A Clash of Strong Wills: The Godfather to Come
Interrupted with a sequence of murders forming the string of a family vendetta, the key scene of baptism in Francis Coppola’s Godfather is filled with meaning, turning the final scene into a tragic and triumphal moment of Michael Corleone’s glory. The final scene closes up the movie and sets the final score so that there should be no misunderstandings about the future of the clan and its members. It both asks questions and provides the answers, striking with contrasts and playing with the spectator’s imagination. Making the essence of the movie, the scene of baptism is one of the strongest and the most impressive ones in the whole movie.
Speaking of the issue that must be the one of the most interest to the audience, that is, the episode with the crosscutting, it must be noticed that it was not the initial idea of the filmmaker, but a sudden inspiration. Like many great ideas, it stroke Coppola out of the blue and was as a matter of fact created under the spur of the moment. Just think of what the mankind could have lost if Coppola had not been stricken by the brilliant idea! But, thank God, he was, and, as a result, generations of people can watch the masterpiece of a movie with the amazing scene as it is. Putting that into Phillips’ (2004) own words,
Accordingly Coppola worked closely with Zinner to create the baptism scene. “Intercutting the baptism with the slaughter was not in the script,” Coppola explains. The two sequences were to be presented separately. (106)
This was a real stroke of luck which was quite close to getting the result Coppola was aiming at. As the first shots were taken and made a sequence of the episodes, the crew understood that the only right solution was finally found. With the new technique employed, the episode took on a specific fleur which added to the idea of the gangster 1960ies, the time when the only law was the law of the mafia, and the powerful dons were the titans who embodied stability and force.
The way in which the scenes of the baptism and the murder are intertwined is most peculiar. On the one hand, the story draws the line of the most peaceful act which could ever be imagined, the baptizing of a newborn baby. Yet on the other hand, outside of the church a terrible slaughter takes place and two forces are trying to take over each other. The striking contrast of the calm inside the house of God and the turmoil and chaos outside is the effect which Coppola was aiming at. The filmmaker wanted to show the great world of the titans of crime rolling and swaying, all about to crash right underneath their feet. The mise-en-scene captures two very important moments to picture, which are the terror seen on the face of those killed by Michael’s gang and the pure and innocent face of the child which is being baptized. The contrast is sight-splitting, for at this very moment the problem of the innocence as the inherent quality of a man.
Another important point which Coppola has highlighted in the final scene is the idea of a man as another weapon in the hands of the superior powers. Michael became the Godfather as he was destined to, and he undergoes the dame ceremony of becoming a godfather of a small child, just like his father did once. The sequence of the events looking quite the same, with only the agent changed, reminds of a deck of cards shuffled by someone who should know better how to dispose of the people’s lives.
What makes the audience stand in awe for the great work of the filmmaker and his crew are the emotions which float across the intertwining scenes. on the on hand, there is Michael Corleone, who knows perfectly well what is going on outside the sanctuary, and he understands the scale for the slaughter which he arranged, but these events do not bother him. Keeping busy with the baptizing and the little newcomer into the new brave world, he is an image of a caring and loving godfather, who has nothing to do with the corpses of the foes lying outside, helpless and lifeless. As the audience watches his face, it also becomes clear that he is ready for something new, for the experience of being superior and heading the gang which makes the most powerful New York organization.
It is not only the overall atmosphere that sets the contrast to the two scenes, but also the dynamics of both. As the story unwraps, it is obvious that the scene of the murder s much more dynamic and full of motion than the one which involves the process of baptizing. Indeed, while in the latter the movements are even slackened, as if the time chose this very moment to stop its eternal spin. Michael’s face is full of bliss and calm as he bends over to see the baby; just as calm and reserved it remains as he answers the questions of the priest. Meanwhile, there is sever battle going on between the two struggling clans, and he must be aware of it. The reserved character of his deserves appreciation, indeed. The tension beginning to build from the very moment of the family entering the church reaches its climax here, for the slaughter starts its spin here and begins to unwind as the ceremony goes on. Peaking as the girl has been through the ceremony and Michael has become her godfather, the tenseness breaks into the film and becomes the lead character of the movie.
