What do you mean? Michael was supposed to be evil. That's the point of the final scene in Godfather 2. We are shown what Michael was before he was defiled by his chosen lifestyle.
"Michael Corleone. Will you be baptized"
is one of the most devilishly ironic and crushing moments in movie history. It's such a complete apostacy. I love it.
We just read it differently. He doesn't "want" to do those things, he does them strictly out of necessity. He does know right from wrong, unlike some of his family, but he willfully does things anyone to keep their family business moving along. Is it evil? That's honestly debatable. Is he doing something he wants to do? No. There's always a sadness in Micheal, a regret, and although that would make him interesting in a general story, it doesn't for the fall.
What? Even if you despise the character, you can't really believe that. Michael's fall from grace is the central theme of both films, and the character development that leads to this is subtle and progressive, exactly what was needed.
Weak-willed, which makes him a weak character He would be interesting in another story (Godfather 2 is slightly better).
It's supposed to be. Are you a bible thumper or something?
No, but I've already admitted I'm old fashioned when it comes to art. Art that is made to be so revered has a certain responsibility, imo, to be morally sound. It has nothing to do with religion and more to do with the responsibility of the artist to the emotions he is trying to perceive.
If you don't care about that then you probably are ok with a lump of shite being art, honestly. (There's always the Socratic take that art for bad emotions is a good thing, I don't fall in that camp either)
The "glorification" of evil people. Again, I don't think your interpretation of the film is the prevailing opinion. To me, it's damning of the mob world. It illustrates how their actions are contrary to their own stated, most sacred values. "The family." Michael kills his own brother in the end of the 2nd one and the last we see of him, his eyes are black and his soul is completely corrupted.
I'm going to assume you haven't read the book? There's a big reason why the film is seen as the greatest thing of all-time, and the book is only referenced because of the movie. The book does the same thing, but....
The movie works because it makes a spectacle out of the idea it is trying to present. It's visually interesting because it is glamorizes that violence. It doesn't make it look damning at all. So by removing the necessity for someone to actually ponder a death, we get the "sad" death of Sonny set to classic music, as if we should lament him.
Like I said, I think you "dislike" it for the sake of disliking it.
And like I said, that's ridiculous, because that assumes that no one can dislike this film. So I SHOULD like it? I have no choice but to like it?
"Morality?" I've seen you post here for years, and I've never seen you give a shite about a film's "morality."
I have plenty of times, but...
If you want to start talking about Hostel or something, I'm all for it. For a movie that gets talked about a lot, it's the only one that is discussed at length, often, and wins all awards and is morally bankrupt from inception to release to interpretation. You should go back in time and read my write-up on The Godfather from the first MWADS, you'd get a better idea of my position, because I still don't think you understand.
(I think the artist WANTED to glorify mob life, so there's that. If you read the book, you'll know which one.)
That sounds like the excuse of a guy who can't come up with a plausible reason to say he dislikes a film (just for the frick of it), so he grasps for a straw that cannot be refuted.
As humans, and as taking a subjective stance on art, SOMETIMES it is difficult for us to articulate why we do or do not, like something. We've talked all this time about me not liking the film, while you've been exempt from explaining your side, so that's problem number one. Problem number 2, is that even if you CAN explain something, it will always be laced with your own experiences, it isn't fact (your assumption that I must like Godfather no matter what). My opinion comes from two things after watching the film the first time:
1. The Godfather is a technically well made film with good performances
2. I thoroughly disliked (and was bored and troubled) while watching it
For me, and I've admitted, I try to approach films first with the artist's intentions in mind, second with the quality of how he or she hits that mark. Those are the two most important things for a film to do first (third would be how well it represents its form of art).
Those are facts, it isn't disliking to dislike. Seriously, that's a WEAK assessment of someone else's opinion.
So then what do I do? I try to figure out WHY. I go back to the characters I didn't care about, the visuals of the violence, the way I just got bored because it was impossible to care about the story., look at how the film situates itself in culture, etc. and find that these probably were (but may not be) the exact reasons why I disliked it.
You do the exact opposite, so while you find new ways and intricacies to enjoy the film, EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T MEANT TO BE ENJOYABLE OR GREAT, I find other little things that I don't like or flat out despise. You may not be right, I may or may not be right, but that assessment is driven by our own personal view of the film itself and how we orient that with our beliefs about film.
(How we assess those things is up to you, I start with the intent of the artist, I don't know where you do).
Yes, I think about these things. Coco will probably say it gets in the way of my enjoyment sometimes, maybe so.
I would assume, part of the reason we are all on this board is to talk through those things as a group in some instances (I'm not the only one disliking the Godfather anyway), that is he entire dialog around film, we are ever forming and reassessing the ways we come to our opinions or express our feelings about film. We also are better armed with rationalizations of others, and sometimes things make more sense.
The whole point, gain a better understanding of film.
I cannot debate your own personal "morality," ergo your position is inarguable.
It's thin and weak, and transparent.
And you're being a giant hypocrite, if my position is inarguable, then so is your view. Because you immediately assess me as "contrarian to be contrarian," and my position is "thin, weak, and transparent," then I also can't break out of that either, because I HAVE to like the film.
If I am contrarian to be contrarian then every word is laced with a lie, how can I argue that. Your assessment is that I'm a liar, no matter what, it doesn't even matter that I've admitted the film is well made. I didn't enjoy the experience, therefore I'm a liar. How can I argue against that?
And because of THAT approach to my OPINION (the question was "dislike, not is something a bad film) we've spent all this time talking about my opinion, and not even the film itself. Which could be read a number of ways (that you have no idea why the film is great, it just is, therefore people who don't like it are liars or stupid).
This post was edited on 4/13 at 8:47 am