Masaryk University

Faculty of Arts

Department of English
and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Lucie Doležalová

The Godfather: Francis Ford Coppola’s

Adaptation
Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: doc. PhDr. Tomáš Pospíšil, Dr.

2012
 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently,
using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

……………………………………………..
Author’s signature

2
 Acknowledgement
I would like to thank my supervisor, doc. PhDr. Tomáš Pospíšil, Dr., for his valuable
advice, patience, and guidance through the writing process.

3
Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 5

2. Literature and Film ................................................................................................... 6

2.1. Theory of Adaptation ............................................................................................ 6

2.2. Practice................................................................................................................ 10

3. New Hollywood ...................................................................................................... 13

4. The Gangster Genre ................................................................................................ 20

5. Francis Ford Coppola: The Godfather .................................................................... 28

5.1. Francis Ford Coppola.......................................................................................... 28

5.2. Background of the Filmmaking .......................................................................... 32

5.3. The Godfather and the Gangster Genre .............................................................. 39

5.4. Analysis .............................................................................................................. 44

5.5. Italian Americans in The Godfather ................................................................... 48

5.6. The Godfather Effect .......................................................................................... 51

6. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 56

7. Works Cited ............................................................................................................ 58

4
1. Introduction

According to the study of literature adaptation, rarely does a movie appear that

surpasses the success of its source novel, mainly because an adaptation is often seen as

a kind of betrayal of the original text. Nonetheless, filmmakers use a number of

methods and sources and basically create an original story of their own. Thus, the

comparison with the book is sometimes inadequate and the movie should be evaluated

within its cinematic influence and subsequent effect. One such movie that achieved the

status of a masterpiece, is Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather.

The Godfather movie, namely Part I on which my thesis focus, since it is the

adaptation of Mario Puzo’s novel, is considered to be a milestone in the development of

the gangster genre and a turning point in the perception of a leading-role criminal.

However, there are several pieces of evidence from the background of the filmmaking,

as well as from the theory of genre itself, that show that although the movie fits the

description of a gangster movie, there is also a possibility to view it as a chronicle of a

family, set in an Italian-American environment, pursuing the American Dream. Studies

also illustrate the immense impact the audience’s perception can have on the

categorization of the movie as well.

To understand why the movie is so exceptional and influential, one has to get to the

background of the filmmaking, as well as grasp the situation of the given period.

Altogether, every tiny detail creates an overall picture that contributes to the analysis of

the movie, and moreover, to its categorization in terms of genre.

The aim of my thesis is to provide insight into the filmmaking of The Godfather

movie and reveal the background of the adaptation of the novel. There is also an effort

to elaborate on the genre of a movie and to present a different point of view, since the

5
movie itself became one of the most influential movies and thus have an impact on

other movies which led to an assumption that Francis Ford Coppola reinvented the

gangster genre ever since.

The first part of my thesis focuses on the theory of adaptation of a literary text and

its practice. Firstly, it provides a theoretical analysis of the relation between the two

media and in the second part, the actual employment of the theory and obstacles which

filmmakers face in practice. The second part discusses social problems of the era of

1960s, which was the foundation for new development in Hollywood film industry.

Afterwards, the focus is put on the main part of the thesis, which is the analysis of The

Godfather movie. It is divided into several subchapters, concerning Francis Ford

Coppola’s life; background in filmmaking; and an explanation of the gangster genre. In

addition, my thesis involves an insight into the depiction of Italian Americans, as it is

important for the overall comprehension of the movie as a family chronicle, and also

includes the public response.

2. Literature and Film

2.1. Theory of Adaptation

The concept of an adaptation of a particular literature work has been discussed ever

since movies became part of culture. Considering the style and narration of a movie, it

is simply a ‘narrowed’ narration of a written story. Andrew Dudley explains that “The

broader process of adaptation has much in common with interpretation theory, for in a

strong sense adaptation is the appropriation of a meaning from a prior text” (29). The

story line is altered and fit into limited amount of time and thus, logically, narrowed in

6
terms of length and details. Nonetheless, it does not necessarily mean the simplification

or modification of a story line. On the contrary, particular features that are not so

important for a reader, may be highlighted in a visualized form as to draw the viewer’s

attention and also for the depiction of a particular character or situation. Thus the

omnipresent cliché, that movies cannot truly and perfectly depict the author’s intention,

is just ignorance of the facts and techniques used for in adaptation.

An adaptation of a written story usually involves several steps, including writing

an appropriate script. The script can be written by various people, such as a writer of the

novel himself or herself, a screenwriter, or for instance a director. In fact it is more often

a collaborative work between all of them. As Robert Stam points out in his work, there

are two styles of adaptations. One is a style of the Hollywood-lite values of an

independent art film, and the other is clichéd Hollywood blockbuster entertainment (2).

Although it is simplified, film genres oscillate more or less between those two styles.

The adaptation of a book and the writing of a screenplay is motivated by the final result,

as well as aimed at a particular type of audience. Sometimes a film adaptation even

symbolizes a split of a screenwriter between those two styles, as the aim of the film

changes throughout the filmmaking. Robert Stam also presented an interesting idea,

based on Darwinian theory, that adaptation can be seen in terms of evolution (3). One

may understand this statement as an evolution of technology, where visualization of a

written language is logical subsequent step as a matter of survival in the modern society,

or as evolution within the filmmaking industry itself where the art of creating a film

does not only rely on the director’s imagination and ability to come up with a riveting

plot, but also the ability to plausibly depict a story already created in someone else’s

7
imagination. It also depends on whether the story of the book itself is based on a true

story, where it is easier to trace the facts, or whether it is completely novel story

invented in somebody’s mind. Therefore an adaptation is often ‘seen as “dumbed down”

version of source novel (Stam 8) as if the audience prefers simplicity instead of a

detailed, accurate and sophisticated depiction of every single moment and event that

happens in a novel. Robert B. Ray even suggests that some films even rely on prior

knowledge of a source text and thus the film then could be explained mainly by its

function (40). However, Robert Stam’s concept of ‘dumbed down’ version may evoke

the sense of vulgarization of the source novel or disrespect towards original ideas. On

the other hand, the audience is the main target and so the audience determines the way

an adaptation is acquired. Since there is wide range of people of different classes,

origin, age and many others, a production team of a movie may decide to shift the main

focus and could even change the original idea of a source novel.

There can be at least two points of view on an adaptation. An adaptation is either

understood as parasitical on a source novel or in conflict with it (Stam 8). Parasitical,

naturally suggest stealing of ideas or sponging off somebody’s success. On the other

hand, this is just the perception of general audience and does not fully concern the

director’s originality and effort to elaborate or develop completely new ideas and

realizations based on the existing story. The conflict between an adaptation and source

text is usually based on whether it is seen as creative or not. When a film is a mere

screen realization of a source text, it is perceived more as non-creative and plain. On the

contrary, when a movie makes an attempt at creativity, the whole team of people

involved are considered to be disrespectful to the original as well as distorting it. What

is usually and excessively criticized are costumes, character differences and period in

8
which it is situated, as well as locality. Therefore, it implies that an adaptation can never

win. However, criticism cannot be generalized as proven by several examples of movies

that surpassed all the expectations and outperformed the success of a source text.

An adaptation of a particular literary text should not be understood as an attempt

at a literal remake of a book for the screen, but rather as a production team’s effort to

use the story line in order to create a visual depiction their own perception of the story.

It is thus natural that a director’s or screenwriter’s imagination may clash with that of a

reader. However, there is not an intention not to. A film and a book, although following

the same story and its development, are separate entities that are aimed at different

audiences. Conversely, the visual side of the story does not lie on several people, but

only on a reader’s imagination. Nonetheless, thanks to this basic feature of a written

narration, the story can be reinterpreted throughout the years and its individual

realization fitted exactly according to period values of society. This is mainly caused by

the fact that whereas in book ideas are only alluded, because words carry the subjective

meaning for a reader and he or she fills them individually, a film has no other option,

but the impersonal one. It leads to an inevitable act of confrontation with somebody’s

imagination, as Robert Stam points out, “When we are confronted with someone else’s

phantasy of a novel [...], we feel the loss of our own phantasmastic relation to the source

text, with the result that the adaptation itself becomes a kind of ‘bad object’.” (15). The

general notion about the adaptation concept only encourages the sense of betrayal when

watching a movie based a book that one has already read. Nevertheless, Andrew Dudley

elaborates on the ambiguous relationship between a source text and adaptation. “The

9
adapter hopes to win the audience to the adaptation, by the prestige of its borrowed title

or subject. But at the same time, it seeks to gain certain respectability if not aesthetic

value, as a dividend in transaction” (30). Almost every movie is based on some story

which was written or narrated before. Yet there are films that outperformed the original

story and thus are memorable for the audience in its visual form. Francis Ford

Coppola’s The Godfather definitely lies among these.

2.2. Practice

The theory of adaptation is naturally quite different from its actual practice.

Whereas one may theoretically argue against the fidelity to the source text, the practice

of an adaptation is limited within logical boundaries that Robert Stam called „the

automatic differences“(16). The concern of a movie does not lie only in the level of

discussing the story line. Unfortunately, there are many other factors that a production

team has to take into consideration and that influenced the development and processing

of the story. Among them, as Robert Stam illustrated, are primarily budget, technology,

material infrastructure (such as cameras, film stock, laboratories,...), collaborative

project, which means some interaction with other people as opposed to the author’s

exclusivity, and many others (16). All of them, and especially the budget and

technology, have an impact on what is to be filmed. Thus with respect to these factors,

an adapted movie cannot simply be considered as anything else, but original and

creative work with the director’s team’s personal imprint. The imprint of a collaborative

work is then the main feature that distinguishes the film and the source novel and is also

10
the most important element in challenging the concept of fidelity of an adaptation.

Richard Maltby argues that “This critical discourse operates at a relatively untheorized

level, assuming that the literary work possesses a stable, transhistorical meaning” (80).

Moreover, the adaptation would not be possible in terms of logical deduction. If a story

is to be visualized somehow, it always involved the imagination of at least one person.

