Francis Ford Coppola's Godfather - thinking aloud...

If this wasn’t my blog, I probably wouldn’t even bother to write this.
I mean, this is THE mafia movie, THE cult, the stepping stone of this genre. If this was meant for public reading, who are even going to expect they’ll find something new in this review?

Technically, the movie is masterly, superb and brilliant, of course. In fact, it seemed so flawless to me technically, I really don’t think I’m knowledgeable enough about films to criticize this one technically. All I would say is the editing was crisp beyond imagination and the cinematography....fabulous. Especially the scenes of Michael in Italy were simply awesome.
But, the thing I’m here to talk about is not about that. Its about the adaptation of the famous novel into the film art form – a few thoughts on that.

Actually....Mario Puzo’s novel, or rather its characters had a quite deep impact on me. Vito Corleone emerged to me as the epitome of sensibility, as he has done for millions worldwide I’m sure. I loved his reasoning, his humility and his roots to the grounds. At the same time, there are flaws in him that makes him so human. That he can die, he can bleed is never a shock, but a personal loss to the reader. In short, I’ve never met a character quite like him in any novel I have read.
However, the movie seemed to leave out exactly these things from the character. Marlon Brando was...... confident, at the best. I saw none of the humility of Vito Corleone in this man with a couple of cotton pads inside his mouth. The best he could manage was “I’m going to make him an offer he can’t refuse” with a smirk (I’m sure the cotton pads helped). He seemed like a man who trusts and banks on fear from the very beginning. He seemed to be a power-hungry man who seeks minions, not friends.
But from the novel, I felt Vito Corleone was always a man who meant every word when he said “I’ll reason with him.” He was a man, who, even at the hem of power, never forgot that the smallest of man eventually gets his chance against the biggest of Dons. He was a don who, even when lending money to a fruit seller, would add a personal touch just in order to remove any embarrassment the man had while asking for it. In fact, that was the reason behind his greatness. And I felt that the driving force behind the novelty of the book was the unique treatment of the mafia psychology that distinguishes Puzo. The movie just gave me a typical mafia don whom I would have expected going into the movie, had I not read the novel.
Comparing a movie with the novel is a poor practice while judging the movie, period. However, I felt this is a film that really tried to be very loyal to the novel. But in this aspect at least, I felt it failed miserably. Whether I liked this old don better than the don in the novel (I don’t actually) is immaterial here. I found this was a Godfather I had to watch from a distance, not touch. It was actually a master one can beg from, not a friend one can ask a favour of, as I felt Puzo wanted to portray.
And that is precisely why I felt one of the main gaps between the two forms of art, viz. literature, the personal and film, the public - was not met at all here, let alone bridged.
Without that, is it possible to call a film a successful adaptation of the novel?

There was another empty space in the movie for me, which was Tom Hagen. I just loved the character. He was the cold man with the briefcase, the man who was not allowed to be emotional, the man who has to remain sane in order to balance the operation and confusion in the complete Corleone empire. And since his was a quiet, mostly reaction and facial expression based character, I think it could be exploited a lot more in the movie than the novel. But, for some reason, Coppola didn’t want to spend much time in building that character, in the first movie at least. He was just the middleman, more of a messenger.
Any way, that’s the maker’s freedom. For my personal liking, I guess I shall have to make my own Godfather.

Finally, that brings us to Michael Corleone. This was a character, which I felt Coppola adapted brilliantly and most carefully. Its not just Pacino’s acting. I think the whole movie builds the character wonderfully. The journey from the amiable, idealist youth to the ruthless don was a story told with amazing sensitivity.
The change in the head movement and voice as the movie progresses - is alone worth the money.
At the beginning, in his sister’s wedding, Mike is seen cocking his head, making quick movements and talking in whispers, which mark the nervousness and ill-ease he has in the presence of the Corleone family.
Then, as his father is shot and he saves his father from an attack in the hospital and gradually gets involved in his first murder, a touch of determination comes in the character. The head cocking is no longer there. The quick movements of head are still there, but with an excitement, a fixed look in his eyes. This indicates he is still nervous, but has a purpose now. His voice at this stage seems a shade exhausted and a little hoarse. He is excited and still getting used to the adrenaline rush of the underground life.
Then comes Sicily. Probably the visually most beautiful part of the film. However, the most important contribution of this part to the film is that here we actually notice the first traces of a don in Michael Corleone. He has a quiet confidence about him. There is a leisurely, yet elegant stride. The deliberate, yet alert head movements gives the first hints that here is a man who can become a leader of men, a man shaping the destiny not only for himself, but for a lot many more.
And that brings us to the last part of the film, where Michael truly becomes “The Godfather”. Here, the confidence is no longer so much important. He is not only confident that he owns a world of his own, but also that the rest of the world will soon have no doubt about it. This part is notable for the looming darkness in Michael Corleone’s character, which paves the first cobblestones for Godfather II. The cold eyes, the casually leaning head and the voice just louder enough than a whisper to be heard instills the nameless fear it means to, without any apparent effort.

On the whole, I would have loved the movie probably, if I was not so deeply moved by the novel. I think, Coppola devoted so much time to build and mould one of the central characters of the novel, the other ones were a little neglected. And since Michael isn’t my favourite character in the novel , I was left a bit....... wanting.

I was disappointed because I went in expecting “Mario Puzo’s Godfather”, as the title card suggested.
In stead, I felt I only found one by Francis Ford Coppola.