Posted on 06/19/2013 7:21:08 PM PDT by Justaham
Do you think that about ‘The Godfather’ as well?
“...Really not much pay when you get down to it....”
Maybe better wording would have been that Hollywood glamorizes it a bit more nowadays.
Same with Public Enemies about Dillinger. They made him out to be some sort of gentleman bandit. Reality is, he was a bit of a mad dog. But yet, he’s portrayed as a hero of sorts.
I don’t know...maybe to some Depression era folks way of thinking, he WAS a hero of sorts.
I just seems that with the older “gangster” movies - the ones that made Edward G. Robinson, Cagney, and Bogart famous - the message was clear; you follow this life and you’re going to wind up dead.
Sopranos, to me, was “You follow this life, you may wind up dead, but you’ll have one helluva ride in the process, so who gives a sh*t...?
Just my 2cents
RE The Godfather:
Even though Pacino played a huge role in that, I don’t really relate him to the Coreleone character. Marlon Brando, immediately “The WIld Ones”, and Stanley Kowalski in Streetcar Named Desire, and even Terry Malloy in “On The Waterfront”.
I enjoyed the Godfather trilogy immensely when it came out. But even there, the message seemed different than what the Sopranos was bringing.
Just my interpretation. Different people see things differently.
Remember the old gangster movies had to put up with the Hayes Code which demanded, among other things, that criminals be punished, sometimes with laughable results (original Scarface).
A lot of the “revolution” in gangster stuff comes from the first Godfather movie, by starting off with a wedding it humanizes the Corleone family, makes them sympathetic, puts you in a position to root for them and forgive the things they do for the rest of the movie. One thing that’s interesting in Sopranos is that in season 6 Tony is given a chance to reform a little, not to walk away completely, but to not be so brutal, but he rejects it. And by rejecting it does the things that doom him and his crew. If Tony takes the lesson from his coma dream crime actually does wind up paying.
My impression of the Sopranos is that it showed that all these guys were untrustworthy and ready to betray each other with the slightest hint of more money being made. Despite the big deal they made of honor and loyalty all the time.
It was a really good show, I think that a lot of folks just chose to see all the glamour and ignore all the crap situations they were constantly putting themselves into. My favorite parts of the show were the funny parts and all the north jersey references.
Freegards
“...My favorite parts of the show were the funny parts and all the north jersey references....”
“Pine Barrens” was hilarious - where Christopher and Paulie were chasing that Russian Spetsnaz guy through the Barrens and they got lost.
“..howed that all these guys were untrustworthy and ready to betray each other..”
Indeed. But to me, it still came off as “Look at the cool lifestyle we lead...ya just have to be careful not to get dead...”
I did enjoy the show as well. It was just disturbing in a lot of ways.
“..humanizes the Corleone family, makes them sympathetic, puts you in a position to root for them and forgive the things they do for the rest of the movie...”
Precisely my original point... I found the Sopranos to be even more humanizing of that lifestyle.
RE Hayes Code: It wasn’t such a bad thing - society reflected Hollywood, and Hollywood - to a degree - reflected the society of the day. Like it does now, and it’s not very flattering...
I don’t even think of it as a Trilogy. The third film is best forgotten.
The Hayes Code was a joke which made for all sorts of incoherent narrative elements in the films of the day.
It kind of isnt complete without it, though...
RE Joke:
Well, those were different days. People were different, and it worked for the sensibilities of the day, I suppose.
I still enjoy the old films. All of Cagney and Bogies’ stuff. “Little Ceaser” is one of my favorites. “Key Largo” and Casablanca” too.
It is though! The final scene of the second film was perfect. He was a man without a soul.
But still ... Pacino didn’t “own” it. I don’t immediately think “Michael Corleone” when I see him.
“Scarface”, yes... “Say Hello to mah LI’L Fren!” will Always be Pacino.
And of the two movies, I think “Godfather 1-3” was what launched him, correct?
“Serpico” was out in the 70s too. Also a good flick.
I hated the Depalma version of Scarface. Pacino totally owned Michael. That’s what he will be remembered for,
I kinda liked Paulie but I really wanted to see him suffer when in a last season (I think, I may just have caught it later) episode he extorted and assaulted some poor bastard who really didn’t deserve it and in no way legitimately owed Paulie any money (he inherited his father’s business or something, I don’t remember).
Meadow seemed on to way to becoming a lawyer for terrorists. Very hot though.
“...Pacino totally owned Michael. That’s what he will be remembered for,...”
You really think so? The FIRST image that pops into my head when I hear “Al Pacino” is the M203 grenade “Li’l Fren!” scene from Scarface. Immediate and automatic.
Was the Godfather his first movie??? or Serpico?
James Caan will ALWAYS be Sonny Corleone... they HOSED him with Tommyguns in the tollbooth. Brutal scene.
RE Meadow:
Jamie Lynn Sigler is beautiful, for sure.
He had a bit part in ‘Me, Natalie’ but his first real role was in ‘The Panic in Needle Park’ which was released while ‘The Godfather’ was being filmed.
Saw “Heat” this week, a couple days ago. Hellacious gun battle in that flick. Pacino was in that one too; he aged hard, man. And that was 1995... De Niro was in it too; but he always looks the same.
Also saw De Niro in “Frankenstein” from 1993 (?) - he played the monster. Did a good job too. I hadn’t seen that flick.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.