If the same story was adapted by several directors who at least share similar point of

view and techniques of adaptation, the films produced would be completely different

from each other as people naturally are. Therefore the nature of the concept of an

adaptation challenges its theory, supported by the basic elements under which a film is

produced.

On the other hand, cinema does not necessarily have to be seen as something

inferior to literary world. Some stories may be better suited for a particular type of

media whereas some not. Cinema is considered to provide greater opportunity for

expression, since the picture, the sound and the emotions of characters can be projected

at the same time and thus can easily impress a viewer. The musical background can

create whatever atmosphere a director chose and expresses the sense of sadness, love,

drama, and many others. If the movie is particularly memorable, one usually recall the

musical score connected to particular scenes. Or vice-versa, when a musical score is

heard out of context it is easy to link it with a memorable movie. With The Godfather

movie, one automatically hears the sound of the waltz, composed by Nino Rota, and

recollect the movie’s gloomy atmosphere along with the typical Italian temperament.

The advantage of filmmaking is also director’s capability to direct the interest of the

audience in whatever he or she chooses to, highlighting the factors and scenes which are

of special personal importance and popularity. Moreover, what can be also a

considerable advantage in making of the movie is the background of a director, as well

11
as personal interest in the story and his or her choice of actors who contribute to the

overall atmosphere and, especially, success of the movie. The cinema also offers the

special ability to depict the past vividly and appropriately which is used by Francis Ford

Coppola in the second part of The Godfather, getting back to the life of Vito Corleone

and the connection with Michael Corleone’s beginning of a gangster career. The process

of filmmaking also involved a particularly interesting and distinguishing feature, Robert

Stam emphasizes, and that is the concept of single or double entity. Whereas novel can

have only single entity, a character, cinema offers the entity of a character and a

performer at the same time (21). What naturally follows is the inevitable mutual

identification. Mutual means that not only a performer identify himself or herself with a

given character, but characters are perceived and linked by audience to particular

performers and vice-versa. Although seemingly tiny details, this mutual identification

create the uniqueness and sensation of a particular movie.

Despite the artistic conflict between the original and the adaptation, the source

material simply cannot be rejected. Richard Maltby emphasizes that once the source

material gained particular commercial success, it cannot be denied on its basis (84).

Therefore, there is a challenge for a director to either, at least, follow the success of a

book, or trying to achieve a cinematic counterpart of that success. Whether the film

adaptation poses more difficulties or, on the other hand, offers more opportunities is

merely on a production team’s ability of filmmaking. However, an adaptation often

tends to present original ideas in a distorted way and it can have the effect of

unintentional audience’s response. Which goes hand in hand with censorship, since

some scene may be considered either violent or obscene, whereas they were originally

meant to truly and accurately portray the events in a book. The misunderstanding of the

violence in The Godfather part one, is the example how audience can completely invert

12
the director’s ideas and thus categorized his movie even into a different genre than it

should belong according to the director’s realization.

3. New Hollywood

Before the actual area of New Hollywood started, filming industry had undergone

hard times during the 1930s, when affected by the Great Depression, and subsequent

years. Although people still sought some kind of entertainment, Hollywood industry

was not immune sufficiently to the Depression and movie attendance had fallen rapidly.

Movie genres were directed intentionally in a way of cheering up to help people to

forget, at least for a little while, their everyday problems. Documentation of this era on

Digital History website describes in the article “Hollywood and the Great Depression”

the atmosphere where, “The screen comedies released at the depression’s depths

expressed an almost archaistic disdain for traditional institutions and conventions”

(“Hollywood’s America”). Thus, in the early years of depression, where depiction of

gangsters and violence was used widely, mainly because a lot of real-life gangsters

served as a model in that time, was, in the course of time, abandoned. Social outrage

raised fears and gave the impulse to stricter control. As opposed to era which was about

to come, the Great Depression forced filmmakers to adapt to given conditions. The

change and stricter control was enforced not only by filmmakers themselves, who

definitely possessed a sense for national issues, but as Digital History states, the Breen

Office was established to take control of cinema production. On the other, what

sustained the same was America’s national pride and strong belief in individual success,

13
which only proved “the vision of America as a classless society” (“Hollywood and the

Great Depression”).

When Hollywood film industry overcame the major problems caused by the Great

Depression, World War II was at its outset. Beginning with the 1941, Hollywood started

to be concerned about the content of movies and whether it could have affected the

participation of the United States in the war. Thus movies’ content began to be chosen

carefully and adequately to the needs of government and although the censorship was

not heavily applied, it was at least strengthened. Data in the Digital History webpage

reports that, “Although the industry released number of preparedness films [...] between

1939 and 1941, it did not release a single film advocating immediate American

intervention in the war in the allies’ behalf before Pearl Harbor (“Hollywood’s

America”, “Wartime Hollywood”). Nonetheless, when America entered the war,

Hollywood reacted briskly with its contribution to the war effort as a moral support.

Movies tended to encourage patriotism, national pride, as well as diverse ethnical

background which bond America’s sense for unity. Surprisingly enough, Hollywood did

not undergo a decrease in movie attendance as during the Great Depression years, but

proved to be more profitable, as highlighted in the Hollywood’s America document.

“Spurred by shortages of gasoline and tires, as well as the appeal of newsreels, the war

boosted movie attendance to near-record levels of 90 million a week” (“Hollywood’s

America”, “Wartime Hollywood”). Yet the picture of the actual atmosphere and fear in

14
the battlefield was somehow distorted, as the message was conveyed by comedies or

musicals.

The World War II undoubtedly changed the film industry from then on and exerted

a considerable control of movies’ content. It is thus not surprising that Hollywood

experienced a sharp decline in attendance, as Hollywood’s America data presents.

“Within just seven years, attendance and box receipts fell to half their 1946 levels”

(“Post-War Hollywood”). Two main factors were responsible for this radical decrease in

attendance. First, the changing interests of society in terms of spending money. Families

in suburbs favored listening to the radio more than going to the cinema in the city

center. Similarly, newlyweds focused more on investing money in buying houses and

appliances and war veterans, coming back, sought marriage and a peaceful family life.

The second factor, closely connected to the first, was the boom of television. Post-War

Hollywood document reports that, “In 1940, there were just 3,785 TV sets in the United

States. Two decades later, nine homes in every ten had at least one TV set”

(“Hollywood’s America”). That simply meant that television became a more convenient

and less expensive form of entertainment than cinema going. Watching TV affects the

family in their homes and took over the control in terms of period fashion influence.

Besides the family-based social changes, the cinematography as well suffered from

external factors. One of them was the decline of export to foreign markets, since

European countries began to focus more on their own filmmaking and imposed

restriction quotas on American movies. However, a more serious issue for Hollywood

was the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) that enforced strict control

15
on movie contents in order to trace potential communist infiltration, as the Post-War

Hollywood document emphasizes. Since HUAC made a lot of filmmakers either

unemployed or black listed, those who remained were discouraged to produce a film

that would even remotely suggest political controversy (“Hollywood’s America”).

After several years of despair, decrease in attendance, and allegations, the decade of

coming of innovative and socially conscious young filmmakers marked the beginning of

so-called ‘New Hollywood’. The depiction of either everyday problems of ordinary

people or recalling of old good merry times, were replaced with anti-establishment or

socially conscious movies. The shift among filmmakers consisted in coming of a ‘new

young blood’ to the film industry and thus influencing considerably the film market and

production. However, not only were the community of filmmakers and directors getting

younger, but so too, the spectrum of audience became younger.

The Digital History provides statistics that “By the early 1960s, an estimated 80

percent of the film-going population was between the ages of 16 and 25” (“The ‘New’

Hollywood”). The shift occurred particularly from middle-aged audience to college

moviegoers. Seth Cagin and Philip Dray point argue that “The boom periods,

Hollywood’s ‘golden ages,’ are characterized not only by profits and artistic successes,

but also by the realization of an active communion between moviemakers and

moviegoers which reflects a system of broadly shared values” (xi). And namely those

‘shared values’ were the main basis for the New-Hollywood-period relationship between

16
filmmakers and filmgoers, which was carefully cultivated and developed. Both of the

groups sense the strong need for unity and shared interest and most importantly, thanks

to their similar age, a sense for taking action, “Addressing itself to the concerns of a

relatively narrow spectrum of the total population, the New Hollywood entered into a

symbiosis with a rebellious generation that was in the process of challenging every

cherished tenet of American society” (Cagin, Dray xiii). The emergence of new wave of

young moviemakers also meant benefit for already established studios that were in

crisis and many of them either bought up by bigger corporations or had gone bankrupt.

The studios’ desperate need for money led to hiring those young, innovative and

potentially successful directors on whom they could rely on in terms of mutual benefit.

In return, studios had to give in, concerning their power, and started to have less control

over the movie produced.

Since the society of cinemagoers had changed significantly, the New Hollywood

movie acquired its typical features. Young directors widely preferred joy, freshness,

energy, sexuality, and, most importantly, the personal artistic value of a movie. The

personal imprint of a director usually prevailed the movie success and typical artistic

effect became the foreshadowing the climax of a movie. Young directors also in their

curiosity combined the elements of European and Asian art cinema and let thus come

into being new type of experimental filming. On the other hand, the depiction of their

style was more realistic, since the shooting took place in the exact location and thus

reinforced the sense of reality on the screen. The themes of the films were usually anti-

establishment oriented, focusing primarily on politics and expressing their disagreement

in various ways, such as rock music, drugs and many others. In “The ‘New’ Hollywood”

document on Digital History webpage, it is suggested that young directors practiced

17
widely the idea of revising and rewriting old film genres in a new fashion, “A number

of most influential films of the late ‘60s and ‘70s sought to revise older film genres and

rewrite Hollywood’s earlier versions of American history from a more critical

perspective”. The example above all is the movie Bonnie and Clyde, which is pointed

out as the beginning of the popularity of the anti-hero, “the film aroused intense

controversy for romanticizing gangsters and transforming them into social rebels” (“The

‘New’ Hollywood”). Similarly, Francis Ford Coppola with the movie The Godfather

revised and challenged the gangster genre by providing a critical depiction and

explanation of Sicilian’s family business and the pursuit of the American dream.

