Two separate PARAGRAPHS.
1) Do a search on 'familial amoralism' before you jump into the discussion: it's a term commonly used in sociology. You ought to know what you are talking about before you talk about it. Do not include in your comment.
COMMENT: In terms of "value to society" (not just to the selfishness of 'familial amoralism') does Don Corleone have any redeeming qualities? Or is he just a smooth and polished greedy monster (like Wall Street's sharks?)
SEPARATE PARAGRAPH
2) Which representation of the don is 'better': Puzo's or Coppola's? (Interpret "better" as you want.)
REPLY: Argue back on n. 1 only.
We will discuss n.2 extensively in class.
After reading Puzo's description of the Godfather, I have to side with the belief that Vito Corleone was genuinely a man of good nature. I believe he started off as a man who sought to better his neighborhood not only for his family, but for everyone in it. Had he been a selfish, greedy "monster", I don't believe he would have been so tactful, and concerned with the well-being of those around him. Though the prosperity of his neighbors, employees, and business contributors benefitted him and his personal success, I believe he genuinely sought to improve the experience of the Italian-American livelihood in the United States. It can be argued that his deeds for others were greedy, but I see them as altruistic and not without benefit and investment. I think Italian culture is one of community, and something that he had inbred in him from his childhood, despite the corruption of the mafia (in Italy and the US). I deeply admire his will-power, patience, and logic, and while some could use these characteristics as defining factors of sociopathic behavior, I praise them as marks of true leadership and care.
ReplyDeleteFor this reason, I appreciate Puzo's interpretation of the Don. Because in literature, I can fully understand the depth of the character. In the movie, his actions left an impression on me of just a mafia boss. In the book, my impression of him was a Robin Hood figure for the Italian-American immigrants. Before the book, I never liked the "Godfather" series and thought it was completely overrated. Now, having understood the depth of the story, I really see Vito Corleone on a completely different platform and respect the character, despite him being fictional.
l agree so much with your understanding of Don Corleone. He's a very fair person and reads much more like a powerful businessman with a strong sense of morality than an evil criminal. There are more people that worked within the law that l would call deplorable than Don Corleone, Don seems to be incredibly fair and have a good head on his shoulder. While he works outside of the law, he is operating from a place of morality.
DeleteDon Corleone has value to society, even if it's just to New York City based ltalian Americans. He provides necessary services to people: protection, justice, and jobs, just to name a few. He has a set of morals and offers aide to those that he feel are deserving. And, while he does partake in many criminal activities, he remains fair, just and accessible to the people. His code of ethics just doesn't align with the American Judicial system.
ReplyDeletel prefer Coppola's representation of the Don if only because it painted a more grounded depiction of Don Corleone. He seemed more like a person and less like a mysterious figure. That may just be because we're literally seeing Don Corleone portrayed as a person and not just imagining but l felt there was a particular emphasis on humanizing Don Corleone and making him seem like a real person. lt definitely felt like Don Corleone's actions were more justified in the film.
I disagree that Coppola's version of the Don is better. I think Puzo's interpretation of the Don is very intricate and has depth. He is more a father figure throughout the novel and seen as a helping and caring man to the community who helps Fontaine with parts, helps women who are getting abused and wants the community to grow which is why he does not want narcotics in the community. While in Coppola's he seems more angry, hard and not a well rounded 3 dimensional person just a stereotypical mobster.
DeleteThe Don has redeeming qualities, he does not only care about is family or things that give him personal gain. He also wants the community to flourish and even though he does not include women, he has a moral compass in protecting women from rape, abuse and other malicious acts against them. The Don sees himself as leader to the community and in some ways he sees it as a responsibility to others and tries to help.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, the Puzo interpretation of the Don is a better representation of the Don because we read the 3 dimensional ideas of him. In Coppola's he is like a caricature or farce on what Italian mob bosses act like. Whereas in Puzo's he is seen from multiple vantage points.
He has a moral compass to protect woman but yet he blames his own daughter for getting beat up by her husband. Is she not a woman under his protection, shall he not protect his own at least?
