Sign In
Register
Help
This post has been edited by kenmorefield: 20 December 2005 - 02:29 PM
Page 1 of 1
The Godfather Failed to Make A+F Top 100 but still a Pretty Decent Film
MultiQuote
#3
Posted 13 August 2005 - 01:44 PM
I think Godfather is a terrific film, but I don't consider it a spiritual film--which is not to negate the impact the film had on your spiritual life. A film that is essentially not about spiritual matters can impact one's spiritual life.
In my opinion, just because a film focuses on moral aspects of the human condition doesn't necessarily mean the film is spiritual--even when the film treats these issues in ways that are compatible with religious concepts.
For me a depiction or relationship to a higher power or overt religious concepts have to be close to or at the heart of spiritual film. There were several really terrific films that I did not select because of this. For example, I think L'Avventura is a phemonal film. Its depiction of the human condition (particularly between men and women) and human nature is compatible with Christian sense of sinfulness and even forgiveness and grace, but that doesn't make it a spiritual film for me. It's a humanistic film, but not a spiritual one.
Is a humanistic film (a film that doesn't flinch from depicting human weakness, but can express compassion towards this weakness at the same time) equivalent to a spiritual film?
In my opinion, just because a film focuses on moral aspects of the human condition doesn't necessarily mean the film is spiritual--even when the film treats these issues in ways that are compatible with religious concepts.
For me a depiction or relationship to a higher power or overt religious concepts have to be close to or at the heart of spiritual film. There were several really terrific films that I did not select because of this. For example, I think L'Avventura is a phemonal film. Its depiction of the human condition (particularly between men and women) and human nature is compatible with Christian sense of sinfulness and even forgiveness and grace, but that doesn't make it a spiritual film for me. It's a humanistic film, but not a spiritual one.
Is a humanistic film (a film that doesn't flinch from depicting human weakness, but can express compassion towards this weakness at the same time) equivalent to a spiritual film?
#4
Posted 13 August 2005 - 05:11 PM
FWIW, my comments on the Godfather trilogy. Sample quote:
: For me a depiction or relationship to a higher power or overt religious concepts have to
: be close to or at the heart of spiritual film.
Dude. It's called The GODFATHER. And that ain't just a title. Look at the baptism scene. Look at it again. And then look at it again.
The original Godfather is one of those films that I sometimes watch just so I can relive its what-if moments -- those fateful moments where a relatively minor act sends everyone's destinies spinning in a new direction. The conspiracy that binds the plot of the entire first film together is the direct result of a brief lapse in Sonny's judgment, when Sonny speaks out of turn while his father Vito is discussing a possible deal with another gangster. Vito refuses to accept the deal, and if Sonny hadn't expressed his interest in the deal, then the other gangsters would not have tried to assassinate Vito in an attempt to force Sonny to go along with the deal -- and if Vito's life had not been threatened, then his son Michael would not have tried to protect him at the hospital, and Michael would not have had his jaw broken by the corrupt cop -- and if the cop hadn't broken Michael's jaw, then Michael would not have assassinated him and might never have become a gangster himself. Things like that.
Jazzaloha wrote:: For me a depiction or relationship to a higher power or overt religious concepts have to
: be close to or at the heart of spiritual film.
Dude. It's called The GODFATHER. And that ain't just a title. Look at the baptism scene. Look at it again. And then look at it again.
#5
Posted 13 August 2005 - 06:12 PM
The baptism is a terrific scene, but I saw the use of the religious ceremony and language as way to add metaphor and poetry to the film. A film can use religious/spiritual motifs in a way to enhance the film, but that doesn't mean the film is spiritual.
I don't see God or a higher power in the film, despite the title. I guess someone could make the case that the film is a allegory, but I never saw it that way, nor have I heard of that particluar interpretation of the film.
