Another Godfather Thread: Best Character

craig r · #1 11-25-2005, 09:07 AM

My favorite would probably be Sonny.

A second would be Waltz (the movie producer in the first one). I don't know why I think it is so funny when he calls Tom a "guinea WOP", finds out he isn't Italian, and decides to throw out more racial slurs. It was like Waltz was just determined to insult him and could only do it racially.

I also like Clemenza also.

craig

KaneKungFu123 · #2 11-25-2005, 09:13 AM

the guy joe pesci played.

craig r · #3 11-25-2005, 09:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
the guy joe pesci played.

[/ QUOTE ]

Joe Pesci was in the Godfather? I don't remember him. Maybe he had a small role.

Oh wait, wasn't he Vito's wife? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

craig

diebitter · #4 11-25-2005, 09:18 AM

yeah to Sonny and Clemenza. Vito too, but liked him in his younger days better.

Vito was a MAN in all senses of the word (loved his children, respected people, did what he had to do, used his head, kept his word, stuck with his friends - you know, all those masculine traits that don't seem to be held in much esteem these days).

I like Connie as well, especially when she talks to Michael about Fredo.

craig r · #5 11-25-2005, 09:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Vito was a MAN in all senses of the word (loved his children, respected people, did what he had to do, used his head, kept his word, stuck with his friends).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I know what you mean by "respected people", but for the most part he didn't. He was still violent. I think this is one thing that seperates Goodfellas/Casino from The Godfather movies. When I watch the Godfather I say to myself, "that life wouldn't be so bad". But, with Goodfellas/Casino, yes that life is glorified, but most realize it isn't a good life. I don't know, those are just my takes.

craig

Also, Vito, at first was against bringing in smack, but eventually changed his mind. So, on one hand he was a "man" with respect, but on the other hand he was willing to profit off of other people's extreme misery. And I think Coppola did do a good job of showing that. Coppola also did a good job of showing the "justification" of "their" way of life.

craig

Blarg · #6 11-25-2005, 09:27 AM

He had some standards, reflected in his not wanting to deal drugs and wanting to have meetings be conducted decently when tensions were high, in not throwing his weight around and interfering in Connie's marriage, and in not ordering a murder of the mortician's daughter's rapist, but merely a savage beating. He drew lines.

But he was also compulsively what he was. The boogeyman scaring the little kid in the garden was him reverting to type, inescapably and stupidly what he was. A man of both intelligence and practical wisdom, but a flawed and corrupted heart.

craig r · #7 11-25-2005, 09:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But he was also compulsively what he was. The boogeyman scaring the little kid in the garden was him reverting to type, inescapably and stupidly what he was. A man of both intelligence and practical wisdom, but a corrupted heart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfect summary of him. He hid under the guise of offering protection, but at the same time, did more harm than good to his community. This reminds me of the notorious Irish mobster in boston. He always talked about protectin Southy and that you needed to respect your fellow neighbors. Yes, this scumbag (I can't remember his name) was the whole reason Heroin was allowed into this poor community. So, while he pretended to protect his community, he was actually destroying it.

craig

diebitter · #8 11-25-2005, 09:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But he was also compulsively what he was. The boogeyman scaring the little kid in the garden was him reverting to type, inescapably and stupidly what he was.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an interesting perspective that I'd never, ever thought of. It's certainly a powerful subtext I'd never consciously registered.

Now I think about it, seeing visitors whilst hidden away in a darkened room has the boogeyman about it too!

I need to think this over some. Maybe I'll watch em again.

My feeling is still Vito is a kindly man, who did what he did as the only way he could rise - ultimately for his family - but I guess I got suckered into the romantic notions that the film perpetuates by its beautiful composition and colouring etc.

Maybe he just wanted power, not sure.

I'll certainly watch the films with a different eye, next time.

craig r · #9 11-25-2005, 09:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But he was also compulsively what he was. The boogeyman scaring the little kid in the garden was him reverting to type, inescapably and stupidly what he was.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an interesting perspective that I'd never, ever thought of. It's certainly a powerful subtext I'd never consciously registered.

Now I think about it, seeing visitors whilst hidden away in a darkened room has the boogeyman about it too!

I need to think this over some. Maybe I'll watch em again.

My feeling is still Vito is a kindly man, who did what he did as the only way he could rise - ultimately for his family - but I guess I got suckered into the romantic notions that the film perpetuates by its beautiful composition and colouring etc.

Maybe he just wanted power, not sure.

I'll certainly watch the films with a different eye, next time.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was a kind man, who did some very bad things. But, I think most people know about the "banality of evil". A good example, would be soldiers who fight in wars (any war at anytime). They think they are doing good, and, in some cases are, but at the same time, they are causing a lot of damage and not realizing it.

Another Example: A Nazi war criminal, Adolf Eichmann, during his trial, pretty much did not think what he was doing was "wrong". In fact, after reading the book "Eichmann in Jerusalem: 'A report on the banality of evil'", you almost feel sorry for him. And this was a man that was responsible for a lot of deaths. But, reading his "interviews", you wouldn't be a jerk to the guy if you met him on the street. He was just a guy doing what he thought he had to do.

craig

youtalkfunny · #10 11-25-2005, 10:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
He had some standards, reflected in his not wanting to deal drugs and...

[/ QUOTE ]

He told the Turk he wouldn't deal drugs because the cops and politicians didn't really care about victimless crimes such as gambling or prostitution or bootlegging, but would not stand idly by for drug dealing.

If it weren't for those legal and political ramifications, I have no doubt that Vito would've put Tony Montana to shame.