The rotten core at the centre of this well-made film

Rating: 5/10 (1 June 2009)

What exactly are we talking about when we amateur critics write these reviews? What exactly is 'a film'? Certainly it is more than technical ability. It is more than just the acting, or the directing, or the story. It is everything which makes up that film. So The Godfather II (as did the first The Godfather) presents us all with something of a dilemma. It was made in the early Seventies when, possibly, the public, though not the police and the FBI, were largely unaware of the reality of the Mafia. The yellow press (called the red tops here in the UK) gave them unlimited publicity, and even when we were shown pictures of the bullet-riddled bodies of bosses lying outside barbershops and restaurants, there was a certain thrill about it all. Then came The Sopranos, whose central conceit of a Mafia head of a family suffering from panic attacks was more or less the keynote to a certain disrespect of the whole shooting match, and the public's view is different. We now see the Mafia for what it they are: nasty, brutish, cynical, heartless, sadistic thugs with, it would seem, no redeeming features. Forget all that talk of 'honour' and 'loyalty', these men, and the women who tolerated their brutality and were quite happy to live off its proceeds, were and are scum. So what to make of films such as the Godfather series? They are extremely well-made, well-written, well-directed, well-acted, well-designed and they stand head and shoulders above their peers. But in an odd sort of way, these films are thoroughly devalued by the central lie they tell. Vito Corleone and his son Michael are portrayed as honourable men, wise men, men to be admired. They are almost portrayed, in their convoluted heroism, as honest men. But they are nothing of the kind. They are brutal and murderous and do not deserve to be admired. The men in The Sopranos apparently came far closer to portraying the real mafiosi. Indeed real mafiosi are widely quoted as saying as much. So why did Coppola choose to present them as something close to heroes? And that brings me back to my first question and the very real dilemma faced by someone making a judgement of these very well-made films: as the portrayal of what is basically scum as honourable men is so central to Coppola's films, where does that leave the films? I really have no answer. As a piece of entertainment, of course, the Godfather films are superb. But once you consider the wider context, the butchery, the misery, the killing, the heroin dealing, the pimping, the whoring, you do have to wonder. As film-making this would get 8/9 our of 10. But given the corrupt moral ambiguity at its centre, only a 5.