In general, I see the film as a tragedy about a man who tries to avoid the criminal life, but gets sucked in mainly because of his love and loyalty to his family. Ironically, this love leads him to do terrible things, eventually against a member of the family he loves. (There are other aspects of the film, some of which could be spiritual.) This is not necessarily a spiritual story--unless any story that is about descending into a evil life is spiritual. Personally, my definition of "spiritual," in this context, is that broad.
I don't see God or a higher power in the film, despite the title. I guess someone could make the case that the film is a allegory, but I never saw it that way, nor have I heard of that particluar interpretation of the film.
In general, I see the film as a tragedy about a man who tries to avoid the criminal life, but gets sucked in mainly because of his love and loyalty to his family. Ironically, this love leads him to do terrible things, eventually against a member of the family he loves. (There are other aspects of the film, some of which could be spiritual.) This is not necessarily a spiritual story--unless any story that is about descending into a evil life is spiritual. Personally, my definition of "spiritual," in this context, is that broad.
#6
Posted 13 August 2005 - 07:00 PM
BTW, FWIW, when Roy Anker and I were asked to provide our all-time top ten lists for Books & Culture seven years ago, "The Godfather Saga" topped his list (or did it? he appears to have ordered his list chronologically, and he didn't list any films earlier than 1972...).
Jazzaloha wrote:
: I don't see God or a higher power in the film, despite the title. I guess someone could
: make the case that the film is a allegory, but I never saw it that way, nor have I heard
: of that particluar interpretation of the film.
A film does not have to be allegorical or portray "a higher power" in order to be "spiritual".
: In general, I see the film as a tragedy . . .
Well, yes. Hence kenmorefield's reference to Aristotle's Poetics and "catharsis" and so on in the post that began this thread.
Jazzaloha wrote:
: I don't see God or a higher power in the film, despite the title. I guess someone could
: make the case that the film is a allegory, but I never saw it that way, nor have I heard
: of that particluar interpretation of the film.
A film does not have to be allegorical or portray "a higher power" in order to be "spiritual".
: In general, I see the film as a tragedy . . .
Well, yes. Hence kenmorefield's reference to Aristotle's Poetics and "catharsis" and so on in the post that began this thread.
#7
Posted 13 August 2005 - 09:06 PM
Well, the way I have defined "spiritual" film is a film that has a higher power, a relationship to a higher power and/or over religious concepts at the heart of a film. Since A&F has not given a definition, thats' what I'm going by.
Besides, you seemed to suggest that the title, The Godfather, is one of the reasons the film is a spiritual one.
I'm not familiar with Aristotle's ideas about poetics, but are you saying that a film with those elements is essentially a spiritual film?
Besides, you seemed to suggest that the title, The Godfather, is one of the reasons the film is a spiritual one.
I'm not familiar with Aristotle's ideas about poetics, but are you saying that a film with those elements is essentially a spiritual film?
#8
Posted 14 August 2005 - 12:58 PM
Jazzaloha wrote:
: Well, the way I have defined "spiritual" film is a film that has a higher power, a
: relationship to a higher power and/or over religious concepts at the heart of a film.
: Since A&F has not given a definition, thats' what I'm going by.
Fair enough.
: Besides, you seemed to suggest that the title, The Godfather, is one of the reasons
: the film is a spiritual one.
Not quite. To quote a portion of what I wrote: "And that ain't just a title. Look at the baptism scene. Look at it again. And then look at it again." The title merely encapsulates the spiritual irony (and the moral decay beneath the irony) that is most pronounced in the baptism scene but runs throughout the film as a whole.
And while I'm not a big fan of Part III, I have to say I do like how that film takes the spiritual implications of the story and makes them pretty explicit.
kenmorefield wrote:
: I wonder what spiritual or religious lesson (if any) you take from this observation or
: think the film can prompt...
For me, the key thing, I guess, is that I feel these characters had CHOICES to make in these moments that, in hindsight, might look like "fate", but if the characters really look at those moments like that, then I would say they're just trying to let themselves off the hook.