However, in the mid- and late-70s the focus of studios changed once again and

the new idea how to make big money appeared. This new era is particularly marked by

the popularity of escapist blockbusters, such as George Lucas’s Star Wars (1977), where

the highly politicized theme was no longer present. Therefore, new era of upcoming

movies was seen as more socially and politically relaxed and more undemanding. The

targeted audience was now mass-oriented and production of wide-released films

dominated. The studio control had increased once again and that enforced the new way

of movie marketing – merchandise. The article on Digital History website illustrated

that with films as Star Wars the huge conglomerate corporations realized the new way

of profiting from a film as much as possible. Namely it was manufacturing of various

toys depicting a movie’s heroes or villains, recording of soundtracks, using other media,

18
and the use of sequels, where particularly The Godfather movies had begun a new style

of naming of sequels, referring to them simply by numbers.

19
4. The Gangster Genre

Word ‘genre’ comes from French word which means ‘type’ or ‘kind’. Genre is

employed in various types of media and literature and in cinematic field it has occupied

its position in the study of movies for a long time. However, various scholars dispute

about the theory of genre and stress that the unified definition is almost impossible

to provide. As particular genres are subject to change and the definition itself is

a developing element. Nonetheless, several types of approaches to the genre are adopted

and elaborated by scholars, among them Steve Neale and Rick Altman.

Whereas a genre can emerge mainly on its own, despite the fact that there is always

some primary impulse - such as other arts, media, or social issues - other movies can

develop from each other. Thus, it is difficult to trace the history of a genre and base

on it the genre’s definition. Steve Neale, in his book Genre and Hollywood, challenges

several concepts of various authors, but at the same time, stresses a number of important

points related to the genre theory. He divides the genre theory to aesthetics theories and

socio-cultural theories, the later quite similar to Altman’s approach. Neale suggests that

the basis on which scholars, as well as the audience, grounded the assumption

of a movie genre is, for instance, the repetition. He observes that it is namely “the

nature of the conventions, meaning structure and characters they were held to embody

or contain” (207). The repetitive pattern that appears among movies, however, does not

have the power to classify the movie clearly. As the theory says that genres can develop

from other media, as well as from each other, the well-known pattern seen

in a particular movie does not necessarily mean the exclusion of others. As the climaxes

20
of movies vary from one another, so does the pattern. Steve Neale implies that,

“The degree to which story pattern in genres are predictable, meanwhile, depends in

part on what is meant by story pattern and in part on what is meant by predictable.”

(209). Similarly, Rick Altman agrees that “it is perfectly possible for a film to be

simultaneously included in a particular generic corpus and excluded from that same

corpus” (7). Thus, even the approach to genre theory proves to be ambiguous and

unclear, since the nature of a movie not to follow the same path, although the idea may

be similar. Steve Neale here points out that, for example, the depiction of the World

War II was, at its time, widely used in various genres, though it does not mean that the

theme of the war belongs only to one specific genre. Besides, it is an example how

a social issue may give a rise to new genres, such as resistance film, the home front

drama and the home front comedy (224). Rick Altman completely agrees on that theory

when he emphasizes that, “We need to recognize that not all genre films relate to their

genre in the same way or to the same extent. By simultaneously accepting semantic and

syntactic notions of genre we avail ourselves of a possible way to deal critically with

differing levels of genericity.” (12).

In the article of A Semantic/Syntactic Approach to Film Genre, Rick Altman

presents the theory from his point of view. He explains that,” While the semantic

approach has little explanatory power, it is applicable to a large number of films.

Conversely, the syntactic approach surrenders broad applicability in return for

the ability to isolate a genre’s specific meaning bearing structures.” (11). He then

21
compares the approaches to lists of features. He calls them inclusive and exclusive lists.

Whereas the inclusive list is basically a set of features established by generic theories,

the exclusive list suggests an attempt to reach the meaning or structure of a genre (7).

However, this theory, again, does not necessarily mean the only possible and correct

way how to evaluate a movie. Besides, scholars should take into consideration both of

them, as they posses and mainly stress different features. Steve Neale also emphasizes

that genres themselves follow the arrangement of those lists, presented by Altman.

“Different genres possess their own individual characteristics, their own settings, their

own conflicts, and their own ways of resolving the ideological issues with which they

deal.” (227).

Finally, the response of an audience to a movie and its evaluation partially

participates in overall classification of a movie genre. Whereas some genres may be

according to this evaluation chosen and repeat on commercial purpose, other can be as

well based on the society’s pressure and on the Hollywood’s ideology to strengthen its

own position. Rick Altman illustrates that “most genres go through a period of

accommodation during which the public’s desires are fitted to Hollywood’s priorities

(and vice-versa)” (14). Nonetheless, the audience response is an element that

contributes to the overall possibility to reach, at least, approximate genre of a movie.

Since every movie differs from others, every movie needs individual analysis, with

regard to the genre history and development, when possible, and the audience’s

probable assumption of classification of a genre. However, sometimes the boundaries

22
between intended genre of a film and the audience’s response are so thin that it may lead

to significant misinterpretation, based on seemingly obvious repetitive features.

Among plenty of genres, used to define particular movie, gangster genre has its

specific position. Gangster movies are naturally centered on criminals, thieves, and

bootleggers during prohibition and generally people operated outside the law within

their own constructed rules and values, often disrespecting human life. The portrayal of

those criminals has varied ever since Hollywood started to present them on the screen

and it was not only a filmmaker’s credit when the main protagonists were categorized

either as heroes or villains. The genre recorded particular boom in 1920’s and 1930’s

when they represented a significant influence on American society and to some extent it

could be said that they created a kind of myth. Despite the fact that Little Caesar (1930)

and Scarface (1932) are undoubtedly among those most influential, Steve Neale argues

and makes and important point at the same time, that not only three films should be

considered as classic representations and marked as the beginning of the era of gangster

movies. He observes that publications usually point out only three films, Little Caesar

(1930), The Public Enemy (1931), Scarface (1932) and he tries to disprove this

universal public knowledge by stating several examples of previous films, such as The

Doorway to Hell (1930), City Streets (1931), The Last Parade (1931), or The Secret Six

(1931) (79). Nevertheless, the stories of those omnipresent influential films focus

mainly on crime and violence and usually involve the rise and the fall of a criminal, as

making his illegal way to a certain dream and power, and suggest at least a moral

punishment. However, whether likeable or not, these criminals are the most common

representations of a society’s failure of system and unfulfilled promises and dreams.

23
 Steve Neale, who devoted his research to Hollywood genres, however, rather

criticizes the narrow focus within the genre. He disputes about the generalization of the

definition, as well as universal highlighting of a hero as often the only important figure

in a story (76). This approach is quite unique among others that try to define gangster

genre precisely. However, as the genre is subject to change throughout the years, it

cannot be clustered and codified generally. Steve Neale illustrates that “changes in the

nature of gangster film are linked to changes in the nature of American society, from the

world of the Depression in the early 1930s to the world of corporations and anonymous

bureaucracy in the 1950s, the 1960s, and the early 1970s” (77). Thus one cannot make a

judgment on the movie, whether it is gangster genre or not, only on the basis of the

violence depicted, since it is not the key factor, although connected. “What is even more

problematic is the extent to which critical and theoretical preoccupations have shaped

the very definition of the gangster genre film, helping to decide in advance which films

really qualify as gangster films and which do not” (78). Therefore, the gangster genre

may be seen rather as a depiction of dilemmas of ‘our times’ and metaphor for a quest of

significance.

Criminals are ‘products’ of society and its failure in some part of the system, either

political or economic, or both. Nonetheless, they provide a mirror to things society

refuse to see and solve, as well as means how to deal with a given situation. The

problem of immigrants, for instance, is quite obvious one. They came to America from

poor family background to fulfill their dreams, which usually consists of making fortune

and providing a family with a luxurious and easy life America is offering. The focus is

quite often more material than just the acquirement of power, such as cars, clothing and

24
jewelry and the story is almost all the time narrated from their point of view. Naturally,

the genre became widely used in the first years of the Great Depression where

filmmakers turned to either uplifting themes from everyday misery, or to true depiction

of the society and its developed crime. At that time, there were plenty of real-life

criminals, who served like models for the movies, as Miguel Bigueur documents.

“Many of these real life criminals would become the focal point for the main character

development for gangster films. Real life criminals such as: John Dillinger, Al Capone,

Machine Gun Jelly, Baby Face Nelson, and Bird Man, would help lead to the creation

of and also the increase in popularity of the gangster genre in cinema” (“The Gangster

Genre”).

As was already mentioned above, the years of the Great Depression influenced the

attendance of movie goers for some period of time. Moreover, even the particular movie

genres experienced a kind of development. “Beginning in the late twenties, Hollywood

gangsters were starting to be put in a brighter light, no longer being the dark evil villains

who were the dregs of humanity that they had been portrayed previously” observes

Miguel Bigueur (“The Gangster Genre”). This beginning is mainly marked by the

release of the especially important movie for the new era, Bonnie and Clyde (1967), as

marked in great amount of movie publications. Bonnie and Clyde represented new kinds

of heroes in gangster films – Steve Neale marks them as “youth-oriented” gangster films

(81) - and which stood in the opposition to such movies as Little Caesar (1930) or

Scarface (1932), which “defined the tension between the individual and society in a

classic way” (Man 110). The classic way meant the rise and fall of a hero and satisfying

25
punishment for his sins along with moral approval by society, as already mentioned

above. The gangsters are usually presented as victims of particular circumstances,

which occurred in their lives, and tend to be pictured nearly as madmen. What started to

be different with Bonnie and Clyde was the fact that they embodied the dreams and

beliefs of the society and the way they dealt with the well-known problems for most of

the people of that period, was more than likeable and corresponding. The attitude of

heroes was very much in the spirit of sixties, where Vietnam War was in the

background. Miguel Bigueur claims that these kinds of films “redefined and

romanticized the crime/gangster genre and the depiction of screen violence forever”

(“The Gangster Genre”). Since violence, blood and cruelty were no longer the main

feature and a directors’ focus, the gangster genre started to present criminals in nearly

sympathetic way, justifying their motives on the basis of love, family, or friendship.

