assumed that the older brothers will handle the criminal duties while Michael lives a legit and decent life. It's truly the story of the family but the engine that drives the action is about a drug dealer Virgil Sollozzo who wants Don Corleone (Marlon Brandon) to go into the drug trade with him. Corleone refuses, gets shot by hit men, barely survives. This opens the door for his son to begin a violent mob war against Sollozzo that changes him and his family forever. It's the story of the old ways surrendering, violently, to the new ways. You probably know all this. Beautifully photographed, scored, directed, written. Most people have it on their Top Ten lists and more than a few place it as #1.
The Challenger. The sequel, "The Godfather, Part II" builds on what came before by giving us both the prequel to the first film and continuing the story of what happens after Michael takes over. It's really two films in one. The first lets Robert DeNiro strut his acting stuff as the young Vito Corleone in 1920's New York. The second is all about the rise of the son to power and how he expands and tightens his grip on his crime syndicate stretching from Lake Tahoe, Nevada to pre-Revolution 1958 Cuba. It has scope and intensity and even though it reaches back into the past to deepen its central premise and character, it truly does take place in a more modern world. In this telling, the struggle is to surrender criminality to captialism and it's not a smooth transition. Gangster tactics manipulate normal business procedures and the scale goes global. Still, and this is key to the success of both films, the family drama still rules. By the time it's over, Michael Corleone commits an act so hideous that it actually manages to quietly trump the mass murder ending of the first in its emotional context. Most of you know what I'm talking about but for those who don't, well, watch and enjoy.
The Scorecard. Basically, that's our message. You've probably seen both of these films and maybe many times. But "The Godfather: The Coppola Restoration" demands that you give it another viewing. If possible, see one of those theatrical prints. If that's not possible, watch it on the biggest screen you can find with Blu-ray. DVD is your third choice, but it'll still look better than you've ever seen it unless you saw it in the original theaters. These are two great films: full of great actors, directed well and classics for the ages. We've asked our critics to comment about how they feel about the two.
This is not an assessment of the cinematic values of Coppola's Films. They are forever safe in the vault of American consciousness. The original "The Godfather" is about as close to a first love as you can probably get this past half century. It's everything to embrace, to remember, to hold dear - even though it's patently about the vermin and disease that Coppola believes lays within all of us and our families and the obvious culture that we have created as Americans. But it is romanticized, and held up as the bitter but beautiful chalice from which all we guilty, redemptive characters in the audience must drink.
"The Godfather, Part II" is the smack in the face, the brute force of a fist in our gut that tells us, without flattery, how sick, futile and cynical we have all become as a people and nation as the more powerful among us became the most powerful among us. It is truly the history of America this century without much of a cover-up and I'm sure, must have been viewed many times by Paul Michael Anderson before beginning his journey to “There Will Be Blood”. I think Al Pacino's Michael Corleone and Daniel Day-Lewis's Daniel Plainview, are the templates for every power-hungry, political Lear since 1900 who put his family at risk along with his country for the sake of personal ambition.
As we embark upon this country's next presidential election, one only has to view "The Godfather, Part II" to understand why we are in the position we are in understanding it is less about Gordon Gecko's philosophy of “greed is good” and more about Michael Corleone's simple statement...”if history has taught us anything, it's that we can get to anyone.” That's an infinitely more frightening statement to anyone who has lived through the last half century in America. And it's thesis, certainly as a film entertainment, has been untouched since it first appeared on the American landscape in 1974. And is why, I believe, that "The Godfather, Part II," is the bastard twin, and more powerful one at that, and is essential viewing for anyone interested, not only in great films, but great visions of our History as a nation and a people. (JOE RASSULO)
I've never been shy about offering my opinions
about movies, but in the case of twin masterpieces “The Godfather” and
“The Godfather, Part II,” I'll stipulate that comparing the films on
artistic grounds is probably above my pay grade. (I realize this may
come as a surprise, given the exorbitant salaries that Bryce pays his
Smackdown critics.) So I'll cast my ballot based on a criterion that's
easier for me: the movie I enjoy more. And that is “The Godfather.”