Perhaps, on one level, character IS fate. Perhaps Sonny really could not have helped himself when he stepped out of line and asked a question that he shouldn't have asked -- a question that exposed a possible division in the family ranks, which the other families then tried to exploit.
But what about the cop who breaks Michael's jaw? There was no reason he HAD to do that. Perhaps brutality, motivated even by racism, had worked its way into his system so deeply that he could not help but attack Michael for standing up to him outside the hospital. But I still believe he chose to do what he did.
And then we come to the question of how Michael responds to this attack. In one sense, Michael is absolutely right -- his proposed course of action is a finely calculated, thinking-outside-the-box solution to the family's immediate problem (even if it escalates the war and thus gives rise to other problems). But he's also doing it for revenge; he says "it isn't personal, it's strictly business," but deep down he knows better. (This may be more explicit in the book.)
Like you say, the film shows people making a series of little choices which ultimately add up to one big evil. Each choice seems justifiable, or excusable, or reasonable, at the time it is made. But each choice takes an evil situation and perpetuates it, or entrenches it.
It's like Roger Ebert said in his review of Road to Perdition:
: our own actions (and those of ones we love) send out ripples that can and do have
: consequences. What an awesome and scary thing to contemplate that we may
: some day be called to account not just for every bold murder or deliberate
: blaspheme but also for every thoughtless (or even just careless) word or gesture
: that leads to consequences that remained invisible to us at the time.
Absolutely -- although I would insist, as well, that other people have their own choices to make as the ripples go out.
: Well, the way I have defined "spiritual" film is a film that has a higher power, a
: relationship to a higher power and/or over religious concepts at the heart of a film.
: Since A&F has not given a definition, thats' what I'm going by.
Fair enough.
: Besides, you seemed to suggest that the title, The Godfather, is one of the reasons
: the film is a spiritual one.
Not quite. To quote a portion of what I wrote: "And that ain't just a title. Look at the baptism scene. Look at it again. And then look at it again." The title merely encapsulates the spiritual irony (and the moral decay beneath the irony) that is most pronounced in the baptism scene but runs throughout the film as a whole.
And while I'm not a big fan of Part III, I have to say I do like how that film takes the spiritual implications of the story and makes them pretty explicit.
kenmorefield wrote:
: I wonder what spiritual or religious lesson (if any) you take from this observation or
: think the film can prompt...
For me, the key thing, I guess, is that I feel these characters had CHOICES to make in these moments that, in hindsight, might look like "fate", but if the characters really look at those moments like that, then I would say they're just trying to let themselves off the hook.
Perhaps, on one level, character IS fate. Perhaps Sonny really could not have helped himself when he stepped out of line and asked a question that he shouldn't have asked -- a question that exposed a possible division in the family ranks, which the other families then tried to exploit.
But what about the cop who breaks Michael's jaw? There was no reason he HAD to do that. Perhaps brutality, motivated even by racism, had worked its way into his system so deeply that he could not help but attack Michael for standing up to him outside the hospital. But I still believe he chose to do what he did.
And then we come to the question of how Michael responds to this attack. In one sense, Michael is absolutely right -- his proposed course of action is a finely calculated, thinking-outside-the-box solution to the family's immediate problem (even if it escalates the war and thus gives rise to other problems). But he's also doing it for revenge; he says "it isn't personal, it's strictly business," but deep down he knows better. (This may be more explicit in the book.)
Like you say, the film shows people making a series of little choices which ultimately add up to one big evil. Each choice seems justifiable, or excusable, or reasonable, at the time it is made. But each choice takes an evil situation and perpetuates it, or entrenches it.
It's like Roger Ebert said in his review of Road to Perdition:
"Road to Perdition" is like a Greek tragedy, dealing out remorseless fates for all the characters. Some tragedies, like "Hamlet," are exhilarating, because we have little idea how quirks of character will bring about the final doom. But the impact of Greek tragedy seems muted to me, because it's preordained. Since "Road to Perdition" is in that tradition, it loses something. It has been compared to "The Godfather," but "The Godfather" was about characters with free will, and here the characters seem to be performing actions already long since inscribed in the books of their lives.
