What's with the hype for The Godfather?

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.

196

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

29
- 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.
  
  4
- You got a point see? Mah!
  
  4
Fantastic answer.

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

25
- I watch it every five years or so and still enjoy it.
  
  6
- Absolutely, painfully true.
  
  5
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.

13
- 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.
  
  4
2001 A Space Odyssey is still 100% watchable and just as thought provoking today as it was in the 70s.

3
The seven samurai is still a great watch though, and feels different from movies nowadays

1
And that explains why it was impactful movies in the 70s, but that doesn't explain why it's rated 2nd best movie today. If anything you provided arguments against that.

1
- Because things can be appreciated for their historical relevance. It's like saying that the Sputnik should be forgotten because SpaceX launches 20 satellites with a single rocket every other month. Or that Michelangelo statues are overrated now that we invented 3D printing.
  
  8
- It's rated highly because the people who do the ratings are familiar with how impactful the movie was. They understand the quality of the film within the context where and when it was created.
  
  If you were to compare a Manet to an AI generated photorealistic version of the same painting, an art buff would prefer the Manet. Someone who lacks the context and background might complain about the brush strokes or the imperfect color blending or the lack of definition in the faces, and say that the AI generated image is "better." That preference does not in any way diminish the quality of Manet's work or the appreciation people have for it.
  
  When discussing art, "best" is always subjective. You're allowed to not like the Godfather. It's not my favorite movie, either, but I enjoy watching it now and again. People who love the film have written many books on why it's their favorite masterpiece. You won't win an argument with them that it's not among the best movies of all time, but then neither will they convince you to appreciate the movie if you didn't enjoy watching it.
  
  4
- not everybody who uses IMDB was born after 9/11.
  
  this isn't a dig at gen-z for being "uncultured" or whatever, just pointing out that a substantial chunk of the population was able to experience the film before it became as "cliche" as it is today.
  
  2
- It's still better than 99% of all movies made in the last 30 years; you just have shit taste.
  
  -5
What you're forgetting completely (like 90% of "movie guys"), is that most people don't care or notice most of what you're talking about. Godfather is fundamentally a boring film. The story is banal, was back then probably too. You can have the best lighting you want, if the story is boring, the movie sucks.

-17
- But that's the thing, the story isn't boring.
  
  6

Did you find that it insists upon itself?

35

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.

26

wut's FFC

5
- Francis Ford Coppola.
  
  9

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

21

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

5
- 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.
  
  4
Went through?

1

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.

20

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.

17

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.

10

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?

( :

8

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.

11

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

6

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.

10
Many people say that Sofia Coppola ruined the movie for them, but IMO it's more so the stark contrast between a young/middle aged Michael coming into his own in the 1st 2 movies, and a senior citizen Michael regretful of his choices in the final act. The party comes to a close and we're reminded of the terminus of all things.

2

Try part 2.

3

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

3

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.

12
- Maybe I should re-watch this. It has been a while...
  
  4
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.

5

I liked the money pit.

2

It’s subtle and kinda moody. It also has some nice performances from Pacino and Brando. I think for me, I liked the moodiness and vibe of it. It felt old in a way that fit the subject matter and its time (late 40s early 50s). Also the basic story is nice. I wouldn’t be surprised if it resonates more with people who have or seen similar family dynamics where it really does suck everyone in.

2

I watched it pretty recently and even watched it twice in a single day. I still think it's a great film in terms of narrative and cinematography. The dialogue and editing (especially the baptism sequence) were also very effective.

I wouldn't trust any claim that "X movie is the greatest of all time" however. Movies are highly subjective and I wouldn't trust IMDb's top list to decide what movies are great. Most of their top movies are from Hollywood.

If you didn't like The Godfather, then that's actually okay. I know other people who didn't like it.

edit: By the way, if you're looking for another good Marlon Brando movie, check out Queimada. I think a lot of people here on Lemmy might like this film.

2

I've never been a huge fan myself although I did force myself to watch the full remastered trilogy not that long ago

Yeah I think it's OK now but it's no Goodfellas in my opinion. My guess is it was just very good in its time.

2

Don't get it either. It is such a flawed product.

A. Crime movies are supposed to have everyone die at the end. The godfather dies a successful old man playing with his grandchild.

B. Holy shit is it long

C. It feels like it demands to be appreciated. Every scene we are being told that we have to appreciate every scene.

1

I don't get the hype either, but maybe it gets better in the second half? I've never managed to sit all the way through it.

1

IMHO, while most fans of the series say Part 1 is the best, Part 2 with De Niro as Young Vito is arguably far superior. The first movie is quite dry and you really have to be paying attention to names and conversations, while the 2nd movie has a lot more going for it dynamically and is easier to follow.

1

It’s All personal.

1

I think it was the first movie to show tits or something.

0

I would have bet that the second movie ever made was the first to show tits. the first probably just being a technical proof of concept.

1

I wouldn't know, because I've never seen this "The god-FATHER". Can someone please explain the plot of this "the God-FATHER" to me?

(A distraction? I don't know what you are talking about.)

-1

Are you familiar with the Nickelodeon show The Fairy Oddparents? Well if you ate not, that show is about how sad kids get fairy godparents to fulfil their wishes, so that they are not so sad any more.

Well that show is like a prequel to The Godfather, except that it takes place after The Godfather. It takes you through similar events to what happened to make the character of the Godfather how he is.

You see when he was a child he had Fairy godparents to furfil his wishes and make him happy. So when he grew up he also wanted to make people happy, by fulfilling their wishes, and he called himself The Godfather, after his Godparents. Who now was gone to help another kid in need.

A fun fact is that in The Fairy Oddparents we are actually following the same Godparents, just with a different kid, but on a similar journey. It was a very experimental form of a prequel, but one that worked marvellously well.

3
- Oh yes, that is definitely the actual plot of "the GOD-FATHER" and I, Margot Robbie, am very interested to hear more big, strong men explain the intricacies of this movie while we do nothing suspicious in the background at all!
  
  Maybe we can watch the Snyder Cut later too!
  
  0

Go to unpopular opinion with this

-2

You missed the fact that you just have shit taste in movies. But that's no problem, Marvel stuff gets made for people like you.

-6