Godfather is the Best Drama Ever

[athanaric]

I don't think we can dismiss a work with a John Oliver-esque "come on people its [year/genre/other indicator]". If we use that logic we can deny Romeo and Juliet as being a great romance (its teen angst with a ludicrously avoidable death scene) Hamlet as being a tragedy (first estate problems) or even the Iliad (our hero is a rapist berserker, and I am supposed to care if he lives or dies?). So lets dispose of that argument by saying "come on people its 2021, gangster films can be high art now".

That's basically the "Seinfeld is unfunny" trope. I.e. the trailblazing IP is seen in hindsight and judged with the standards of the present.

I think gangster movies generally rank with Schwarzenegger movies for cultural refinement, but GF is a special case, a genre widening/renovating work. It manages to tick the gangster boxes and include a huge amount of non-gangster material and techniques and tropes so as to make the genre much more widely appealing and relevant.
[...]
For me the crime porn and Cosa Nostra fetishization is a setback and means its not top ten, but that's a matter of personal taste. I can really see why people do put it in their top 10s though.

Gangster movies can be great art, doesn't mean everybody has to like the subject. Personally, I would never consider watching The Exorcist or Psycho, maybe not even Alien, even though they've all been touted as timeless classics. Just not a fan of body horror, or of directors who revel in it (I wonder what went wrong in their lives?).
In the same vein, many/most of the best gangster movies and series (in particular Goodfellas and The Sopranos) show what petty little these gangsters really are (reminds me of Hannah Arendt's bonmot about the "banality of evil"), without beating you over the head with it. That, and good storytelling. If you think about it, most shows are stories about awful people doing terrible things - just take Vikings, Game of Thrones, Sons of Anarchy, Breaking Bad, and so on... I guess the Godfather trilogy can be seen as glorifying the gangster world more than others, due to sympathetic angle, the soft lighting, and the pleasant score. But even so, it's pretty plain who the villains are in the end.

[chriscase]

... allow me to play devil's advocate.

I don't think we can dismiss a work with a John Oliver-esque "come on people its [year/genre/other indicator]". If we use that logic we can deny Romeo and Juliet as being a great romance (its teen angst with a ludicrously avoidable death scene) Hamlet as being a tragedy (first estate problems) or even the Iliad (our hero is a rapist berserker, and I am supposed to care if he lives or dies?). So lets dispose of that argument by saying "come on people its 2021, gangster films can be high art now".
...

The story is horrible, but if its told well any story can be dramatic, that is to say the vehicle of good acting performances. It definitely satisfies a number of dramatic appetites, it has a massive star in Brando, a hunk in Caan, a new face in Pacino, a sweetie in Keaton so its actually a satisfying Hollywood blockbuster (it also has exotic locales! violence! sex is off screen!).

It has very interesting character development, why would a war hero become a crime boss? Other films have "honour among thieves" as a theme, but GF (as mentioned above) goes deep into the role of family and the Sicilian code as a source of loyalty and cohesion. Yes its voyeuristic, like a gratuitous native dance scene in an Indiana Jones movie ("look at these weird foreigners and their ways" "gross, a fish in a vest!") but its also presented as a working system, with real emotional consequences and political ramifications. "Look how they massacred my boi" is quite a sad moment, and its a twist because we, like the undertaker, know Vito as fearsome rather than human, and we're not sure WTF is going on until he breaks down.

Its a relevant drama too: crime syndicates have some influence in the US (I feel like Keaton is a nod to Jacquline Bouvuier marrying into the rotten Kennedy mob) and while the crime machine is background (the movie is moslty about the turf war, rather than how they work the turf) and most people know where they can place an illegal bet or visit a brothel.

...

I think God Father does pass the test of being "Good Drama" on many levels. The acting satisfies a number or audiences. You want to see Hollywood stars being themselves are using art to transform themselves? Check. Do they dazzle you and make you want to watch them? Check. Is the story interesting both as entertainment, or for deeper reflection, or for escapism, or social relevance (both directly and metaphorically)? Check.

It passes the basic test that a great majority of people will find it watchable and satisfying, and you can enjoy it for many many aspects and elements. In terms of "art" I think the artists do what they wanted to do, and show great skill and good taste.

So my criticism here doesn't really deny many of the good points you are making, and I'll happily agree that The Godfather, The Sopranos, Goodfellas, are all highly entertaining, well-made, and quite "good" dramas.