Thus new heroes, with their attitude, completely challenged the ideology of law and

order.

The reason why movies experienced prolonged phase of non-glorified heroes, was a

movie law which is widely known as either Production Code or Hays Code, after

Hollywood censor. The Production Code was enforced after 1933, the year following

the release of Scarface, which imposed a ban on the glorification of crime in movies.

Glenn Man asserts that, “With the enforcement of the Production Code after 1933,

gangster films diminished the tension between an attractive individual gangster figure

and the need for a stable community by altering the narration’s focus or by

incorporating strong prosocial figures within the narrative to counteract the threat of the

26
gangster” (111). Moreover, with the Production Code, for the first time in a history of

film industry there was an organization enforcing the law, which simply said what

would be seen on the screen and appreciated by an audience. Fortunately, the

Production Code did not last longer than necessary and stopped to be enforced in late

1960s. The rating system, which categorize movies according to their content, went into

effect straight after and thus partially continued with the enforcement, although violence

or glorifying of a taboo element was just marked, not banished. Therefore crime in

movies once again stood at a crossroad of either way of depicting of it.

Nonetheless, crime is still essentially the mirror of failing society, either depicted by

corruption, injustice, crime, violence, or pure bloodshed. However, the way in which

these criminal acts are presented is the most important one. Whereas the reader of a

book may picture his or her hero in an individual way and according to one’s moral

needs for satisfaction, in a movie a viewer is provided with the created vision of a

director and thus limited within some boundaries. On the other hand, it does not mean

that the audience is forced to perceive the hero in one particular way. Although a

director may suggest a kind of glorification of the antihero, that does not necessarily

mean justification and forgiveness of his sins. Quite similarly, as readers of a book, an

audience undergoes a process of apprehension concerning a given situation of a hero

and then evaluation. However, since the visual part, as an additional element in contrast

to a book, has an impact on the viewer directly, favor for the hero is more likely to

happen and as is typical for the gangster genre – the gangster has an obvious appeal for

an audience.

27
5. Francis Ford Coppola: The Godfather

5.1. Francis Ford Coppola

“Behind every great fortune there is a crime” (Balzac). Similarly, behind every great

masterpiece there is a out-of-the-ordinary life of the artist. For better understanding of

Francis Ford Coppola’s outstanding family saga The Godfather, one has to get

acquainted with the life of the director and particular events that created the overall

background of filmmaking. Francis Ford Coppola was born to Carmine and Italia

Coppola in Detroit, Michigan, 1939. Since he was born in the city of the automobile

industry, his parents gave him the middle name “Ford”, which he has kept all his life,

even though other people sometimes struggle with calling him by three names, since it

is not that common in American society. Francis was born into a second-generation

Italian American family and has two siblings, older brother and younger sister. Nick

Browne mentions in his brief extract from Coppola’s biography that Coppola’s father,

Carmine Coppola, “was a professional musician, a concert flautist, composer, and

conductor, who played under Toscanini in the NBC Symphony. Thus Young Francis

was influenced by his father’s talent and sense for art, it also had an impact on his

school years, since the family had to move quite often because of Carmine’s business.

Nonetheless, Francis Ford Coppola considered himself to a be New Yorker, since he

spent all his childhood in the New York borough of Queens.

It is said to be a tradition in Coppolas’s generation of Italian Americans to enter

one of the professions, like medicine or law. Thus when teenage Francis asked his

28
parents for money to buy a little Kodak camera, he was refused in fear that he may

choose a life that they didn't want for him. Nevertheless, he was helped by a janitor and

inadvertently started to pursue his later career. Later, he performed the title role in

Cyrano de Bergerac and also tried his luck in writing some plays by his own. Thanks to

this, he was offered a scholarship at Hofstra University, in Hempstead, New York,

which later became his source for cast in his movies, since this was the only school he

managed to stay for the whole studies without moving and thus to make some friends.

Gene D. Phillips corroborates this fact by providing details about Coppola’s classmates,

“Two of his classmates, Ronald Colby and Robert Spiotta, would later be involved in

producing some of his films. James Caan, who would appear in The Godfather and

other Coppola pictures, was another classmate, as was Lainie Kazan, whom Coppola

would cast in One from the Heart”(10). After several directorial attempts in student

productions, he won “the Hofstra Award for outstanding service to Hofstra Theater Arts

Department, conferred on him by the chair of the department” (Phillips 10). This only

reinforced his persuasion of a career as a movie director, “On Monday I was in the

theater, on Tuesday I wanted to be a filmmaker” (Phillips 11). Being satisfied and

enthusiastic about his studies at Hofstra University, Coppola decided to enroll in the

master’s program at the University of Carolina at Los Angeles (UCLA). However, at the

time when was studying at the university, film school was not popular enough and was

not taken seriously as an academic major either. Moreover, he missed the old times of

the comradeship he experienced at Hofstra, and could not identify with the people at the

university, nor with the system and facilities he was provided with. In his vision he did

29
not want to just learn about the technical side of cinema, but rather about acting and

directing. However, the conditions to enter the movie business were quite demanding

and strictly set. Gene D. Phillips illustrates that “The common practice in the

Hollywood studios was for an aspiring movie director to serve an apprenticeship in a

film studio, where he would have to work his way up to the status of director by way of

lesser jobs” (12). Meanwhile, Coppola was broke and even the encouragement from the

best-known female director, Dorothy Arzner, did not help him much. Thus the only

possible way how to make at least some money to shoot his planned picture was by

making an erotic film. He successfully managed to raise a considerable amount of

money, sufficient enough to finance his shooting. Gene D. Phillips describes the entry

to the movie business when stated that, “At age twenty-one Coppola was entering the

film business on the very bottom rung of the ladder by making a short entitled The

Peeper “(12). Nonetheless, thanks to this humbling first step in the movie business,

Francis Ford Coppola was a decade later, at the age of thirty-one, offered The

Godfather.

In the meantime The Godfather movie was still in the far future, Coppola obtained

apprenticeship from Roger Corman, an independent-producing director, who offered to

finance Coppola’s first commercial feature called Dementia 13 (Browne 11). Corman

was firstly searching for an assistant and approached Coppola’s tutor, Dorothy Arzner.

Since Coppola was Arzner’s ‘pet’ and basically the only promising student at that time,

she sent him to Corman straight. Gene D. Phillips then claims that “Coppola was the

first of several young filmmakers that Corman provided an entry into the film business

30
in Hollywood, a roster that includes Martin Scorsese (Raging Bull), Jonathan Demme

(Silence of the Lambs), and Peter Bogdanovich (The Last Picture Show)” (17). Working

for Corman enabled Coppola to make his way through film industry and to start his

career better than with just low-rank erotic films. Moreover, he acquired the necessary

practical skills, which he found useful later, as well as Roger Corman’s connection in

the commercial movie business.

However, Francis Ford Coppola has in his mind an idea of independent

filmmaking and new way of combining cinematic elements together. His idea became

real in 1969 when Zoetrope had represented Coppola’s individual and auteurist

filmmaking till the mid-1990s. Nick Browne points out that it was “the public face and

form of Coppola’s attempt to merge personal, auteurist, film making with an ensemble

cast with a new type of studio film and associated distribution” (11). Coppola set up his

studio in San Francisco and as it became later apparent, the Zoetrope concept creates the

basis of his reputation and presented him as the godfather of the New Hollywood.

Thanks to four particular movies – The Godfather (1972), The Godfather II (1974),

Conversation (1974), and Apocalypse Now (1979) - during 1970s he achieved

international acclaim and status of well-known and respected director. With the movie

Apocalypse Now he illustrated that he can not only produce blockbusters of The

Godfather type, but also, according to his original visions, an independent “ultimate”

kind of a movie.

After several years of success, however, Francis Ford Coppola experienced

bankruptcy, as well as personal artistic decline. The business concept of Zoetrope

31
possessed a noble idea of helping and developing new projects and gaining greater

control over the process of filmmaking. Unfortunately, these projects were financed

from loans secured by future revenues and since Coppola was committed to pay for the

projects and for the staff at the same time, the end was quite inevitable. Although

Coppola sought a chance in new technologies which could maintain and develop film

production once again, his expectation did not meet the happy ending and he was forced

to abandon Zoetrope. Therefore he moved once again to the independent style of

directing with his personal imprint and artistic skills and was involved mainly in small

experimental works outside the mainstream cinema. As Nick Browne and several other

film critics acknowledge, the movie Tucker: The Man and His Dream (1988), “is

generally understood as a personal allegory of creativity and survival” (13). He also

completed The Godfather III at this time and, unfortunately, experienced one more

personal and business bankruptcy in 1992.

5.2. Background of the Filmmaking

Despite the overwhelming success of The Godfather movie, the background of the

filmmaking was completely different from one may assume. Since Paramount was in

crisis and so was Francis Ford Coppola, the movie was not intended first to be a

timeless masterpiece. Rather it was considered to be a rescue attempt to save the studio

money, as well as help Coppola to pay off his debts in Zoetrope. After several quarrels

over who should direct the movie it was finally Francis Ford Coppola who was not

interested in shooting the movie. Moreover, despite final approval to direct the movie,

his position could not be ensured throughout the filming and if it had not been for the

32
cast and particular events, he would have been replaced by another director, who

seemed to be more experienced and suitable for the movie, after all.

As was the situation of the New Hollywood described above, Hollywood was

simply collapsing in the 1960s and Paramount was no exception. Since the decrease of

movie-goers and box office success, the studio was in desperate need for a hit.

However, it responded with increase of production which proved to be a misguided

decision. In 1967, it was Robert Evans who replaced Yablans at the position of the

production chief and Paramount started to register an improvement. Jon Lewis in his

essay emphasizes that it was Evans who was responsible for two number one box office

films – Love Story (1971) and The Godfather (1972). Later he acquired the screen

rights for The Godfather by almost ‘bribing’ Puzo to get them, as Jon Lewis illustrates

in his essay, “Evans advanced Puzo $12,500 and in exchange virtually stole the screen

rights to one of the biggest novels of the decade” (Browne 25). The interesting fact

about The Godfather movie is that no one expected it to be anything more than a period

blockbuster which would pay everyone out of debts. Paramount was in crisis and

desperately needed a hit, Puzo was in debt and so he was paid for the screen rights even

though the book was not finished yet. And of course, even Francis Ford Coppola was in

a desperate situation, since his Zoetrope studio was about to bankrupt.