According to what the authors themselves say about the movie, it did not undergo a great deal of editing, which is quite understood since the movie des not belong to the sphere of the Hollywood’s action films which require the use of the numerous sound an visual effects. Intellectual and thoughts-provoking as it is, the movie challenges the audience in terms of thinking and analyzing, while the scenes which involve action and any use of modern techniques are set into the background of the film. Yet it cannot be said that the action has been neglected completely, since some of the scenes in the movie require a lot of working on the specific scenes and suggesting a lot of new material to deal with. Such is, for example, the scene crosscutting the ceremony of baptizing.
It must have taken the filmmakers the whole eternity to make the film look what it is now, since the tricks which they pulled are not numerous yet engaging every single modern method possible so that the scene would look as impressive as it could. With all the art of his, Coppola creates the world of gangsters which strikes with its reality and truth, making the audience believe in its existence.
The sound in the scene is, perhaps, ass important as the abovementioned episode of the crosscutting, since it makes the atmosphere in the movie even tenser, though it seems impossible. Indeed, here could have been no better decision made for the film than involving the powerful and magnificent sound of the organ. The impression which it makes is close to the one which the Don makes on the other specimen of the gangster world, the voice and the manners as solemn and impressive as the music which the organ in the church plays. As Phillips (2004) recollects,
When he opted to intercut the two sequences, Peter Zinner suggested that they and the powerful organ theme, which then became the unifying voice that tied the two sequences together musically. I short, the montage choreographed mayhem with religion by intercutting multiple murders with the baptism of Michael Corleone’s godson, Michael Rizzi, the son of Connie and Carlo. (106)
Making the scene the most memorable part of the whole movie, the crosscutting of the pictures and the sound contributed to the formation of the specific image of the film. From this time on, the mafia was considered as a powerful social and political structure, a force which was frightening in its attempt to gain the influence all over the entire society and become the leading force in the life of millions of people. Setting a model to follow for millions of people all over the world, making the homemade businessmen dream of the brave new world which was shown to them, the filmmakers were more than successful, and what they created was more than simply a film – it was an epoch. It is also peculiar that the final scene of baptism matches with the initial one, which depicts a wedding in church (Browne 2000, 139)
Rolling with Laughter: Seized by the Gold Rush
Because of the stunning magnificence of performance, with help of which comedy bordered with tragedy, the famous comedian, Charlie Chaplin, has shown that the art of comedy has been long underestimated, and elevated it to the level of a sovereign film genre, with its own laws and traditions. Since he was actually pioneering the genre, he was the first to set the abovementioned frames which limited the actor in his attempts to express a certain emotion. In one of his most famous movies the Gold Rush, Charlie Chaplin shows the great talent of his unraveled and strikes the audience with his brilliant performance. One of the most special scenes, which makes people roll with laughter as they watch it is the episode of Charlie and his companion having dinner, which the boiled she makes. With help of the specific film-making secrets of his, he fills the cinema with laughter, and the ultimate secret of his seems to have been hidden too good to be ever discovered.
Meanwhile, it is important to consider the tiny details of the movie in question, especially about the scene which has just been described. One of the most hilarious in the whole movie, it not only makes people laugh with tears welling in their eyes, but also leaves a trail of sadness, which makes people think of whether there was something beneath the joke which Chaplin wanted to tell them.
As a matter of fact there always is. Being a man of very specific talent, a genius, in fact Chaplin tended to reflect the issues of the everyday life and the ordinary people in his works. He did his best to mirror the reality, pulling his tongue at those who were mocking at him and his attempts.
The mise-en-scene of the chosen part of the movie is more than simply hilarious – it is philosophical and political at the same time; rising the issues of poverty which was a common case in the country of those times, Chaplin and his crew did not hesitate to present the reality in the very miserable way which it actually was. These daring attempts did not pass unnoticed, by the way.
Still the very scene is more than convincing. Charlie has managed to get the grip on the miserable state of a person driven to the highest degree of despair by his unfortunate financial state. This was something new to the American comedy movies. No one has ever laughed in such a way at the miseries of the people and of the country. And the citizen discovered an interesting fact, which was that if one laughs at his or her poor state, the twists of fortune are easier to bare. The little man named Charlie Chaplin won one more fight, proving the people that they are able to recover from the disease which had captured the United States, as long as they have the will to laugh at their own troubles. Charlie proved that troubles and miseries are afraid of laughter, and called all people to laugh together with him. The effect was stunning.