It's really this point here:

The story is horrible, but if its told well any story can be dramatic, that is to say the vehicle of good acting performances.

So first off if the story is well-told I would also expect it to be well-formed, i.e., it's got a smashing good beginning and an end. In the middle there ought to be interesting... ummm... dramatic developments. You know, a story. If all that is really well done then yeah I think you've got a basis for someone to present an excellent performance of it. And yes, even if the story is lacking (in the dramatic, well-written sense) it can be rescued by good direction, editing, and of course acting. My basic point is that any story that's already well-written is going to have a huge advantage over one that's flawed, and bringing superb talents to bear on a great story is likely to produce a better overall production than bringing those same talents to the rescue of a poorly-told story. This doesn't seem all that controversial.

My peeve of late with a lot of these heavy-hitter "dramas" is they often suffer from not knowing how the hell they are supposed to end. I blame that somewhat on the way the entertainment industry works, but also on the audience. That's sort of what I was getting at in my last post. As viewers I think we've lost sight of the difference between an entertaining premise that seems to have no ending in its sights, and a compelling story with a real ending. I think shows like The Sopranos tried to give us both, but more often than not the endings seem to be one kind of train wreck or another.

[enoch]

GoT 8 is the worst written season of television and will be until time has a stop, as it must. True Romance is the greatest film. The latter is unique to me. The former is firmament.

[chriscase]

Well GOT has the excuse that GRRM hadn't (and still hasn't) actually written the end of the story. Add to that the fact we had to sit through brutality after brutality on the promise that it would all be worth it in the end (it wasn't) and the experience becomes particularly disheartening.

But there are numerous other examples. Remember Lost? And yes the aforementioned Sopranos didn't really go out in style either. In fact I'd say the saga of Michael Corleone doesn't have much of an ending, does it?

For examples of films with definite endings I think True Romance certainly works well, as do most of Tarantino's films. I'd point to Looper (Bruce Willis film) as a story that's got a really well done arc, in that it's definitely on a trajectory and when you get to the end it's over, all the while it's hard to tell what's actually going to happen until you get there. Babylon 5 had a well defined story arc that was pretty great - though some of that got messed up due to interference from the promoters. Star Trek didn't really have a story arc because it's wasn't necessarily ever supposed to end.

I think you can defend something like Star Trek TNG or The Sopranos from the perspective that the show is a platform to tell smaller stories - something like The Twilight Zone. And yet in the case of The Sopranos the saga of Tony Soprano really seemed to want an end... so they gave it one (such as it is).

[Cyclops]

That's basically the "Seinfeld is unfunny" trope. I.e. the trailblazing IP is seen in hindsight and judged with the standards of the present.

I agree of course, hence the smiley. We are discussing matters of taste so I include that as a caveat.

You raise a very interesting side point. I never saw any Seinfeld stand up until the last 12 months. I never knew he's an amazingly funny stand up. All I ever saw was this dull mediocre actor (with quite a good supporting cast, the Kramer guy was a decent clown and Jason Alexander and the Elaine actress are reasonable comic actors). I didn't realise he came with this charisma of being a gun stand up: the snippets in the show are not his best by a long shot, so I never understood the appeal. I think his established body of work made his pretty tame observational scenarios funny because a US audience already knew where he was coming from. I like that irritable Boston guy Bill Burr, but if I saw him in the Mandalorian or if he had a Seinfeld like vehicle I would probably just see some annoying :wub:, without the touchstone of his comic body of work in mind.

I though the show was mostly funny but the Jerry character was clearly not an actor and I couldn't understand why he was there. As a series it had many good oments but like a lot of series it had the problem of how to end. I thought it ended neatly, but I believe many hated it.

Gangster movies can be great art, doesn't mean everybody has to like the subject. Personally, I would never consider watching The Exorcist or Psycho, maybe not even Alien, even though they've all been touted as timeless classics. Just not a fan of body horror, or of directors who revel in it (I wonder what went wrong in their lives?).

I respect that POV. I can detach a little, I enjoy the critical aspects of Alien but its hard to watch as its essentially a killcount movie. I have difficulty watching Cronenburg or Tarrantino because of the fetish aspect of their work.