However, when Evans first approached Coppola to direct The Godfather,

surprisingly, Coppola rejected. Gene D. Phillips in his close study of the director

acknowledges that, “When Francis Ford Coppola first considered filming Mario Puzo’s

novel, The Godfather, he perused the book and found it a rather sensational, sleazy

crime novel” (87). This was not far from the truth, because Puzo himself acknowledged

33
in several publications that The Godfather story was not written to be a work of

literature, since he had already written another two novels with that purpose. The

problem was, however, that not only Coppola, but several others that were approached

by Evans before him, refused to take part in a gangster genre movie which seemed to

glorified gangsters and organized crime in a way they did not share. Yet Evans knew

what he wanted and the only way to produce the film was to hire an Italian or even

better, Italian-American director, so as to “smell the spaghetti” as he put it (Biskind

142). Unfortunately, Francis Ford Coppola was not the subject of his interest and it is

ironic enough that when Robert Bart, succeeded to persuaded Evans to hire Coppola,

Evans had same difficulties with the director himself, since Coppola thought of himself

more as an artist than a director. Peter Biskind captured the tension with Evans’s words,

“He can’t get a cartoon made in this town, yet he doesn’t want to make The Godfather”

(143). Finally, it was George Lucas, the director of Star Wars, who persuaded Coppola

to direct the movie. He stressed the importance of the money for Coppola’s studio and

Coppola was forced to admit it.

Nevertheless, Francis Ford Coppola insisted on changing the idea of the movie.

Although after directing the movie, he has been widely recognized as the director who

changed the gangster film genre, he never planned to and never acknowledged to do

that. Moreover, Gene D Phillips emphasizes that Coppola felt offended at the time of

the film release “by the notices that unfairly chastised him for celebrating and

sentimentalizing the Mafia. Therefore he relied upon sequels to show Michael, as the

new don, more cruel and cold-blooded (111). Thus, Francis Ford Coppola should not be

considered as someone who changed the gangster movie genre ever since and offered to

34
see the Mafia from another and more glamorous and sentimental point of view. This

concept clashes with the fact that he never intended to make a film which should be

strictly and clearly categorized as a gangster film. And according to study of Steve

Neale, as was already mentioned above, there does not exist a clear definition of a

gangster genre. Moreover, the genre is generally depiction of problems of a given

society. Therefore, the theme of a family, which is strong and apparent throughout the

whole story, clashes to some extent with the theme of violence and crime which is

usually associated with gangster genre. Rather than depiction of a life of a gangster,

Coppola insisted on directing the movie as a family chronicle of Italian Americans,

pursuing happiness in America, a promised land, where organized crime was the only

passport to get there. Because at that time, the United States did not provide immigrants

with many career opportunities and thus when Vito Corleone came to America to secure

his family with certain kind of luxury, he soon found out that organized crime was

nearly the only way to achieve it. Which, on the other hand, is not an excuse for his

behavior, but it is a reason why Coppola preferred to direct the film in this way. Thus

when the audience sees the movie, it is kind of moral test for the viewer. From the

beginning of the movie, the viewer is presented with Vito Corleone’s attempt to secure

the family, as well as stressing the importance of loyalty and avoidance of conflict.

However, as the movie proceeds to Michael’s promotion to the Don, the viewer may

spot the contrast the movie suddenly adopts. Especially in the scene of baptizing of

Michael’s newborn child and series of murders Michael commits, put in the contrast as

to highlight his cold-blooded and crueler character than that of his father. When the

viewer realizes that at the beginning, on the wedding, he tried to persuade Kay that he

does not have anything in common with his family, saying “That’s my family Kay, it’s

35
not me.”, the end of the movie shows his hypocrisy as well as indifferent relation to his

family. In this comparison, the importance of the family as a main theme of the movie,

gains a logical response for the viewer and he or she can thus assume that whether

Michael wanted or not, once he was part of the family, he was inevitably part of the

family business.

The first test for Robert Evans came when Coppola was working on the cast.

Peter Biskind describes this collaboration in a way that “The casting of The Godfather

was a battle between the Old Hollywood approach of Evans, and the New Hollywood

ideas of Coppola. Everyone had a candidate for every part, and no one seemed to have

the ultimate authority” (153). The aim of the thesis is not the description of the whole

process of the battle for the cast Coppola preferred, but to show his stubbornness and

belief in his opinion what is best for that particular movie. He knew that no one else, but

true Italian Americans have to be cast, since an Italian without New York accent would

not satisfy his visions, not in the least. Not only Al Pacino, who, according to Evans,

had very little experience to be cast at one of the major roles, but mainly Marlon Brando

caused considerable problems. Since his reputation as an actor was not among the best,

as he proved to be unreliable and temperamental, both characteristics quite unacceptable

for Evans. However, Puzo himself admits that when he was writing the novel, he wrote

it with charismatic Marlon Brando in his mind (Phillips 94). In the supplements for the

blu-ray collection, Coppola recalls that “I pleaded as if I were a lawyer pleading for

someone’s life”. Coppola, fortunately had in his mind that only Italian-Americans, no

one else, can precisely and trustworthily depict the life of a Italian family in America

and this was what he favored most and above all. He mentions in the documentary that

36
he wanted Al Pacino at all costs because he had map of Sicily in his face. And even

though Al Pacino strongly opposed to be tested for the movie, he admitted that it was

Coppola and his strong belief in him that made him change his mind. Of course, it later

proved to be the best decision and Coppola’s effort was returned when actors later stand

by him. Coppola was, indeed, quite annoying to the crew, when he spend considerable

time also on casting extras which he wanted to be trustworthy and with, at least, Italian-

looking faces too. His attitude was not definitely the one Hollywood industry was used

to, and rumors had it that he was going to be fired. “Coppola heard through the

grapevine that Evans had actually made an overture to Kazan about substituting him for

Coppola. This bit of news caused Coppola nightmares” (Phillips 96). Fortunately,

Coppola impressed Evans with the pivotal scene where Michael shoots Sollozzo in the

restaurant thus saved not only his position, but won a lot of admiration for Al Pacino.

“This scene certainly saved me,” Coppola admits in his supplementary comment on blu-

ray, “and it won a lot of admiration for Al. He really showed his stuff – his

concentration and intensity were riveting.”

Apart from cast, Francis Ford Coppola was also forced to fight for the shooting

locations of the movie. Firstly, the movie was considered to be low-budget movie with

the emphasis on making big and easy money for the studio. However, if this was what

they wanted, they shouldn't have hired a stubborn Italian-American to direct the movie.

Coppola continuously insisted on increasing the budget for the movie, as well as

shooting days to make the movie truly in the atmosphere of the novel. However, he had

to constantly fight with the production crew and even though he usually ended up with

his proposals, these long-lasting fights were quite exhausting and sometimes even more

37
demanding than working on the movie itself. Nonetheless, Puzo admired him for his

toughness and strong belief and later even admitted that he proved to understand Italian

culture even better than he himself, especially in the scene with the dead horse in Jack

Woltz' bed. “Coppola’s staging of this scene is an improvement on the manner in which

Puzo handled it in the book, as the novelist was the first to admit” (Phillips 102). The

change in this particular scene was only slight and almost insignificant for other people,

yet it was an evidence of Coppola’s ability to sense the details men would deal with in

an Italian-American manner. On the other hand, Coppola himself was quite surprised,

nearly shocked by this particular scene by the false glorifying by the audience. He

obtained a lot of complaints from animal lovers, but no one was upset with the fact that

Vito Corleone was pure murderer and got people killed. Phillips points out,

“Furthermore, Coppola still cannot understand why people were more outraged by the

head of a dead horse in the movie than by the three dozen people murdered in the

picture” (102). When the film was first released, Coppola was accused of encouraging

the audience to appreciate the ‘glamour’ with which organized crime operates on the

screen and supporting the behavior of real-life mafia (Phillips 109). However, Coppola

comments on this in his documentary that it was not the intention with which the film

was produced, neither the romanticization of violence. “In fact, there’s very little actual

violence in the film. It occurs very quickly”, he adds in The Godfather Supplements for

blu-ray collection. These rumors may have never appeared if the original ending of The

Godfather remained uncut. After promoting Michael to the don, Kay was praying for

his soul in church as to beg for his sins. Not only Coppola, but also Puzo favored this

38
original ending, since it was the way the book ends itself. Nevertheless, Evans was the

one that had the last word, concerning film production, and he was obsessed with the

idea of slamming door into Kay’s face. Thus not Coppola, but probably Evans was the

one who glamorized the violence and the whole concept of organized crime, since for

the director the movie presented the story of a family first and foremost. Therefore all

these factors finally persuaded Coppola to continue with the story, despite his previous

refusal since he was not interested in “the Godfather movies” (Biskind 182), and to

shoot the sequels for The Godfather, so as to meet kind of justification for his original

intentions of the depiction of organized crime, as well as moral satisfaction for Michael

Corleone’s cold-blooded behavior. “What finally convinced him to take on the project

was his conviction that the public had not morally condemned Michael at the end of The

Godfather” (Phillips 113) But Coppola was able to do that mainly because he took

major part in writing the script for the sequels.

