The Immorality of ‘The Godfather’
compactmag.com
compactmag.com
The parallel to the white-collar mafia on Wall Street is instructive: if a mid-level employee of a Wall Street hedge fund steals from their employer by some scheme, then typically the FBI would investigate, the DOJ would prosecute, and the thief would go to prison. The blue-collar mafia operated similarly, though since they didn't have their own prisons, murder of mafiosi who stole from their bosses was the more common outcome.
The author does seem uncomfortable comparing the US government and business world, with all its wars and plots in the name of 'national interests' since the end of World War II, with Washington and Wall Street washing each other's hands, to a large organized crime cartel, but the similarities are rather striking.
Not much of a counterargument, since from a clinical perspective government preys on its citizens as well, through taxation.
For any that take issue with the idea that the government preys on its citizens, it's important to consider it wholistically, as relative to all forms of government and not just an idealized democracy, as we often tend to assume we live in. Is the mafia better or worse than various forms of dictatorships we've seen?
It's all relative, and some people will view some instances of government as net beneficial and other forms not. The only difference here is that the mafio is setting up a second government on top of an existing one, so they have less benefits to provide and are more draining. Even so I find the parallels to government very strong.
And like most governments, whether those people it considers under it's authority agree with that assessment or not is largely irrelevant, as the "law" they rule under is determined by the ruling group alone.
One main, if not THE main point of the article is that the film adaptation of The Godfather injected 70’s Watergate cynicism making just such a comparison to US corruption which would have ruined other films but the comparison is made in the guise of sleazy self deception.
Criminals, or in the case presented in the opening of the movie, otherwise law-abiding people who seek vigilante justice after the government fails to deliver justice through official avenues. This theme is repeated later in the movie when Michael, until then a law-abiding citizen, commits a vigilante act of murder against a corrupt police captain to avenge his father.
Which fits neatly with the "stationary bandit" theory of government:
> Olson argued that under anarchy, a "roving bandit" only has the incentive to steal and destroy, whilst a "stationary bandit"—a tyrant—has an incentive to encourage some degree of economic success as he expects to remain in power long enough to benefit from that success. A stationary bandit thereby begins to take on the governmental function of protecting citizens and their property against roving bandits. In the move from roving to stationary bandits, Olson sees the seeds of civilization, paving the way, eventually for democracy, which by giving power to those who align with the wishes of the population, improves incentives for good government
That does not change the story much, because "nobility" is another word for those self-same stationary bandits. Invading bandits may be better or worse than whoever they displace.
The ostensible premise of The Godfather, the film version of which celebrates its 50th anniversary this year, is that American society is so prejudiced against Italians that extraordinary men such as Vito and Michael Corleone have no choice but to turn to crime.
What? No way, that's not even remotely true.
That's pretty much what this is. A look at the top page of the website suggests it's basically a conservative op-ed magazine.
You don't see people using the steel man very often.
I think it’s just human nature. I cant think of a single thing I have read where the author’s underlying biases didn’t really reveal themselves in some way.
...
We walked in a room and the place stopped. Everyone knew who we were, and we were treated like movie stars with muscle. We had it all and it was all free."
-- Henry Hill
> It meant power among people who had no power. It meant perks in a working-class neighborhood that had no privileges. To be a wiseguy was to own the world. I dreamed about being a wiseguy the way other kids dreamed about being movie stars or firemen or ballplayers
Oh. Who’s being naïve, Kay?
Keep reading, because the article says,
"The idea that American anti-Italian bigotry is the root cause of the mafia is obviously stupid."
And,
"Of course, the Don tells himself that his choice of crime is justified. Of course, Michael tells Kay whatever she needs to hear to give him what he wants. These are, let’s remember, bad people consistently doing bad things. Understood in this light, Michael’s manipulation of Kay is a flaw not in the film, but in Michael."
Michael is dragged into the family business when a corrupt Irish-American police captain, paid off by a rival Italian-American mob, try to assassinate Michael's father. Corrupt police and Michael's loyalty to his family interact in a manner that drags Michael into a life of crime.
"appearing or claiming to be one thing when it is really something else"
My wife’s immigrant great grandfather felt compelled to change his last name to avoid prejudice against the Irish within the same time period, so I’d say it’s completely likely. Her great grandfather could blend in simply by changing his name and affecting a less brogue accent. Other immigrants could not hide their backgrounds so easily.
All my Arab friends had to change their names to be able to work in silicone valley companies, such as Microsoft et al. That was back in the 90s.
> Empire biscuit was originally known as the "Linzer biscuit", and later as the "Deutsch biscuit". With the outbreak of the First World War it was renamed in England to Empire biscuit and in Scotland to Belgian biscuit because Belgium had just been invaded, but in Northern Ireland it remains known as the German biscuit or biscuit bun.
Columbus Day, for example, exists largely because it functioned as a reaction to anti-Italian-immigrant sentiment:
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/12/769688161/columbus-days-meani...
The movie is about Italian immigrants but it can easily be about any poor social class. If a person doesn't have the opportunities and role models then crime is often the way many people see their best path to greatness and riches.
BTW, the discrimination of immigrants has always been a reality so the book is building on the true facts of how our society functions.
It's news to me that the right loves this movie more than the left. That's not my experience among friends. I like it because it illustrates the idea that one should honor thy father no matter how imperfect. Beyond that, who doesn't enjoy palace intrigued. That said, I recently decided against watching The Sopranos again. I'd rather not spend time with disgusting people who hurt the innocent for profit
I never heard the theory that The Godfather had a left/right divide. Nor have I heard the theory that people like to watch movies with characters who reflect only their aspirational values.
A lot of interesting context and perspective in this piece, but the point is meandering and the reasoning is unconvincing.
That scene instantly made me realize how much of the “culture” presented in the movie is accurately reflective of so many patriarchal cultures all over the world.
I mean, that is _literally_ how many Indian families treat power structures, marriage, relationships even to this day.
As a liberal, feminist, yadda yadda, of course I don’t subscribe to those beliefs. Nor do the conservatives in India or otherwise endorse the crime. But, peel back the thin layer of dramatized fiction and you’ll find that a lot of the movie is based on obviously authentic history/culture.
It’s simultaneously scary and fascinating.
In India, grossly exploiting lower-caste people used to be explicitly required by law, and today is often condoned, and rarely forbidden. What is not in violation of law can be much worse than what is forbidden.
Persuasive article, but I don’t go around discussing literary or film criticism from Trump’s speech writer or gardening tips I picked up at the last KKK supper club.
> Their “opposition” may be in all cases ineffectual and often indistinguishable from support. But they don’t dream up inanities like 32 “genders,” elective bathrooms, single-payer, Iran sycophancy, “Islamophobia,” and Black Lives Matter. They merely help ratify them.
> A Hillary presidency will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most “advanced” Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England.
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/digital/the-flight-93-ele...
Amazing that both sides hit on this same metaphor:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/01/06/trump-carto...
Read everything. Always. Especially if you’re not supposed to.
But make sure you know whether it’s written by a nazi, or a robot, or a Mormon, or a Mason before you bring it up with people whose opinion you care about.