In the same vein, many/most of the best gangster movies and series (in particular Goodfellas and The Sopranos) show what petty little these gangsters really are (reminds me of Hannah Arendt's bonmot about the "banality of evil"), without beating you over the head with it. That, and good storytelling. If you think about it, most shows are stories about awful people doing terrible things - just take Vikings, Game of Thrones, Sons of Anarchy, Breaking Bad, and so on... I guess the Godfather trilogy can be seen as glorifying the gangster world more than others, due to sympathetic angle, the soft lighting, and the pleasant score. But even so, it's pretty plain who the villains are in the end.

Yes, and I think GF treads a neat line with a "slice of gangster life" approach. I don't think its vilified or glorified, but you see killing being ordered and carried out and if you its wrong, you know they are bad. I think in Goodfellas its more a case of explicit gangster porn although it pays lip service to the "there's a down side as well..."

...
My peeve of late with a lot of these heavy-hitter "dramas" is they often suffer from not knowing how the hell they are supposed to end. I blame that somewhat on the way the entertainment industry works, but also on the audience. That's sort of what I was getting at in my last post. As viewers I think we've lost sight of the difference between an entertaining premise that seems to have no ending in its sights, and a compelling story with a real ending. I think shows like The Sopranos tried to give us both, but more often than not the endings seem to be one kind of train wreck or another.

Oh I agree. Supposedly the Sopranos was great. I saw one episode about peaches and it was trash crime porn: hard not to fall into lazy/hack writing if you are spreading a format that worked over 2-3 hours into multiple multiple seasons. I don't like the drama so I didn't watch any more. If it was great then well done, I'm not in a position to comment.

Goodfellas was not great, and that I will argue hard, it was just a rehash. I enjoy watching De Niro but this was a rote job by him, nothing exceptional. King of Comedy is a more significant role than this. Every other character was a stock figure and it was operating within the terrain carved out by GF.

[Flinn]

Frankly speaking, what bugs me about all those Mafia movies or whatever is the excessive romanticism (in the sense of showing positive feelings like friendship, love, family, etc) they depicts. There's nothing farther from the reality, at the least for Italian Mafia et simil. This transition of the typical italian image that the Americans have into Mafia stories is crooked, Mafia people is brutal, to say the least. They don't give a crap about family, friendship or love, they only carve power and want to be feared... brothers killing each other, sons betraying their parents, lovers used as trap to expose a boss, those are daily events, not occasional ones.

Bernardo Provenzano
Totò Riina
Giovanni Brusca

The image that Mafia people is somewhat respected and they do something good for the people is , they rule through absolute dread, and their reactions are always disproportionate to the offence.

[Roma_Victrix]

It's the arrival of Francis Ford Coppola, and it's followed by Friedkin's The Exorcist, Polanski's Chinatown, Spielberg's Jaws, and of course Scorsese's breakthrough with Taxi Driver.

Hey pal, don't you dare forget Ridley Scott's Alien (1979).

Look I see your point Roma but I think Goodfellas Casino and Sopranos walk a path GF opens artistically. In terms of greatness it's really hard to create the formula and performances like Pacino's and the rest.

Once that formula is built it's workable for Tony Soprano to be a mobster with an interesting psyche and looking at him as a human is not a thematic dogs breakfast.

if Bogart turned around in Petrified Forest and started mumbling about his anxiety it'd be laughable, the narrative flow would be flushed away like a broken dream. Coppola sets up a paradigm where Michael' illusive (and somewhat elusive) character can nevertheless reveal his disquiet and internal conflict as he transforms into, if not his father, then his father's fitting heir.

the trope of James Gandolfini on the couch is dangerously close to farce (was Analyse This made first?), credit to the show that they pulled it off so that's a substantial dramatic achievement. Such explicit character excavation is definitely made possible by Coppola languid almost wordless but beautifully articulated moral development two decades earlier.

Yes, there wouldn't even be a Goodfellas if not for the Godfather, but my point was about depth of character, which a six-season TV series is able to flesh out to a much higher level than a single film could ever hope to do, or even a film trilogy like the Godfather. We the audience understand the feelings, reasonings, and motives of Chase's Tony Soprano far more than Coppola's Michael Corleone, if only because of the ample screen time given to the former as opposed to the latter (along with the languid, wordless persona of Corleone). If the Godfather was a recent high-budget TV series instead of a film trilogy then it would probably have served up a better drama, but we'll never know.

