By Imtiyala Jamir
Forty three years ago, The Godfather was released to movie audiences. Both Mario Puzo’s novel about the life of the Corleone family and the subsequent films directed by Francis Ford Coppola have been subject to much discussion. This is one such movie where many scenes, even lines of dialogue, are straight from the books. Certainly not all films that have been adapted from books have been good. However, the novel’s greatest achievement is perhaps the films that it spawned- films that have inspired direction, iconic performances, memorable music and dialogue that have become part of our vernacular. In this paper, it is my aim to explore the relationship between a novel and its movie adaptation through The Godfather and analyze how both are products of creative experiences.
When a film is made from a book it is called an adaptation. Film-makers for a very long time have made films based on novels, short stories, biographies and plays. Adaptations of books may vary from being very faithful to the book or loosely based on the book. There are three main reasons a film-maker might make major changes in adapting a literary work. One is simply the “changes demanded by a new medium and sometimes they make changes to highlight new themes, emphasize different traits in a character, or even try to solve the problems they perceive in the original work”. (Adaptation: From novel to film. 15, 16)
The story of The Godfather as depicted both in the Mario Puzo novel and in the films of the same name is multi- faceted. On the one hand is “the world of organized crime, the Mafia. A world where ties are strong, loyalties are somewhat flexible and tempers are short, a world of revenge, violence and distrust, and a world where the weak cannot survive”. (Richard Warren, The Godfather). On the other hand it is the story about family – the blood family one is born into and the one where you have to prove yourself to belong. Varying degrees of power and control and the price paid to achieve success surrounds both of these. This is the world we are introduced to, the world of Vito Corleone.
The differences between Mario Puzo’s novel and the film versions have to do mostly with character history where several of the peripheral characters in the films are given more attention in the novel. In some cases backgrounds are omitted from the films probably due to time constraints. The first character that comes to mind is Captain McCluskey. In the film version of The Godfather, McCluskey is simply a corrupt police captain, the death of whom, by Michael’s hand turns the tide of the story and forces Michael to fulfill his destiny. In the novel we learn of McCluskey’s upbringing and how it leads to his becoming a corrupt cop. A road to corruption that was paved by his father and grandfather who’d shown him that corruption was the way to make it out in the real world. It shows why the monetary price of law outweighed the need for order. To him order always came with the greasing of his palms. None of these details are included in The Godfather film.
Another major difference between the novel and the films comes by way of the attention paid to the character of Johnny Fontaine in the novel. Though Fontaine plays a small role in Part I, the part he plays in Puzo’s book is more substantial. Here we get an in-depth look into his relationships with young starlets, with his wives, with his daughters and details of the trials and tribulations he lives through related to his career. In both versions, however, one scene stands out as key and in the film becomes as memorable a scene as ever appears on the big screen. Though Fontaine is not in the scene, it is because he is the Don’s godson and has come to ask a favor of his godfather that the scene plays out. This scene is the one where movie mogul, Jack Woltz, discovers the head of his beloved Khartoum in his bed. In the film the scene opens with a glorious, peaceful morning in Hollywood. The camera pans across the mogul’s majestic estate while birds chirp happily in the background. Slowly, the camera ascends toward a small window and that music – possibly the greatest of theme songs – begins to play ever so softly as the camera continues to move upward. Through the window we go and upon a slumbering Woltz we come. In an overly ornate bed he lays on satin sheets, the music swells and the camera now follows him as he discovers blood. He uncovers the head of the horse and the music dies leaving us in the midst of a gruesome sight and blood-curdling screams. It is unforgettable.
An adaptation is always an interpretation, involving somebody’s personal views of the book and choices of elements to retain, reproduce, change or leave out. A film is not just an illustrated version of the book. It is a totally different medium. When adapting the novel, the filmmaker has to leave out a number of things for the very simple reason of time difference and because the medium is different. Things can be (and often must be) added to the film because the medium requires it, or because they will be more effective on the screen. The novelist on the other hand creates and describes everything that appears in the novel — the characters, the emotions of the characters, their actions, their thoughts, the plot, the costumes, the atmosphere, the environments, etc. The novel is also a visual medium, except that the author uses words to help the reader reconstruct the visual images in their head.