[ snip ]
After I saw "Road to Perdition," I knew I admired it, but I didn't know if I liked it. I am still not sure. It is cold and holds us outside. Yes, there is the love of Hanks for his son, but how sadly he is forced to express it. The troubles of the mob seem caused because Rooney prefers family to good management, but Michael Sullivan's tragedy surely comes because he has put it the other way around--placing Rooney above his family. The movie shares with "The Godfather" the useful tactic of keeping the actual victims out of view. There are no civilians here, destroyed by mob activities. All of the characters, good and bad, are supplied from within the mob. But there is never the sense that any of these characters will tear loose, think laterally, break the chains of their fate. Choice, a luxury of the Corleones, is denied to the Sullivans and Rooneys, and choice or its absence is the difference between Sophocles and Shakespeare. I prefer Shakespeare.
: I like that you started with Sonny's words because it parallels the question of how[ snip ]
After I saw "Road to Perdition," I knew I admired it, but I didn't know if I liked it. I am still not sure. It is cold and holds us outside. Yes, there is the love of Hanks for his son, but how sadly he is forced to express it. The troubles of the mob seem caused because Rooney prefers family to good management, but Michael Sullivan's tragedy surely comes because he has put it the other way around--placing Rooney above his family. The movie shares with "The Godfather" the useful tactic of keeping the actual victims out of view. There are no civilians here, destroyed by mob activities. All of the characters, good and bad, are supplied from within the mob. But there is never the sense that any of these characters will tear loose, think laterally, break the chains of their fate. Choice, a luxury of the Corleones, is denied to the Sullivans and Rooneys, and choice or its absence is the difference between Sophocles and Shakespeare. I prefer Shakespeare.
: our own actions (and those of ones we love) send out ripples that can and do have
: consequences. What an awesome and scary thing to contemplate that we may
: some day be called to account not just for every bold murder or deliberate
: blaspheme but also for every thoughtless (or even just careless) word or gesture
: that leads to consequences that remained invisible to us at the time.
Absolutely -- although I would insist, as well, that other people have their own choices to make as the ripples go out.
#9
Posted 15 August 2005 - 03:26 AM
Briefly,
Ken Thanks for starting a thread on the Godfather. A glaring omission I would admit (I seem to remember starting a thread on it on the old board).
For the record, The Godfather is one of my 3 favourite films. By strange coincidence Magnolia is one of the others. Make of that juxtaposition what you will. (BTW How do you feel about Cool Hand Luke?)
That said I voted it lowish (I think a 3, but may have been a 2), in relation to your particular charges I'll respond as follows:
1 - The objection that “Everyone’s seen it/knows it”
This for me isn't a feature. In fact I liked that the last list included films such as The Matrix, because these form a much important way in to the list, and give it credibility amongst (many) people who would just dismiss it as irrelevant if it was all obscure films. It refelects the populus as a whole
2 - The objection that “it is a great film but it isn’t spiritually significant.”
I think I agree with you that the film is spiritual. It's a great defence / proposal, and I agree that it is very moral in outlook, and for me, unlike Jazzhola, that is good enough.
My question is as to it's "significance". The list essentially is a limited list rather than "here is an unspecified list of films that are spiritual, films not on this list aren't" type affair, and the question is "does this film deserve to be on our list". For me there are spiritual things about the film, it is indeed a spiritual film, but for me I don't see it's spirituality as that significant. Now that may in part be because I have come on a different journey, and saw many films with ambiguous characters whose bad choices destroy their good intentions. I only saw The Godfather for the first time maybe 3 years ago. That said whilst I appreciate so much about the film that isn't really one of the top things.