No question, “The Godfather, Part II” is more ambitious and operatic than its predecessor -- and the ending is more shattering. But for the viewer, it's not a great movie; it's two great movies. While this is a remarkable feat, it creates frustrations. The intercutting of DeNiro and Pacino is like switching back and forth between football games on a Sunday afternoon. It's an enjoyable experience, but after it's over, it doesn't have quite the same impact as watching Cowboys vs. Redskins straight through. I'll admit, too, that I had to watch “The Godfather, Part II” more than once to catch all the plot points in both stories. (In fact, I'm still not sure who set up that hit on Michael at the beginning of the movie.) So give me “The Godfather,” by a horse's head. (SCOTT BARADELL)
Like so many others, I worship at the cinema altar of the Godfather films. The occasion of their re-release thrilled me like news of a new Beatles album used to do. Am I dating myself? Fine. I saw the first Godfather film in my freshman year at Cornell, and it ushered in a proud new era of American film. Previously, we film buffs turned to Europe for masterpieces of cinema; the seventies auteur period made me proud to be an American. Oh sure, we had made good movies in the good ole US of A, but in the seventies, American artists made great films.
To this day, I can't flip by a channel on TV airing any of the Godfathers without stopping to watch till the end. By my own cautious estimation, I've watched them all hundreds of times. I can leave the room and come back in, my internal clock pre-set and humming, knowing exactly what image will be on the screen as I re-enter. I recite lines of dialogue in my everyday life; even my family memories are mixed with flickering images of the fictional Corleones -- their post-war dinner table re-cast with the faces of my grandparents and uncles and aunts, their vividly depicted immigration story mingled with the saga of my Russian Jewish ancestors. This obsession runs deep.
Which is part of the reason why I'm reticent to play favorites. Which movie is better? Well, obviously, "The Godfather, Part II" had the bigger budget and the broader scope. And the original tells a more linear story, bridging that wide chasm from movie to film with brilliance, improvisation and wit. I love them both. I wouldn't change a frame in either. If I have to choose (and I do), I'll take "The Godfather, Part II." For Fredo, for Frankie Five Angels, for Johnny Ola, for young Vito, for the unmatched rooftop sequence and the killing of Don Fanucci, for Lee Strasberg's touching portrayal of Hyman Roth, for the impeccable casting of the young Clemenza and Tessio, for the locations, for the sheer uncompromised intelligence and the challenging structure and storytelling.
While every film buff should make a concerted effort to see them all on a big screen in all their glory, I most heartily recommend you rent the DVD's and watch them with Coppola's commentary. It's absolutely breathtaking, like sitting with him in a room as he remembers and shares the experience. As a total wonk on the trilogy. I learned so much more than I thought I ever could...about the films, about family, about work, about life. The three films and the commentary comprise a work of true genius, great character and formidable intelligence, and the experience of watching left me with an even greater appreciation of the films and the man who made them. Thank you, Mr. Coppola, for making me feel like part of the family. (SHERRY COBEN)
Much tougher than “leave
the gun, take the cannolis.” In both films Francis Ford Coppola is
working at the top of his form, creating two entries on my Best 25
list. How similar in achievement and narrative sweep: Both snared 11
Academy Award nominations; both deservedly won Best Picture. These
films embody the notion of “Hollywood studio movie” at its highest
expression.
So where are the differences that create a margin between “The Godfather” and “The Godfather, Part II?” They feature perhaps the most memorable film performances of Marlon Brando and Al Pacino. Both capture the tone and rhythm of the times. They feel right, sound right. Three decades of commentary describe the films as peculiar stories about honor, duty, even as a metaphor for corporate America. They satisfy, no matter where you land on the continuum. These are gangster movies rightly honored for complicated storylines so well resolved that both tower as “stand alone” films. You don’t need one to appreciate the other.