5.3. The Godfather and the Gangster Genre

“The Godfather films also significantly challenge the genre’s dominant ideology,

each film offering different challenges with quite different results” believes Glenn Man

in his essay about the gangster genre in The Godfather (112). However this view is

definitely supported by the representation of the movie itself, there lies a hint in the

background and other motives which led to a particular depiction. Francis Ford Coppola

was after the release of The Godfather ‘accused’ by an audience of glorifying crime and

presenting an antihero in a charming way. ‘Accused’, because audiences react with

39
happiness and admiration for such an exquisite movie. However, Coppola himself was

not satisfied, nearly outraged by such almost worldwide assumption. In the blu-ray

documentary he disputes that he did not intend to direct the movie to support a crime,

nor did to favor any ethnicity. First and foremost he saw The Godfather films as a

chronicle of a Sicilian family, coming to the United States to pursuit their dreams and

ensure the happiness. He argues that the movie is not primarily obsessed with crime and

violence as it lay the stress on family, loyalty and friendship, nor it is focused on any

particular ethnicity, as it may be replaced by whomever. Thus the categorization of The

Godfather films and its position as the beginning of a new genre of gangster movies is

ambiguous. Although the superficial knowledge of the movie naturally and without a

doubt suggest its marking as a gangster genre movie, the deep analysis of the

background of the movie and consideration of every single detail, would challenge this

idea on its basis. William Pechter in his review of the movie comments that the director

probably filmed the movie in more personal way he was even aware of and he stresses

the newness of his depiction of the gangster genre. However, the newness lies more in

a sense of contribution, than reinvention. “But though the degree of emphasis on family

life which Coppola brings to The Godfather is new to gangster films, the family and

familial piety are by no means unknown to the genre [...] (Browne 171).

As was the approach of Steve Neale already mentioned above, the assumption of

a movie genre can be based, among others, on repetitive elements. Thus the question is:

What is the repetitive theme in The Godfather? Is it the violence and crime, or is it more

the importance of family and its security? Although a viewer knows what ‘the family

business’ was all about, does it necessarily means that it was the most important things

above all? The answer can be found in the movie itself, where Vito Corleone replies,

40
when discussing illegal business, “Doesn’t make any difference to me what a man does

for living, understand.” Similarly, Michael later supports his father’s idea when replying

to Kay “My father is no different than any other powerful man. Any man who’s

responsible for other people, like a senator or a president.” An observant viewer may

notice a lot of such hints where the idea is challenged, as analyzed in the next chapter.

Steve Neale, in his study about genres, declares about the gangster genre that it has

two distinctive features. The first one is the setting in urban underworld and the second

one stresses the specific cultural milieu, which involves the contradiction of illegal

crime and law and order. Moreover, he believes that “the predictable rise and fall

pattern of the gangster film has been subject to historically distinct forms of motivation”

(210). However, The Godfather adaptation does not follow this typical path. That path

is followed in sequels in depiction of Michael’s career, mainly because of the director’s

intention to reinterpret the movie in a way he wanted the audience to see it.

Nonetheless, Vito Corleone is not a typical example of a gangster’s fall. Although the

rise of his career, as depicted in the Part II, is an example of a gangster’s rise, he dies

peacefully playing with his grandson in the garden. William Pechter in his review in

Commentary supports the idea by observing that:

If The Godfather is most unmistakably of its genre when Don Corleone’s regular

chauffeur fails to report for work and one knows immediately that an attempt will

be made on his employer’s life, so the one single thing that most distinguishes The

41
 Godfather from other gangster films is that Don Corleone is not a doomed

overreacher but a man who dies, in effect, in bed. (Browne 170).

Therefore, the emphasis is put on family once again and the typical ending of a gangster

movie, where the criminal should be punished, either morally or by tragic death, is

missing. Similarly, if one considers the introduction and the conclusion of a movie as

main driving points, then the violence depicted and the truth about family business does

not represent the only and most important theme of the movie.

Coppola himself at first rejected the direct sequels for The Godfather and tried to

persuade Bart to hire Scorsese for it, because he was not interested in what the audience

admired him for. “I have no interest in the Godfather movies [...]. I want to go аnd do

my own work, even if I have to make it on Super 8. To try to get back to that family

again is gonna be a dry heave.” Peter Biskind records in his book Easy Riders, Raging

Bulls (182). Fortunately, Coppola was finally talked into the sequels for The Godfather,

having in mind merely two things. Money and own independent way of filmmaking,

which he had desperately sought for years, and more importantly, to change the view of

the audience. Since Coppola could not agree with the audience’s glamorization of what

for him the embodiment of evil, he decided to present the Corleone family in much

more cruel and cold-blooded way, as well as satisfied himself with the punishment of

Michael, ensuring his moral decay and deep sorrow. Here one can see a representation

of the participation of an audience on the evaluation of movie genre as discussed above

in Rick Altman’s theory. Steve Neale, similarly, confirms that, ”theorist of all kinds

have consistently argued that genres are important socio-cultural functions” (220) and

42
thus implies that a genre of a movie also relates on period social dilemmas which

assigned to movie specific importance.

Therefore, in terms of sequels, the saga tends to be evaluated together as a gangster

genre. There is no reason not to and it is not the idea of this thesis to challenge it or try

to classify it differently, but to provide a different view and elaborate on the idea of the

genre of the movie.

43
 5.4. Analysis

The recurring theme of family and business throughout the whole movie, represents

the contradiction of morality, as depicted by Vito Corleone and later his son, Michael

Corleone. They are both involved in family business, but each of them understands it

and approaches it differently. Since the viewer is later explained Michael’s motives of

his involvement, Vito’s beginning of his career is left by Francis Ford Coppola for Part

II of the saga and is placed again to contradiction to Michael’s life. In the Part I of The

Godfather saga, the director offers us the introduction to his idea of family chronicle

and mainly uses Michael, in comparison to Vito, to show the viewer the difference

between somebody who cares for the family, notwithstanding what does he do for a

living and somebody, who is able to kill his own blood brother, under the name of the

family.

In the opening scene, accompanied by waltz by Nino Rota, there is a close-up to

Amerigo Bonasera whom first words are: “I believe in America.” As the camera moves

back from him, it is obvious that he is not the main character, not even Don. The dark

room with poor lightning and silence, suggest gloomy atmosphere. As the camera is

moving more back, the first awaited thing the viewer can see is Don Corleone’s hand,

leaning against the head with sense wisdom. The first scene engages the viewer in the

story immediately and underline the seriousness with which the family business is

taken. However, the cut to the wedding scene with guests dancing, singing and drinking

stands in the opposition to what is happening inside, in Don’s office. The contrast of the

light outside and inside suggest Don’s moral contradiction as he tried to separate his

two lives, in terms of family security and comfort. Although the opening scene clearly

44
suggests that Vito’s life may not be the legitimate one, throughout the film, the viewer

is assured that he is associated with family and business equally.

Michael, on the other hand, undergoes significant change. At first, he tries to

dissociate from his family as well as keep Kay away from all this, but not later than in

the wedding scene, a hint that things are going to change is suggested. When the whole

family finally gathers to be photographed, Michael comes back for Kay and invites her

to be part of it. Similarly, Vito had previously refused to be photographed without

Michael. The bond between the father and son is very strong in case of Vito and

Michael and even though Michael rejects his family, on the basis of its business,

explaining “That’s my family, Kay, not me.”, the viewer can sense the possible twist in

Michael’s life. And once he is involved in family business, he proved to be more

ruthless and immoral than Vito ever was, betraying his father’s concept of taking care of

family.

The pivoting scene when Michael fully involves himself into family matters is at

the point of his father’s attempted assassination. Since he is desperate to help his father,

he starts to understand that the only way will be his involvement in the things he tried to

avoid at all cost. But once part of a family, it proves to be inevitable, as loyalty to the

family applies to everyone. Michael confirms his participation particularly in the scene

where he visits his father in the hospital, finding out he is left alone. “I’ll take care of

you, dad. I’m with you now...I’m with you.” And the introductory music accompanies

the scene once more. His sudden involvement proved to be inevitable step, when he is

waiting outside the hospital with the baker Enzo, trying to light his cigarette. Michael

takes the lighter from Enzo’s hand and lights it himself, being surprised and to some

extent even scared by his own calmness which he also proved later by his deliberate and

impassive arrangement of Sollozzos’s and McCluskey killing. When Sonny accuses him

45
to taking it personal, stressing Tom Hagen’s word that it was only business, Michael

responses with shadow of bloodshed in his face, “It’s not personal, it’s strictly

business.”

However, as was already mentioned, the business and thus violence is showed only

little in the movie, since it is more discussed. And Sonny even makes remark that “We

don’t talk business at the table”, stressing where lies the importance once more for the

viewer. Most of the scenes, where talking business, are somehow balanced and always

supplemented by notion of family or personal care. One of the most touching and

important scenes is the one where Michael meets Kay after coming back from Sicily.

He announces that he started to work for his father, since he is sick and needs his help.

Kay tries to argue that Michael really does not like that kind of life and that he does not

be the same like his father, as he had already told her. “My father is no different than

any other powerful man, any man who’s responsible for other people. Like a senator or

a president.” he disputes. But Kay only smiles and says, “You know how naive you

sound. Senators and presidents don’t have men killed.” And at that point Michael places

himself into his oncoming role of Don and assure his decision by remarking, “Oh,

who’s being naive, Kay?”, justifying thus his father’s and probably his own future

behavior. On the contrary, as he loves Kay truly, he tries to persuade her that his

intentions are pure and he plans to have the Corleone family completely legitimate in

few years. Once again, the importance of family is stressed by his speech. “Because

what’s important is that we have each other, That we have a life together. That we have

children. Our children.” However, Michael forgot that this cannot work, because Kay is

not a Sicilian woman to understand man’s business and know that she should not care as

long as she has comfortable life. Thus Michael involves himself in danger trying to keep

Kay near to him and let her interfere in family business. In its original ending, that is

46
inspired by the book and the one Coppola favored more than Evans, is the cut where

Kay is praying for Michael’s sins. She was actually inspired by Mama Corleone who

explained to her, in the book, why she goes to the church every morning. “I go for my

husband,’ she pointed down toward the floor, ‘so he don’t go down there.’ She paused.

‘I say prayers for his soul every day so he go up there.’ She paused. She pointed

heavenward.” (Puzo 525).

When the movie approaches its end, it is clearer that Michael will hold the position

of Don, but also that he will be cruel and cold-blooded and thus the kind of a hero with

its rise and downfall and subsequent punishment. Therefore, there is no suggestion of

glorification of the crime, not even the gangster as the audience widely misinterpreted

the last scenes.