In terms of films exclusively, excluding all my points about the Sopranos or any other recent television series, I rank Goodfellas slightly above the Godfather only because I think its narrative flow is easier to digest and the characters are more relatable, if not more believable. In terms of film techniques it is also superior, to say nothing of far more realistic special effects. Being an early 90s film, it also lacks the old timey cheesy fighting choreography and painfully dramatic falling deaths. Don't get me wrong, I love the Godfather, but man is it dated in that aspect. LOL. For instance, when Sonny Corleone (James Caan) beats up his brother-in-law in the street, I mean, come on.

https://www.sbs.com.au/movies/articl...cinema-forever

Two can play at this game, my friend. The profound impact The Sopranos had on both premium and cable TV series, from Breaking Bad to Mad Men, in creating a flawed protagonist who was morally ambiguous, a monster even, but one who was still relatable and who the viewer is forced to sympathize with given his life trajectory and peculiar situation:

Frankly speaking, what bugs me about all those Mafia movies or whatever is the excessive romanticism (in the sense of showing positive feelings like friendship, love, family, etc) they depicts. There's nothing farther from the reality, at the least for Italian Mafia et simil. This transition of the typical italian image that the Americans have into Mafia stories is crooked, Mafia people is brutal, to say the least. They don't give a crap about family, friendship or love, they only carve power and want to be feared... brothers killing each other, sons betraying their parents, lovers used as trap to expose a boss, those are daily events, not occasional ones.

Bernardo Provenzano
Totò Riina
Giovanni Brusca

The image that Mafia people is somewhat respected and they do something good for the people is , they rule through absolute dread, and their reactions are always disproportionate to the offence.

That's correct, yes, but we're talking about drama and fiction here, Flinn! Not reality! You're ruining all our fun!

You know what? Fine. I'll go ahead and say it, if we're going there and since Game of Thrones has been mentioned. Might as well discuss Lord of the Rings: Frodo Baggins was a villain! There. I said it. There's a reason why he had nine fingers in the end! He was far worse than Tony Soprano could ever hope to be. I mean, seriously, allowing himself to become corrupted by the ring and risk allowing the world to become consumed and controlled by the Dark Lord Suaron? Tisk, tisk, Frodo of the Shire.

[chriscase]

The profound impact The Sopranos had on both premium and cable TV series, from Breaking Bad to Mad Men, in creating a flawed protagonist who was morally ambiguous, a monster even, but one who was still relatable and who the viewer is forced to sympathize with given his life trajectory and peculiar situation...

Sure. I mean, why aren't we talking about The Untouchables? Because that sort of old-fashioned, morally unambiguous story seems to belong to a totally different genre.

The story issue remains. Let's assume the narrative accomplishes its goal of creating a somewhat-sympathetic anti-hero mobster that the audience somehow buys into. Call it a victory of mesmerism, or suspension of morality. What then? How does the story end?

Does our hero seek redemption and go out in a blaze of glory, defending some more worthy innocent? (Think De Niro in The Mission) Seems just a bit out of character but it might be the only real possibility.

Do the hero's sins come back with terrible vengeance and strike down innocents that he holds dear? What a bummer.

Does he turn state's evidence and betray his closest friends? That's going out with a whimper.

Or do we just fade to black, assuming he's going to get wiped out? The coward's path.

I don't really see a good way to end things here.

[SoggyFrog]

I have difficulty watching Cronenburg or Tarrantino because of the fetish aspect of their work.

Two directors I would never expect to see lumped together. Cronenberg is certainly willing to depict violence where he sees fit, but his treatment of it is not as entertainment and totally differs from Tarantino's pop culture exuberance.

Hey pal, don't you dare forget Ridley Scott's Alien (1979).

Love Alien, but it's a UK-based production, and more importantly, it's post-Star Wars.

To Each, His Own.

True enough, but then why start this discussion? Are you interested in other people's thoughts on this movie?

[enoch]

To Each His Own 1946. Seems the phrase alone though implies I am interested in everyone having their own opinion. I started this thread for the same reason I start all threads. I love people and community. This one more than others.

[Roma_Victrix]

Sure. I mean, why aren't we talking about The Untouchables? Because that sort of old-fashioned, morally unambiguous story seems to belong to a totally different genre.