So, erm sorry. Bein g the one who started this "start a thread to persaude others about a film for the top 100" thread I know a bit of what you're feeling, but there it is for me.
Thaks for your thoughts though, gives me a greater appreciation of the film
Matt
Ken Thanks for starting a thread on the Godfather. A glaring omission I would admit (I seem to remember starting a thread on it on the old board).
For the record, The Godfather is one of my 3 favourite films. By strange coincidence Magnolia is one of the others. Make of that juxtaposition what you will. (BTW How do you feel about Cool Hand Luke?)
That said I voted it lowish (I think a 3, but may have been a 2), in relation to your particular charges I'll respond as follows:
1 - The objection that “Everyone’s seen it/knows it”
This for me isn't a feature. In fact I liked that the last list included films such as The Matrix, because these form a much important way in to the list, and give it credibility amongst (many) people who would just dismiss it as irrelevant if it was all obscure films. It refelects the populus as a whole
2 - The objection that “it is a great film but it isn’t spiritually significant.”
I think I agree with you that the film is spiritual. It's a great defence / proposal, and I agree that it is very moral in outlook, and for me, unlike Jazzhola, that is good enough.
My question is as to it's "significance". The list essentially is a limited list rather than "here is an unspecified list of films that are spiritual, films not on this list aren't" type affair, and the question is "does this film deserve to be on our list". For me there are spiritual things about the film, it is indeed a spiritual film, but for me I don't see it's spirituality as that significant. Now that may in part be because I have come on a different journey, and saw many films with ambiguous characters whose bad choices destroy their good intentions. I only saw The Godfather for the first time maybe 3 years ago. That said whilst I appreciate so much about the film that isn't really one of the top things.
So, erm sorry. Bein g the one who started this "start a thread to persaude others about a film for the top 100" thread I know a bit of what you're feeling, but there it is for me.
Thaks for your thoughts though, gives me a greater appreciation of the film
Matt
#11
Posted 15 August 2005 - 10:55 AM
kenmorefield, I like the historical nature of your argument. Too often it is possible to see the word "spiritual" and think that we must be talking about something that "transcends" time and space, or something that is "universal", etc., etc. But spirituality is expressed -- EMBODIED -- in particular times and places, and I think it is a great idea to consider films for their significance in the HISTORY of our culture's spiritual journey.
#12
Posted 15 August 2005 - 12:57 PM
Great thread.
First A&F100 election, I wasn't behind GODFATHER as a contender for a few reasons. Mostly because when I'd seen the first two installments maybe five years previously (for the first time), they just didn't do much for me. Blame it on my mood, blame it on inflated expectations, blame it on seeing the two films on a small screen in the afternoon from muddy videotapes. Who knows? But also partly because, however potent the films might be (i.e. factoring in the negative subjective factors), I still didn't see them as particularly spiritual. Yes, they show people in severe moral compromise, but so do a vast number of just plain good, serious films. Yes, there's a Catholic milieu, but that's never convinced me that films with such a setting have anything more "spiritual" about them than movies in any other cultural milieu. If they "get" Catholicism, that's different: here, I wasn't sure anybody really did, either the participants in the stories nor the creators.
Last fall I was intent on giving the GODFATHER movies another try. This time, I "got" them. They gripped me, affected me. And, interestingly enough, that new affinity with the movies opens me to give more cred to the spiritual aspects of the film. (One idea that often lurks around my head, though I've never decided how legitimate it is, goes something like this: if we've only ever stood outside a film, in a certain sense we can't really discern it. I know that runs completely counter to the idea that we can only exercise a true judgement from a position of objectivity, but I've never bought that, particularly with respect to a movie, novel, short story or play. Whatever.).