Last scenes mainly highlighted the different attitudes that Vito and Michael has

employed. Vito Corleone’s speech about his priorities in life shows the way he wished

to smooth the things for Michael and to keep him away from what he tried to separate

from his family as well.

I knew Santino was going to have to go through all this and Fredo... well, Fredo

was... But I, I never wanted this for you. I work my whole life, I don't apologize,

to take care of my family. And I refused to be a fool dancing on the strings held by

all of those big shots. That's my life, I don't apologize for that. But I always

thought that when it was your time, that you would be the one to hold the strings.

Senator Corleone, Governor Corleone, something. Michael responds that it is

Another pezzonovante.

Later, he tops his oncoming cold-blooded career off with the scene of baptism, where

his promises makes to be the godfather to his nephew clashes with murders he commits.

Despite the fact that these scenes are the most violent ones in the whole movie, the

47
gloomy ending place Michael to the life of a haunted criminal, careless of his sins and

unable to separate his family from his cruel business.

5.5. Italian Americans in The Godfather

Ethnic groups, especially in the American environment, have always had a certain

kind of significant representation in movies, since the immigrants constitute a diverse

attribute of the country. The portrayal of Italian Americans has too its development

throughout the years, as particular genre and period focus have changed. However, they

are more or less connected mainly to the gangster genre, simply because of the natural

Italian temperament. Generally, they embodied a notion of crime, violence and power.

Moreover, as Carlos E. Cortes in his article points out, they became a symbol for the

illegal quest for American Dream as well as synonym for screen criminality (108).

From the beginning, the immigrants of any kind of ethnic group were seen as

needing proper education and behavior – Americanization. Since their customs, values

and behavior differ from that of a ‘true’ American, they were subject to change, not

integration. Nonetheless, with the outburst of the World War I, the view of Italian-

Americans, and ethnic groups in general, began to change. Unfortunately, change in a

rather disappointing way for the immigrants. Not only was it assumed that they should

be Americanized, but they were also strictly put within the limits of upward mobility,

achieved simply by honest and hard work. However, American Dream was thus not so

easy to achieve and they became depressed by it. All together this led to the illegal ways

of earning a fortune more quickly and comfortably and reaching power and prosperity.

It is thus not surprising that Italian-Americans became a symbol of crime and

gangsterism on screen, as they essentially represent ethnic groups in general.

48
 With the World War II, Hollywood started the ‘absurd’ portrayal of Italian-

Americans and other ethnic group in America. Since the army called for every citizen to

fight for his or her country, the filmmakers used an idea of “affirmative action policy”

(Cortes 112) which simply meant representation of at least three ethnic groups in one

movie. On the other hand, the representation of Italian-American community became

rather problematic, since Mussolini’s Italy was an enemy, despite the fact that Italian

soldiers in the United States were quite easygoing and obedient. After the war,

Hollywood production abandoned the depiction of war enemies and evils of nazi regime

and focused more on social conditions and ethnic discrimination.

With the two World Wars over, filmmakers for some time even stopped to portray

Italian-Americans merely as criminals and moreover, sensed the opportunity for an

ethnic commercialization. As Carlos E. Cortes emphasizes, “This confluence of ethnic

popularity and ethnic presence in the film industry gave rise to the greatest boom of

ethnic theme motion pictures in American film history” (116). The depiction varied

from movie to movie, but generally it preserves the notion of Italian-Americans as

criminal and violence oriented. Unfortunately, as Cortes claims, The Godfather started

to be considered as prototype of “Italian-American sex-and-violence odysseys” (117)

despite completely different intention of Francis Ford Coppola. At the time The

Godfather movie was made, America was affected by several social unrests in the

1960s as well as by involvement in the Vietnam War. These factors resulted in public

deterioration in US government. Thus the strong presence of family unity and

justification for its protection, either by violence or corruption practices, appears in the

movie as main driving elements. However, what should prevail, is the importance of

49
family, rather than the glorification of crime. Crime should be considered as subordinate

to family needs and happiness, since this is the principle of Italian-American family.

Moreover, the movie, in comparison to the novel where the following quotes appear as

far as on the page 31, sets its values and principles at the very beginning, when Amerigo

Bonasera asked Don Corleone for justice for his family. He basically begs for the

murder of the villains that attacked his daughter and who were not punished

appropriately by government. And at that very moment, Don Corleone, with his answer,

place the crime and the family on a scale of importance and precisely suggest what

values will be highlighted in the story, “We have known each other many years, but

until this day you never came to me for counsel or help. I can’t remember the last time

you invited me to your house for coffee though my wife is godmother to your only

child.” Here, the family is mentioned straight on, overshadowing the fact that Don

Corleone is obviously a head of Mafia and is responsible for several murders. After

Bonasera’s begging for justice and assurance that he will pay and do anything Don

Corleone asks him to do, Vito continues “Now you come to me and say ‘Don Corleone

give me justice.’ And you do not ask with respect. You do not offer me your friendship.

You come into my home on the bridal day of my daughter and you ask me to do

murder.”

The presence of Italian-American women in the movie, although their role may be

seen as nearly unimportant, is the key factor and driving element of men’s actions. Their

stereotypical depiction, as Cortes in his article observes, is that of “broken-English-

50
speaking, often temperamental earth mothers” (112). They talk usually very little, but

have an aura of somebody that must be protected by a man and kept away from all the

evil, living thus comfortable and easy life. And those who refused to respect these

values naturally receive a corresponding answer, as Vera Dika comments. “A good

man’s code of honor, for example, extends to his commitment to his family and to his

respect of women and of the law. Within the logic of the film, then, those who commit

an ‘infamia’ deserve all they get.” (90). On the other hand, the viewer is provided with

an example what may happen if the core of the family is not Italian-American, as in

Michael and Kay’s case. She is white, New England WASP, who basically cannot

understand the codes of Sicilian family and can never separate herself from the criminal

side of Italian-American family. Thus she literally destroys the family from inside, since

Michael loses control of his actions, because of her interfering behavior in men’s

matters. Nonetheless, this might also be the metaphorical punishment for Michael, with

the implication that codes of Sicilian family do not work the same way in American

environment and social values simply clashes. It could also suggest the clash in

audience’s perception where the American public sees the movie naturally more as a

glorification of crime rather than glorification of family, as would have been more

understood by Italians.

5.6. The Godfather Effect

With the release of The Godfather movie, several new elements in cinematography

system appeared. Apart from marking the sequels simply by Part II or Part III, which

51
appeared to be completely new method accepted with difficulty at the beginning, it was

also the use of a disclaimer. The disclaimer basically forewarned that the characters

were not ‘representative of any ethnic group’ and that it would be unfair to suggest that

they do. Even though the identification of characters and names with a particular

community was obvious, the disclaimer guaranteed that an audience would not mistake

them with any specific group and would not generalize their behavior. However, when

the shooting of The Godfather began in New York, the Italian American Civil Rights

League blocked it with several protests and intimidations. “The studio was plagued with

protests from the New York-based Italian American Civil Rights League, which

claimed a movie about the Mafia would be disparaging to all Americans of Italian

descent” (Phillips 93). To avoid at least the biggest problems with allegation from real-

life Mafia, the producer, Albert S. Ruddy, address the particular organs of community

with the name “the five families”. The producer also had to further announce to the

league that “The Godfather was focusing on a group of fictitious Italian criminals and

not defaming the entire Italian community” (Phillips 93). On the other hand, the word

Mafia was used extensively in the book of Mario Puzo, thus the reference in the movie

may have been seen as a mere adaptation. Jon Lewis research, as recorded in his essay,

suggests that Puzo himself would not approve to change the addressing name to the

Mafia and would have supported the statement with the evidence of millions of sold

copies of his novel (32).

Besides provoking agitations of real-life Mafia, The Godfather gave an impulse to

other director and filmmakers. From then on, gangster movies gain a slightly different

direction in the depiction of gangsters. Certainly, not all of them and if some of them

52
were inspired by The Godfather, they still preserved the idea of gangster’s as criminals

as a main theme, as opposed to family chronicle. Among them can be found Martin

Scorsese’s movie Goodfellas (1990). The story is based seemingly on the same theme,

crime, violence, and murder. But whereas in The Godfather it is just the way how to

protect family and not glorifying of gangsters, in Goodfellas the story itself is based on

popularity and the dream to become a gangster hero. Similarly, the importance of

ethnicity is stressed more in The Godfather, which can be explained on the basis of

strong family bond and values which goes hand in hand with the sense for national

pride. What both movies have in common, however, is the nostalgia for the past. The

past is important in evaluating of the presence and heroes retrospect to it quite often.

Another Martin Scorsese’s great movie, connected to The Godfather, is Mean Streets

(1973). In this case, the connection is not seen in the story itself, but rather in the

influence. Both movies were influenced by Mervin LeRoy’s picture Little Caesar,

which is considered to give a birth to a gangster genre. However, both movies gave a

new way to the depiction of crime. In the article on The Deleted Scenes webpage is

pointed out that “With the Hollywood gangster genre reaching its logical pinnacle with

1972′s The Godfather, it appeared there was nowhere to go except redundancy.

Scorsese’s life and influence allowed for a personal touch that translated into a gangster

film which introduced the conventions of the French New Wave into the gangster genre.

Martin Scorsese’s Mean Streets revolutionized the genre by drawing heavily from his

personal life, creating an entirely original story about Italian-Americans who happened

to be gangsters” (“The Accidental Reinvention Of The Gangster Film”).

53
 Apart from direct influence, The Godfather reference appeared in other films, TV

series, as well as everyday language. The Andrew Bergaman’s movie The Freshman

(1990) portrays Marlon Brando as a Mafia chieftain, based on his iconic role in The

Godfather, and uses several jokes referring back to that movie as pointed out in the

Trivia section to that movie on Internet Movie Database page. TV series, The Sopranos,

is another example where The Godfather gave a rise for depiction of a mobster life as

well as it makes reference to another Coppola’s movie, Dementia 13, as Phillips

illustrates. “It is worth noting that there is a homage of sorts to the film in an episode of

The Sopranos (2001), a TV series about the Mafia. In it the daughter of a Mafia don and

her date attend a screening of Dementia 13 at a New York revival house and are

appropriately frightened” (27). Another movie, Harols Ramis’s Analyze This (1999), a

gangster comedy starring Robert DeNiro, makes several references to The Godfather

movie and shows particularly one scene which is exact shot by shot replica of Don’s

attempted murder in the street.