The story issue remains. Let's assume the narrative accomplishes its goal of creating a somewhat-sympathetic anti-hero mobster that the audience somehow buys into. Call it a victory of mesmerism, or suspension of morality. What then? How does the story end?

Does our hero seek redemption and go out in a blaze of glory, defending some more worthy innocent? (Think De Niro in The Mission) Seems just a bit out of character but it might be the only real possibility.

Do the hero's sins come back with terrible vengeance and strike down innocents that he holds dear? What a bummer.

Does he turn state's evidence and betray his closest friends? That's going out with a whimper.

Or do we just fade to black, assuming he's going to get wiped out? The coward's path.

I don't really see a good way to end things here.

Aside from the first optional pathway mentioned, the following ones are all tragic endings as alternatives, and tragedy is usually essential to drama. Dramas don't always have happy endings either. That's certainly not the formula to Shakespearean tragedies with flawed characters like Romeo & Juliet, Antony and Cleopatra, Hamlet or Othello, with hidden lessons to be had in the destruction of many or most of the main characters by tale's end. Tony Soprano being killed is hardly out of line for a drama ending in tragedy, especially since he lived a dangerous, morally ambiguous life that shouldn't be rewarded if the universe is truly governed by the rules of karma. It's only fitting for his character, actually, to end in a violent, tragic way for the life he's chosen.

That certainly makes more sense for the narrative arc than having the camera fade to black as Tony happily enters the Disneyland theme park with he and his family unharmed by all the questionable and terrible decisions he has made throughout his life. There wouldn't be much of a lesson there for the audience either. It would arguably be more nihilistic to end The Sopranos on a happy feel-good note. I certainly wouldn't deduct points from a gangster film simply because it has to end with the destruction, punishment or diminishing of the main characters who did terrible things, because that's integral to the subgenre. Recent films like The Irishman also make this point crisp and clear by movie's end.

Love Alien, but it's a UK-based production, and more importantly, it's post-Star Wars.

Yep, correct, I just like to play devil's advocate, and I love that film to death, one of my favorites from the 1970s. I decided to go with that instead of truly trolling and saying Texas Chainsaw Massacre or something.

[chriscase]

Aside from the first optional pathway mentioned, the following ones are all tragic endings as alternatives, and tragedy is usually essential to drama. Dramas don't always have happy endings either. That's certainly not the formula to Shakespearean tragedies with flawed characters like Romeo & Juliet, Antony and Cleopatra, Hamlet or Othello, with hidden lessons to be had in the destruction of many or most of the main characters by tale's end. Tony Soprano being killed is hardly out of line for a drama ending in tragedy, especially since he lived a dangerous, morally ambiguous life that shouldn't be rewarded if the universe is truly governed by the rules of karma. It's only fitting for his character, actually, to end in a violent, tragic way for the life he's chosen.

That certainly makes more sense for the narrative arc than having the camera fade to black as Tony happily enters the Disneyland theme park with he and his family unharmed by all the questionable and terrible decisions he has made throughout his life. There wouldn't be much of a lesson there for the audience either. It would arguably be more nihilistic to end The Sopranos on a happy feel-good note. I certainly wouldn't deduct points from a gangster film simply because it has to end with the destruction, punishment or diminishing of the main characters who did terrible things, because that's integral to the subgenre. Recent films like The Irishman also make this point crisp and clear by movie's end.

Well now I think you're simplifying things considerably. It's never been as simple as bad person has bad time. Justice may be served but that's not all there is to a tragedy. A tragedy needs a tragic hero - an heroic character who is doomed due to some combination of tragic flaws, circumstances, and the actions of adversaries. And usually the adversary is the true villain, whose evil deeds are ultimately exposed and punished, but not in time to save the hero.

Let's look at a tragedy I think most of us remember - Othello. I'm not trying to get too deep here, just look at the basics of that story. Othello starts out as the man of the day, a hero celebrating - and being celebrated - at the peak of his career. The villain Iago plots to destroy Othello by exploiting Othello's weakness - jealous rage. Iago plants the seeds of distrust in Othello's mind, creating the illusion that Othello's beloved Desdemona isn't faithful. Othello loses his mind and murders Desdemona. In the melee that follows, the truth of Iago's villainy is exposed, but too late to save Othello or Desdemona.

So how do we know this story is over? Well, for a start just about all the main characters are dead. The villain Iago isn't dead, but has been arrested and disposed of for justice. Othello's fate, though unjust, stands as a caution against the rule of the passions. It's a tragedy and also a story with an end.