Thanks for laying out your thoughts on that aspect of the films, Ken. I figure there are any number of ways a film can be "spiritual," and one of those ways is to chart the damnation of a soul, especially if it's perceived or rendered from a specifically "spiritual" (i.e. and e.g. religious, or Christian, or Catholic, or "transcendent" or "eternal") perspective. When I started Pacific Theatre, on of my co-founders had been in (or almost been in?) a production of "Good," which details the corruption and damnation of a man in Nazi Germany, an experience to which he referred when describing his reasons for co-founding our theatre company: so he didn't have to participate in really depraved / depraving (?) stories like that. So I was fascinated when another woman, who wanted to help co-found our company but was prevented from joining us by practical reasons, sent me a program for a Los Angeles production of that very play, urging us to produce it. In the program was reprinted a quote from C.S. Lewis about the incremental steps by which a soul commits itself to damnation, very much like Ken's wife's comments. For this actress, that interpretive lens rendered the story profoundly redemptive, a "cautionary tale" at the very least. And, me being a "both / and" kind of guy, I was suddenly very interested in staging the play. (Couldn't: too big a cast. But still...)
Anyhow, for me, a new appreciation of the films' power, combined with Ken and Peter's comments (supplemented by C.S. Lewis and the "Good" conversation from my past) incline me to see these films as "spiritually significant" now. When it comes to the voting, I suppose it will now depend where they fit in comparison to the spiritual significance of so many other "spiritually significant" films. (And truly, I don't do one bit of voting based on whether certain films will "be good to have on the list," representing this or that: I do think it's cool when the list is as wildly diverse as last year's list, demonstrating that a million bushes might now and then be lit with holy flame, but I restrict my voting to my own personal judgement to which films do I consider the most "spritually significant" - or "significantly spiritual," for that matter)
Anyhow, thanks for putting "Les peres du dieu" into consideration for me, gentlemen. They're no MAGNOLIA, but they might just rate....
First A&F100 election, I wasn't behind GODFATHER as a contender for a few reasons. Mostly because when I'd seen the first two installments maybe five years previously (for the first time), they just didn't do much for me. Blame it on my mood, blame it on inflated expectations, blame it on seeing the two films on a small screen in the afternoon from muddy videotapes. Who knows? But also partly because, however potent the films might be (i.e. factoring in the negative subjective factors), I still didn't see them as particularly spiritual. Yes, they show people in severe moral compromise, but so do a vast number of just plain good, serious films. Yes, there's a Catholic milieu, but that's never convinced me that films with such a setting have anything more "spiritual" about them than movies in any other cultural milieu. If they "get" Catholicism, that's different: here, I wasn't sure anybody really did, either the participants in the stories nor the creators.
Last fall I was intent on giving the GODFATHER movies another try. This time, I "got" them. They gripped me, affected me. And, interestingly enough, that new affinity with the movies opens me to give more cred to the spiritual aspects of the film. (One idea that often lurks around my head, though I've never decided how legitimate it is, goes something like this: if we've only ever stood outside a film, in a certain sense we can't really discern it. I know that runs completely counter to the idea that we can only exercise a true judgement from a position of objectivity, but I've never bought that, particularly with respect to a movie, novel, short story or play. Whatever.).
Thanks for laying out your thoughts on that aspect of the films, Ken. I figure there are any number of ways a film can be "spiritual," and one of those ways is to chart the damnation of a soul, especially if it's perceived or rendered from a specifically "spiritual" (i.e. and e.g. religious, or Christian, or Catholic, or "transcendent" or "eternal") perspective. When I started Pacific Theatre, on of my co-founders had been in (or almost been in?) a production of "Good," which details the corruption and damnation of a man in Nazi Germany, an experience to which he referred when describing his reasons for co-founding our theatre company: so he didn't have to participate in really depraved / depraving (?) stories like that. So I was fascinated when another woman, who wanted to help co-found our company but was prevented from joining us by practical reasons, sent me a program for a Los Angeles production of that very play, urging us to produce it. In the program was reprinted a quote from C.S. Lewis about the incremental steps by which a soul commits itself to damnation, very much like Ken's wife's comments. For this actress, that interpretive lens rendered the story profoundly redemptive, a "cautionary tale" at the very least. And, me being a "both / and" kind of guy, I was suddenly very interested in staging the play. (Couldn't: too big a cast. But still...)