DeleteThe Don was not a good person, however he did care for his friends and family. I feel like I can empathize with the things he does but logically I cannot say that he is overall a good person. He is a corrupt human being, people do kill either in his favor or for his benefit. As I said, I can empathize with what he does, he uses his power to aid those who he considers friends and family, and respect and civility are obviously very important to him. He has very redeeming qualities, but overall is a bad person.
ReplyDeleteI would say Puzo had a much better representation of the Don. Coppola had portrayed the Don as a much more fragile person, at least once we got past the dark and mysterious introduction. In the book, the Don felt much more powerful and active. In the movie he seems very slow, gentle and fragile but overall you can get a sense of power.
I think he is a smooth mobster but also at the same time he is a kind and caring man. His main redeeming quality is his willingness to help his friends and family. He does so becaus she believes having friends is more important than anything else.
ReplyDeleteOf course he takes advantage of people and these friendships and that's partly what makes him sly and greedy. But the people he helps get what they want and he gets what he wants so everyone walks away satisfied.
I personally think Puzo had a better representation of Corleone partly because he wrote the original character and partly because the movie version created this sly underhanded mobster. It wasn't the same person that puzo created, who had that warmth and the smile that made people feel welcome. Coppolas version smiled maybe once or twice and was more demanding of respect and made it clear he only expected respect from people.
In terms of value to society I believe The Don really wasn't all that selfish. Yes he protected his own no matter what but even though everyone owed him for his favors he still helped those in need and with his power he could of been much worse but he created his ideology that way. Yes he takes advantage of his debtors but if we all look deep inside then you too will see that each person in our life serves a purpose in a small or big way.
ReplyDeleteI believe Puzo did a better representation and I am speaking in terms of a good man. In the movie he was more cruel and heartless and in the book he had values that brought good to many.
Don Corleone reminds me of a father - one who is strict to the point of almost being cruel, but also one who protects and gives direction. It's hard to say that such a man is a "bad man." He is capable of murder but he is also capable of great tenderness. I think that he is a morally grey man. He is not one who murders without discrimination. He murders out of reason. To him, death is a business move, something military tacticians practice every day. Don Corleone is as evil as any war general. In that way, I feel it is impossible to deem him as a bad man, he is simply a man who provides and survives. On the other hand, I must admit that I would not want to be on his bad graces.
ReplyDeleteI think that Coppola's representation of Corleone is better in the fact that Marlon Brando is Vito Corleone. In the film, his tenderness as a father and community leader is better visualized. In the book, he is more ruthless as a business man. He seems to be a man more feared in the novel. Although truly I think Coppola was able to make both characters on and the same. He took the concept of Don Corleone and made him into a real man.
I don't see the Don as being selfish or greedy at all, instead I see him strictly as someone who because is at the top, takes on all the negative attributes associated with his type of work. Throughout the story, we see the Don acting very justly, in some scenarios he instructs his people to teach someone a lesson but not murder them, because "they are not murderers." Everything that happened in the story I can somehow find justification for and don't see any killings being without motive. I feel like because the Don is in charge of so many people he must carry out some of the things he does in order to protect the people that in turn, protect him.
ReplyDeleteI liked the movie much better than the book purely based on the fact that the book was extremely long but if I had to choose, I prefer Puzo's version of the book much more. I feel like the Don's character is much more intricate and we see much more of his soft sides compared to the movie where in my opinion he was seen as ruthless.
I don’t think that there is any doubt that Don Corleone is selfish. Whatever he does, its so he’ll profit in some way. However, there are points when other people profit as well. So I can’t support the idea that he is an unredeemable monster.
ReplyDeleteAs for which interpretation I prefer, I’m torn. I like the depth of Puzo’s Don Corleone. Because its a book we get more insight into the character, and for that reason, he feels more human to me. At the same time, Coppola's interpretation makes me like him for different reasons. I think Coppola did a better job of painting a devilish character, one who’s deceit and charm has the ability to really trick people into liking him. One version seems to humanize him and the other forms a truly complicated villain.