It would be a serious undertaking to note all that makes The Godfather a great film, a masterpiece, because so much of it is unforgettable. It is simply a staggering film with so many great moments, performances and lines that one cannot mention them all. The acting – it is phenomenal – each actor perfectly personifies the character he/she is playing. Marlon Brando plays the title character with as much style and grace as he does his many other performances. Playing a man much older than himself, a man in the twilight of his life, he commands the respect and honor naturally given to all leaders of men. However, despite Brando’s great performance, one he won an Academy Award for, it is not the best in the film. That honor has to go to Al Pacino whose portrayal of Michael Corleone, the Don’s youngest, and smartest son still stands as the best in his career. Pacino’s gradual transition from a young, fresh-faced war hero to the tortured head of the most powerful crime family is nothing short of amazing For instance, how his shoulders slump and his posture change throughout the film as the weight of the world falls upon him, is astounding. Although it is clearly more visible in Part II, we can already tell that the Michael Corleone who is morphing into the next Don in front of our eyes is a different man than he is in Puzo’s novel. Michael here is much more introverted, much more tortured by his decisions, which somehow make him more menacing.
The major difference between film and books is that visual images stimulate our perceptions directly, while written words can do this indirectly. During the casting process filmmakers can do a great service to a film by matching actors to the characters of an original book source so that at least that part of the visual realization is done prior to the beginning of filming. It is also the other choices made by Francis Ford Coppola to bring this film to life that “make it his crowning achievement as a director”. In this case “he is a director directing the film he was born to direct. That crowning achievement is the look and feel of this film.”(Aurora, Novel to films)
Despite the growing popularity of adaptations, there are a lot of concerns and arguments against adaptations, and they’re not all for the same reasons. One such argument is that adaptations work against the uniqueness of film. Film is its own creative art form and using other works to adapt them to film stifles that creativity and prevents original work from being produced. This “growing popularity of adaptations not only dissolves the barrier between literature and film, but it creates a stigma that film is there to serve as another medium for which to display literature, rather than existing as its own separate entity capable of narrative merit”.(Adapting to adaptations. Web 16 February 2015)
But the disdain against adaptations doesn’t seem to stem simply from the viewpoint that adaptations shouldn’t be made at all, but rather, that they shouldn’t be made into film. “It does seem to be more or less acceptable to adapt Romeo and Juliet into a respected high art form, like an opera or a ballet, but not to make it into a movie” (Hutcheon, 3). So the concern is not that adapting will reduce the quality of the original work, but that it is actually the form or medium it is being translated to that matter. In this case, a film is thought to lower the original, causing the general disdain for adapting works of literature-particularly classics-into film. Director Alain Resnais once claimed he would never shoot an adaptation because “the writer [had] completely expressed himself in the novel and wanting to make a film of it is a little like re-heating a meal.”
Film and literature are two different roads that lead to the same goal. Often, they are intertwined; more than 50% of commercial movies are book adaptations. Sometimes you need the instant, intense catharsis a movie can provide you with; sometimes you want to create your own mental images and to immerse yourself in a world of words for a longer period of time. One medium doesn’t have to be ‘better’ than the other. Film and literature are interrelated yet independent art forms.
Works cited:
1. Puzo, Mario. The Godfather. London: Arrow random house, 1991. Print
2. The Godfather. Dir Francis Ford Coppola. Paramount pictures, 1972. Film
3. Warren, Richard. The Godfather. n.d. Web. 20 August 2015
4. Adaptation: from novel to film. 23 July 2009 Web. 20 August 2015
5. Hutcheon, Linda. A theory of adaptation. New York: Routledge, 2006. Web 20 August 2015
6. Adapting to adaptations. N.p web 20 August 2015
7. “Adaptation” def 2. Merriam-webster online. Merriam-webster , n.d. Web 20 august 2015
8. Aurora, Novels to films-The Godfather, n.d Web 21 August 2015
Josephite Literary Review 