Without a doubt, The Godfather’s popularity influenced not only other filmmakers,

but wide public audience as well. American Film Institute ranked the famous quote of

Don Corleone “I’m going to make him an offer he can’t refuse” as the second most

memorable movie quote of all time (“AFI’s 100 years...100 Movie Quotes”). Moreover,

Sonny’s answer to Michael’s proposal to kill the police officer includes the famous word

"bada bing" which was not only used as a name for Tony Soprano’s bar in The

Sopranos, but is also integrated into Urban Dictionary as a full-bodied word. “Sonny:

54
Hey, whataya gonna do, nice college boy, eh? Didn't want to get mixed up in the Family

business, huh? Now you wanna gun down a police captain. Why? Because he slapped

ya in the face a little bit? Hah? What do you think this is the Army, where you shoot 'em

a mile away? You've gotta get up close like this and bada-bing! You blow their brains

all over your nice Ivy League suit.” One can realize the enormous influence of The

Godfather even more, when one considers that this famous word is not originally used

in Mario Puzo’s novel where the quote is expressed with “You gotta stand right next to

them and blow their heads off and their brains get all over your nice Ivy League suit.”

(172).

It is almost impossible to trace and show every sphere either of media or everyday

life which refers back to The Godfather movie. Of course, the homage is mainly paid to

Mario Puzo, for his incredible original story. Yet the success Francis Ford Coppola

achieved in cinematic sphere may be considered as a masterpiece of the visualized

version, nearly original in its sense.

55
6. Conclusion

In my thesis I offered an analysis of Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather,

providing its cultural and period background, as well as fragments of backstage

information. The overall picture and detailed analysis should offer the reader an

explanation of the different perception of the movie, regarding its genre. The main aim

of my thesis was not a suggestion to categorize the movie differently, but to offer a

different focus and to highlighted tiny, yet significant details that could present the

depiction of stereotyped violence of Italian Americans in a different light. To justify my

argument, I have provided vast background of the movie as well as clarification of

particular elements in the movie.

The first chapter offered theoretical and practical background of literary adaptation

and thus provide a preview of filmmaker’s options. Several academic studies were used

to provide a brief summary, to outline issues of filmmaking and the relation between the

original text and its adaptation. Mainly, the concept of fidelity, as it contributes to the

main argument of my thesis where the categorization of The Godfather was based on

Mario Puzo’s book, being classified as crime novel.

The second chapter traces the social issues of the Hollywood era, namely from

1930s to 1960s and early 1970s. The development of Hollywood industry is one of the

keys to the development of the gangster genre as well as it shows technological and

ideological possibilities.

The main part of my thesis consists of in-depth analysis of the background of the

filmmaking of The Godfather. Thanks to Peter Biskind’s backstage research, several

issues are clarified and Coppola’s personal reaction included. Not only the background

56
of filmmaking, but also the director’s biography shows the reason why Coppola was

able to grasp the ‘Italianicity’ in the movie so thoroughly.

Then, in logical sequence, the thesis reaches its main argument, the questioning of a

genre of the movie. The theory and the development of the genre offer a theoretical

preview and later it is applied to The Godfather movie.

In addition, the clarification of the role of Italian-American community in the movie

and The Godfather influence either on other movies, or everyday use, is provided in last

few chapters. The popularity of the movie places it as a subject for further discussion

and thus showing the cinematic, as well as cultural timeless impact.

57
7. Works Cited

"AFI's 100 YEARS.100 MOVIE QUOTES." AFI. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Apr. 2012.

http://www.afi.com/100years/quotes.aspx

"bada bing." Urban Dictionary. 1999. N. pag. Web. 6 Mar. 2012.

<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bada%20bing&defid=11686

93>.

"Holywood’s America." Digital History. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2011.

"The Accidental Reinvention Of The Gangster Film." The Deleted Scene. N.p., 11 Dec.

2010. Web. 26 Mar. 2012.

Altman, Rick. "A Semantic/Syntactic Approach to Film Genre." Cinema Journal 23.3

(1984): 6-18. JSTOR. Web. 9 Mar. 2012

Bigueur, Miguel. "“The Gangster Genre” (Impact on American Cinema and

Culture)." Miguel Antonio Bigueur's Blogosphere Video Producer/Director.

N.p., 14 Oct. 2010. Web. 15 Jan. 2012.

Biskind, Peter. Easy Riders, Raging Bulls. New York: Touchstone, 1999. 110-96. Print.

Cagin, Seth, and Phillip Dray. Hollywood Films of the Seventies. New York: Harper &

Row, 1984. Print.

Cortés, Carlos E. "Italian-Americans in Film: From Immigrants to Icons." MELUS

14.3/4 (1987): 107-26. JSTOR. Web. 3 Nov. 2011.

Dika, Vera. "The Representation of Ethnicity in The Godfather." Francis Ford

Coppola's Godfather Trilogy. Ed. Nick Browne. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2000. Print.

Dudley, Andrew. "Adaptation." Film Adaptation. Ed. James Naremore. London:

Athlone Press, 2000. Print.

58
Lewis, Jon. "If History Has Taught Us Anything.Francis Ford Coppola, Paramount

Studios, and The Godfather Parts I, II, and III." Francis Ford Coppola's

Godfather Trilogy. Ed. Nick Browne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2000. Print.

Maltby, Richard. "To Prevent the Prevalent Type of Book: Censorship and Adaptation

in Hollywood, 1924-1934." Film Adaptation. Ed. James Naremore. London:

Athlone Press, 2000. Print.

Man, Glenn. "Ideology and Genre in the Godfather Films." Francis Ford Coppola's

Godfather Trilogy. Ed. Nick Browne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2000. Print.

Neale, Steve. Genre and Hollywood. London: Routledge, 2000. 9-85. Print.

Pechter, William. "Keeping Up with the Corleones." The Godfather Trilogy. Ed. Nick

Browne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 167-73. Print.

Phillips, Gene D. Godfather: The Intimate Francis Ford Coppola. Lexington: The

University Press of Kentucky, 2004. Print.

Puzo, Mario. The Godfather. London: Arrow Books, 2009. Print

Ray, Robert B. "The Field of 'Literature and Film'." Film Adaptation. Ed. James

Naremore. London: Athlone Press, 2000. Print.

Stam, Robert, and Alessandra Raengo. Literature and Film: A Guide to the Theory and

Practice of Film Adaptation. N.p.: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005. 1-52. Print.

The Godfather: The Coppola Restoration. Dir. Francis Ford Coppola. Paramount

Pictures, 2008. Blu-ray.

The Godfather: The Coppola Restoration. Dir. Francis Ford Coppola. Paramount

Pictures, 2008. Blu-ray.

The Internet Movie Database. IMDb.com, Inc., 1990-2011. Web. 31 Mar. 2011.

59
Résumé in English
My thesis focuses on Francis Ford Coppola’s adaptation of The Godfather mainly

from the point of view of its genre. The aim of the thesis is to analyze the background of

the movie, from its theoretical, historical and filming point, and elaborate on the

gangster genre in relation to the movie as well as on other important features in the

movie.

The thesis is divided into four chapters. In the first chapter I provide theoretical

background of the adaptation of literature, where is particularly stressed the concept of

fidelity. The second chapter offers an insight of New Hollywood which is important in

terms of the development of Hollywood’s depiction of genres, with regard to period

social issues. The following chapter introduces the gangster genre, its theory and

practice throughout the years. The next chapter, with several sub-chapters, deals with

the movie itself. First, I speak about Francis Ford Coppola’s life and his filming career

in general and then I offer a comparative analysis of his relation to the movie and the

background of the filmmaking itself. Other sub-chapters provide analysis of the movie,

apply the theory of gangster genre, and illustrate the depiction of Italian Americans, as

well as point out the most obvious influence of The Godfather. For the purpose of

supporting my arguments I used number of quotations by various scholars and also

illustrations taken from the film.

In the conclusion, the whole idea is summarized once again and the main points of

individual chapters are pointed out. I generalize the observations and unify the ideas to

its logical outcome.

60
Resumé v češtině
Moje bakalářská práce se zaměřuje na filmovou adaptaci Kmotra, Francise Forda

Coppoly, a to především z hlediska žánru. Cílem práce je zanalyzovat pozadí filmu,

z hlediska jak teoretického a historického, tak z hlediska samotného natáčení, a rozvést

myšlenku gangsterského žánru ve vztahu k filmu, jakož i rozpracovat další jeho důležité

rysy.

Práce je rozdělena na čtyři kapitoly. V první kapitole poskytuji teoretický základ o

adaptaci literatury, kde zdůrazňuji především koncepce věrnosti. Druhá kapitoly nabízí

náhled na Nový Hollywood, který je nezbytný vzhledem k vývoji zobrazování žánrů

Hollywoodu, s ohledem na dobovou sociální problematiku. Následující kapitola uvozuje

gangsterský žánr, jenž zahrnuje jeho teorii a praxi v průběhu let. Další kapitola, s

několika podkapitolami, se zabývá samotným filmem. Nejdříve obecně pojednávám o

životě a kariéře Francise Forda Coppoly a poté předkládám srovnávací analýzu jeho

vztahu k filmu a objasňuji pozadí natáčení. Ostatní podkapitoly se buď zabývají

analýzou samotného filmu, aplikují teorii gangsterského žánru nebo objasňují zobrazení

Italoameričanů a stejně tak poukazují na oblasti, kde měl film Kmotr největší vliv. Za

účelem podpoření mých argumentů cituji různých teoretiky a také používám názorné

ukázky z filmu.

V závěru znovu shrnuji danou myšlenku a zdůrazňuji důležité body z každé

kapitoly. Zobecňuji své poznatky a sjednocuji myšlenky v jejich logické vyústění.

61