Anyhow, for me, a new appreciation of the films' power, combined with Ken and Peter's comments (supplemented by C.S. Lewis and the "Good" conversation from my past) incline me to see these films as "spiritually significant" now. When it comes to the voting, I suppose it will now depend where they fit in comparison to the spiritual significance of so many other "spiritually significant" films. (And truly, I don't do one bit of voting based on whether certain films will "be good to have on the list," representing this or that: I do think it's cool when the list is as wildly diverse as last year's list, demonstrating that a million bushes might now and then be lit with holy flame, but I restrict my voting to my own personal judgement to which films do I consider the most "spritually significant" - or "significantly spiritual," for that matter)
Anyhow, thanks for putting "Les peres du dieu" into consideration for me, gentlemen. They're no MAGNOLIA, but they might just rate....
#13
Posted 10 April 2008 - 07:53 AM
People with too much time on there hands 101... Image from The Godfather, using the entire script.
#14
Posted 10 April 2008 - 01:49 PM
Actually I think it's just done with a standard computer programme - at least there was one about 8 years ago that would make a group of images into one particular image.
I suppose the people who made that programme probably had too much time, but, y'know.
Matt
I suppose the people who made that programme probably had too much time, but, y'know.
Matt
#15
Posted 30 June 2008 - 06:11 PM
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/37293
Godfather Trilogy on Blu-Ray. That's it, I'm buying a player as soon as I can.
Godfather Trilogy on Blu-Ray. That's it, I'm buying a player as soon as I can.
#16
Posted 01 July 2008 - 12:06 AM
Wilson Smith wrote:
: Godfather Trilogy on Blu-Ray. That's it, I'm buying a player as soon as I can.
Woo-hoo! I've already got a player (a PS3, to be precise), and I have always thought that the Godfather DVDs were in bad need of an upgrade; the images are so shadowy, it's like the DVD cannot help but make them splotchy, too.
: Godfather Trilogy on Blu-Ray. That's it, I'm buying a player as soon as I can.
Woo-hoo! I've already got a player (a PS3, to be precise), and I have always thought that the Godfather DVDs were in bad need of an upgrade; the images are so shadowy, it's like the DVD cannot help but make them splotchy, too.
#17
Posted 23 September 2008 - 04:34 PM
The Blu-Ray is here. And there's a promo website at TheGodfather.com.
There's a timeline at the bottom of the website, which is interesting, in that it combines events from real life with events from the film. So it includes the death of Pope John Paul I (who died under mysterious circumstances shortly after he was elected) in 1978 AND the events of The Godfather Part III (in which a pope is elected and then assassinated in his sleep shortly afterwards) in 1979. I guess Pope John Paul II was never elected in the movies' timeline? Or was there an extra pope BETWEEN the two John Pauls?
It also says Michael Corleone died in 1997, which is interesting, considering that the film depicting his death came out in 1990.
There's a timeline at the bottom of the website, which is interesting, in that it combines events from real life with events from the film. So it includes the death of Pope John Paul I (who died under mysterious circumstances shortly after he was elected) in 1978 AND the events of The Godfather Part III (in which a pope is elected and then assassinated in his sleep shortly afterwards) in 1979. I guess Pope John Paul II was never elected in the movies' timeline? Or was there an extra pope BETWEEN the two John Pauls?
It also says Michael Corleone died in 1997, which is interesting, considering that the film depicting his death came out in 1990.
#18
Posted 14 October 2009 - 08:03 AM
Singer Al Martino, who played singer/actor Johnny Fontaine, has passed away at age 82.
Story here.
Story here.
This post has been edited by Baal_T'shuvah: 14 October 2009 - 08:03 AM
Page 1 of 1