Suppose we wanted to rewrite Othello as an episode of The Sopranos. First off, the protagonist Othello is also to be the greatest villain. The appeal of the story is not in a heroic protagonist brought down by his enemies, but in a powerful, anti-heroic protagonist bringing down despicable but lesser evils who presume to plot against him. I can imagine Othello in his coming-out moment, believing his deep corruption of the governing powers in Venice has finally brought him to the top level of society, where he can prosper as a "legitimate" noble.

But now comes Iago with his plot to turn Othello against his bride. This could play out a few ways. Certainly Othello, Big Bad that he is, will suss out Iago's plot. But will he do so dispassionately, and take Iago down behind the scenes? Perhaps Othello kills Desdemona anyway in a fit of rage, but also covers his tracks sufficiently to frame an enemy - even Iago - for it.

However it plays out there would be a few dependable outcomes:
- Iago's evil will be punished, not justly but with a vengeance
- Othello's play to go "legit" will fail
- No one will be able to kill Othello; his enemies will be crushed

The reason for this is simple - the story has no end. The anti-hero will go on, lesser adversaries will be destroyed, and the audience will continue rooting for him in guilty pleasure.

Is this entertaining? Sure, if it's done well. Is it a good story? Ehhhhh... maybe?

One thing's for sure - if it hits, one of the content studios will milk it for a good 5 or 6 seasons. Then they'll have to come up with an ending, which will probably suck.

[enoch]

GRRM not finishing the saga I started OVER twenty years ago reading an ARC is one of the great sadnesses of my life. Anyone wants a less than fun ending (somewhat publishing related) try some R Scott Bakker (although brilliant too). Fantastic books. Number 2 in particular.

Tony Soprano was not the first anti hero to capture the consciousness on TV.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Flinn]

That's correct, yes, but we're talking about drama and fiction here, Flinn! Not reality! You're ruining all our fun!

Yes, but it doesn't make for a great show for me, then. Recently we have had some new shows in Italy, "Romanzo Criminale" which tells about the history of the Banda della Magliana or "Gomorra", which is about modern times Camorra. Both shows are far more realistic than the romanticized stuff of the past, but sadly they aren't perfect as well. Romanzo Criminale was acclaimed (the book, the movie and the serial, all of them) to be a great success, but honestly I still find it too far from what "mafia" actually is.

I agree, this is entertainment, and as such it's not really meant to teach or to tell, but just to offer people a perspective of what being a criminal would be, without having to feel guilty for having desired such a life

[Roma_Victrix]

One thing's for sure - if it hits, one of the content studios will milk it for a good 5 or 6 seasons. Then they'll have to come up with an ending, which will probably suck.

Good points all around, I love a good rebuttal, so +1 rep. Indeed, tragedy has many other elements that The Sopranos lacks, but while the criminal Tony Soprano is a figure who earns less sympathy than the military officer Othello, they're still somewhat comparable. They're both inherently flawed characters who did terrible things that they paid a price for despite their respective audiences connecting with them or sympathizing with their situations.

Also, you bring up a good point that I had not really considered, or rather only considered in the reverse in my first post of this thread. In that post, I highlighted the limitations of a single film versus the rich character development that can be mapped out over a series of several seasons with many episodes. You bring up a worthy counterpoint about the medium of a televised series having its own limitations, in that the plot must be moved along and side characters conveniently killed or removed while the main characters continue their story arc nearly unhindered. Some shows break that convention, namely Game of Thrones with its surprise deaths of major characters, but even that show was beloved in the beginning and panned in the end for its poor writing and inability to bring things to a satisfactory conclusion.

Now that I think about it, I find most plays and movies on average have a satisfying ending despite their limited time slot whereas about half the TV series that I watch have unfulfilling, mediocre or bad endings that fail to wrap everything up neatly or soundly.

[Hobbes]

The Godfather is easily one of the best films ever made, with Pacino and De Niro (in the second one) being superb in their respective roles. But the guy who steals the show is Cazale, who plays Fredo, Michael's underachieving and approval-seeking brother. It's really hard not to feel sorry for the guy, especially in the second film. That scene where the two brothers hug for the last time always makes my hair stand. Cazale's performance was also captivating in that other American classic, "The Deer Hunter".