MovieChat Forums > TheWhiteHotel > Replies
TheWhiteHotel's Replies
I don't even know what this conversation is about so I'd have trouble inserting propaganda into it. Incredibly paranoid sounding reply...
You can tell me what you are talking about if you like. I'm not American if that helps. If you don't want to, that'll be fine too.
There's zero chance this will produce a fruitful discussion given your starting point but I am genuinely intrigued; what lunacy are you referring to? Say what you like about Biden but he's about the most middle-of-the-road politician you could possible imagine. Accusing him of lunacy is like calling brown bread an exotic foodstuff.
A friend of mine has just come back from Washington where he was staying with some inlaws. They're all apparently very nice people but all rabid republicans. After the midterm results they told my friend "well, at least the democrats won't have an excuse to riot. They always riot when they don't get the election result they want". Can you imagine, a Trump supporter said that unironically. That's what this question reminds me of.
Batman reference? I also like "I'm not only president of the hair club for men, I'm also a member."
It's not a plot hole. The answer is pretty much given in the movie. The penalties for drugs were much harsher than for most other forms of gangsterism and led to many more guys turning state witness to avoid them, making senior members like Paulie far more vulnerable to lengthy prison sentences than they would otherwise have been. Plus of course, people on drugs tend to be much less reliable so you do not want your guys doing them.
Hello ecarle, this happens to be the second post of yours that I have replied to today (the other being on the Nebraska board) but I am not stalking you, I promise!
I agree completely, when I first saw Wolf of Wall Street I clearly remember thinking Di Caprio could almost be Liotta. I am not American so I am not brilliant at the nuances of American accents, but they sound very similar to me, and as you say, even more than that, the tone and intonation of the two voices is uncannily similar and they both guide you somewhat gleefully through their own amoral, despicable but at times exciting and glamourous worlds. Scorsese's directorial style also contributes to the similarity of course and in some ways I think that these are the two films of his that are the most similar to each other.
I love both movies and could (and have) happily watch either multiple times. Goodfellas is more viscerally exciting (it is one of the best directed movies I have ever seen) but I get more power and nuance from the The Godfather (and Part 2). If I were to describe how I felt about each movie to a stranger I suspect they would come away with the idea that I like The Godfather more, and ultimately I think that is probably true.
Lecter, who is, for all his other defects, always depicted as a genius and an extraordinarily insightful psychologist/psychiatrist, specifically states in the movie that "Billy is not a transexual".
It is much harder (but certainly not impossible) to get a movie made today that is consciously racist, sexist, or otherwise conforms to or pushes a harmful stereotype, and rightly so. SOTL does not. That's not to say it would not anger some people, but it also attracted protests when it was released in 1991. The most powerful demographic in the world still includes many people who are racist, sexist or prejudiced in other ways. The idea that these people are unjustly suffering at the hands of political correctness, wokeness or whatever other uncodified umbrella term you want to use, is pretty difficult to sustain. The reason people who are considered "woke" are so seemingly visible/audible is that the world itself does not reflect their outlook and hence they feel the need to protest.
Adult son: "Did you love mom?"
Elderly father: "It never came up"
You might see him kill more people on screen or personally, but Michael is still responsible for more deaths. He's the head of the most powerful Mafia family in America for 30+ years. The Mafia's whole thing is to commit acts of violence for profit and to murder people who object. Michael's motivation is far worse than Indiana Jones'.
Plus, half the people that die having come into contact with Indiana Jones do so because they are involved in high speed chases and the like and die as a result of accidents or recklessness. Indiana Jones does not personally kill quite a lot of the people who die in those movies and if they weren't chasing after him for whatever reason (and let's not forget that according to the movies, the main reason these guys are trying to stop Indy is that they themselves are evil) they would not have died. So I'd still go with Michael, who chooses to be the head of a far-reaching criminal syndicate whose whole business operation is based on violence and murder.
I don't think he is responsible for more deaths. Besides, most of the people who Indy kills were Nazis or were forcing kidnapped children to work in a mine.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm presenting it as a possibility to help explain why Vito would not act automatically.
Michael. Because his whole life is dedicated to upholding a criminal empire which is responsible for untold death, violence and misery.
Very articulately put, BullSchmidt, great post.
It's not about hurt feelings, Rolltide, it takes more than a keyboard warrior mouthing off to trouble me, just a simple request for civility which does not seem unreasonable to me and makes for a more conducive discussion, but take it or leave it.
The girl's age is not the issue, what I'm pointing out (now repeatedly), is that Vito's wife was asked to be godmother to this person maybe two decades ago. That does not necessarily mean that the two women currently have the type of close relationship that would mean Vito would immediately act on the mother's behalf without any kind of prompting. By the sound of things, Vito has not met with either of these two parents in many years, perhaps his wife has not either.
And if you go round with aspirations of personally visiting violent revenge upon people whose actions have riled you it kind of sounds like your values are more akin to the mafia's than mine.
Not to mention that the Mafia does exist and is responsible for many deaths. I can't imagine that there are that many adventurous archaeologists offing rivals and locals round the world.
>I wasn't that rude. Stop being a baby.
Satire is dead. I'm a baby, someone else is a moron. You even sound angry in your first post. There's just no need for it.
>No connection? His wife is the girl's godmother!!!!
As I said, the girl is a teenager, at least 16, probably 18 (the boyfriend is mentioned as being 20 in the novel). Who knows how that relationship now looks. The Don is not obligated to go around solving people's problems unprompted. As BullSchmidt says, help is for those who are willing to help in turn. Bonasera was not.
We might see Indiana Jones kill more people, but Michael is undoubtedly responsible for more deaths.
I'm sure we all appreciate the question, Rolltide because this is a discussion board and it's a suitable topic for discussion.
But do you have to be so unbelievably rude? People have been good enough to offer up their opinions and interpretations in answer to your question. Just because you don't like the answers that's no reason to start insulting people. It's stuff like this that got the original imdb boards shut down. Pointless aggression directed at people having a civil conversation.
If you want another opinion about your question, I agree with the other posters. Vito is under no obligation to mete out justice for people who he has little or no connection to. He is not running a law enforcement agency. His wife might have been Godmother to Bonasera's daughter, but presumably the girl is at least 16 so that might be a relationship that has drifted off into the past. Vito mentions that he has never so much as been invited round for coffee in the recent past. The whole point of the Godfather's relationship to the community is that if you demonstrate your commitment and loyalty to him he will have your back. Bonasera had not demonstrated any such thing and instead is offering to pay for retribution. Vito does not need the money and Bonasera's offer essentially suggests he believes that Vito is motivated by money, so of course that looks disrespectful when Vito has made it clear he values loyalty and friendship far more.
And like the other posters here, I am answering in the context of the characters in the film, not advocating anything that goes on therein.
My wife is crying downstairs.