As Chaplin admitted himself, the film was inspired neither by any social changes, nor by the political ones. As every genial idea, it came suddenly and planted rather vague imprints of what the movie should look like. These wee the uncertain shapes which came to Chaplin’s mind first. And the place where these ideas occurred to him was even more unexpected and unusual:
He claimed that the idea for the film had come to him one day when he was visiting Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford, and saw a stereoscope slide of gold prospectors in the Chilcoot Pass. Further inspiration came from the macabre story of the Dinner Party disaster of 1846, when pioneers snowbound in Sierra Nevada were forced to feed on the corpses of their dead companions. (Robinson 1983, 66)
With such ideas to pursue, it was a sheer wonder that the comic genius of Chaplin endured the severe and harsh ideas brought to him by his obliging imagination. It took the great master of laughter not very much time to transform the story of blood and thunder into a hilarious comedy for all people to enjoy, without suspecting the real ideas underlying it. Well, the public has always been not quite shrewd and quick-witted.
The scene under the discussion also touches by its action unwinding. For his comedies, Chaplin created a special pace to walk with, like no other pace ever created by any actor. It was his specific way to measure the space and time. Moving and awkward, it added the necessary comic tint to the movie. It can be also seen rather clearly that all the movements in the scene are somewhat slowed down, as if the lead characters were walking under the water. Made for a special conic effect, this was also aimed at making the public laugh out loud, moving at the awkwardness of the characters in the movie. Once a pace picked up to create a more credible character, the specific walk of Chaplin soon became the feature of his, which formed his image as a comic actor.
What is the most specific feature of The Gold Rush, distinguishing the film from the range of the-lie films, based on the same gags and tricks used by Chaplin’s heirs is the so-called “narrative structure”, with its “essential blend of comedy and pathos” (Maland 1991, 106). It is truly unbelievable that a single man can set the standard of a comedy for the rest of the world and that this standard will hold on for years, but such is the truth, for no one has yet argued against the ideas suggested by the great comic actor. His ways of moving and acting have been the only one ever since, and the comedy genre owes in fact a lot to Charlie Chaplin. As Maland said,
One could almost say that Chaplin was self-conscious creating his own genius, one had ensured hi popularity ad respect among a diverse audience and sustained his star image. (106)
Indeed, there could be hardly anything that Charlie Chaplin did not try to change in the public’s idea of a comedy character. The tricks, the mood of the film, the storyline and the gestures were subjected by strong critics and carefully planned so that the effect could be the most striking. The result is what the spectators can see in The Gold Rush. An outburst of wit and irony is the characteristic trait of the film. Almost nearing to sarcasm, Chaplin created the world of his where he could be the creator and the actor at the same time.
In spite of the fact that the era of sound films began, Chaplin prefers to stay silent in the film. Instead, there is a plenty of other sounds, like the clattering of dishes, the creak of a shoe, the voice of the narrator… These are all the background elements, for, although rather important, they do not take much place in the movie. It seems that if those sounds were taken away, the movie would not be harmed much. This is where the point of Chaplin’s talent comes, the talent of the mime and the comedian. Being able to tell thousands of things keeping silence is the top of art which Chaplin reached.
Like in the rest of the movies, the moment of editing escapes the public’s mind as they speak of the films with Charlie Chaplin. So perfect do they look that it seems impossible that they have undergone some sort of checking before shown to the public. However, editing, like any stage of film-making, was the inevitable part of The Gold Rush as well. It did not take much of the film, though. Due to the fact that Chaplin did not know much about the process of film-making, he could not make his films technically perfect.
Chaplin’s films are “bad” technically… Chaplin didn’t understand composition, editing, lighting and sound: many of his best hits would be as good on the stage as on the screen. (Maland 335)
However, with the genius of his, Chaplin would keep the films afloat only emerging in them for a tiny bit of moment. The scene in The Gold Rush, unedited, uncut and undone, raw as it is, still looks perfect, for it is saturated with Chaplin’s talent. The amazing works of the master of laughter did not depend on such earthy thing as sound effects, cutting and editing. The Gold Rush is beyond the principles of art, for this film is the principle itself – the principle of a man who laughs even when it is time to cry.
References
Browne, N. (2000) Frantic Ford Coppola’s Godfather Trilogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maland, C. G. (1991) Chaplin and American Culture: The Evolution of a Star Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Phillips, G. P. (2004) The Intimate Francis Ford Coppola. Frankfort, KY: Kentucky University Press.
Robinson, D. (1983) Chaplin, the Mirror of Opinion. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.