Here’s the key for me: “The Godfather” developed one large story masterfully; “The Godfather, Part II” handled parallel storylines equally well. One of them fleshed out the creation of the Corleone crime family and the other shows us what happens after Michael becomes the Don. “The Godfather, Part II” paints a disturbing picture of the corrupted human heart.
These are works of fiction, but they ask, “How real do you want to get?” That makes it hard choosing between the two. They get under your skin. Audiences will always delight in Don Vito Corleone telling Johnny Fontaine the studio boss will put him in the movie because, “I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse.” They know what will happen – if not quite when -- after Michael tells his brother, “I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart.”
It would break my heart not to have “The Godfather” and “The Godfather, Part II.” For this Smackdown, it's “The Godfather, Part II," but what a choice! (MARK SANCHEZ)
For decades I’ve used my Gelato origins as a bludgeon. Friends and relatives I’ve bored mightily with my “What were other ethnic groups doing while MINE painted the Sistine Chapel?” speech. My own daughter, while viewing Michael Constantine’s relentlessly Pro-Greek patriarch in “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” exclaimed, “Dad! He’s you, only Greek!” Many’s the time I’d told her how everybody not Italian, wished they were. Now that we’ve established my Bona Fides, listen when I say how Brando and Co.’s portrayal of the spaghetti mobsters in “The Godfather Saga” resemble the real deal as much as Johnny Depp’s characterization of Captain Jack Sparrow recalls authentic Pirates. Yes, and Yul Brynner’s spot-on take on Eastern Royalty.
C’mon, admit it, even you non-Guineas know, deep down, that Coppola romanticized the Mob to “Finding Neverland” heights. Early Hollywood divided the Crime Drama into two categories: Crime Doesn’t Pay/Crime Does Pay, with the emphasis strongly on the former. Coppola redefined the genre into 1) Crime As Art, with the two main proponents being his three “Godfathers,” and Leone’s “Once Upon a Time in America”; and, 2) what I like to call ‘Gritty Crime,’ where bad guys are portrayed, not as sad, misunderstood uncrowned Princes, but as they really are, cunning but none too bright thugs. Check out Bob Hoskins’ brilliant acting in the 1980 “The Long Good Friday,” or 1982’s French classic “La Balance,” and Jason Statham’s recent “The Bank Job,” for excellent, satisfying examples of this subgenre of cinema’s love affair with the crook. And I don’t give a fig, which has or hasn’t made it to Blu-Ray. I don’t get a nickel either way.
Oh, yeah, that brings us to the reason for this rant, Bryce’s invitation, on the eve of the Saga coming out on Blu-Ray, to his critics to vote on the merits of the original “Godfather” vs. the sequel, “Godfather II.” Easy, the First over the Second. And I’m not going to preach about the stunning cinematography, one-of-a-kind Music Score, “powerful performances,” blah, blah, blah…a thousand critics more gifted than I have been doing that for over thirty years, until everything worth saying has been said. No, my reason for picking the original "The Godfather" is that it isn’t whiny like the sequel. Boo-hoo, poor Michael Corleone, how tough ‘tis to be rich and powerful. How many times have we viewed a film with the theme “It’s Lonely At the Top, Command is Thankless”? Gimme a break…stripped of all the extraneous, The Saga is just another Crime Doesn’t Pay message. Which we all know is untrue. Just phone Columbia, and I don’t mean the studio.
Okay, instead of watching Coppola elevate a crime story to Shakespearean Heights, let’s do the opposite. Let’s rent “White Heat” with Jimmy Cagney, and watch director Raul Walsh lower “Oedipus” to the level of the gutter. It’s great! (JAY AMICARELLA)
The Decision. You've heard from some of our critics, now it's your turn. Vote for your favorite Godfather film in the poll below. We've included "The Godfather, Part III" out of fairness, even though we confined our Smackdown to the two films which each won the Academy Award as "Best Picture." Who knows? There are probably a few fans out there who prefer the third. If you're one of them, by the way, why don't you leave a comment and tell us your reasons? If you vote, by the way, then watch the films on Blu-Ray or DVD or even the new theatrical prints and change your mind, the Vizu poll actually lets you re-vote.
