THE GODFATHER VERSUS GOODFELLAS--TRUTH
by Jeff Canarsie
It's the one question I get a lot. Which one was my favorite? Which was one more realistic? While both films have there merits and ton of awards, I have issues with both films. From an objective audience member I enjoy both films, but from a historical and accurate standpoint, both fall short of reality.
The Godfather is the model for which all
Mafia films will ever be judged. It's not so much the historical aspect of the film which was accurate, but the mob has taken it's cues from the film ten fold.
Historically speaking, The Godfather is told from many perspectives. Mario Puzo(author) used a mix of mob bosses for Don Vito Corleone. Joe Profaci, Carlo Gambino, and Frank Costello are the models Puzo used for Vito Corleone. Joe Profaci was essentially Genco Oil, Frank Costello was used for his relationships with politicians, and Carlo Gambino was essentially every other facet of Corleone.
In The Godfather II, we see two things. The rise and fall of Michael Corleone, and the sprinkling of Cuba and Hyman Roth(who was essentially Meyer Lansky). So from the historical standpoint there were a few markers worth noting, however the film is as fictitious as it gets.
When Mario Puzo wrote the book it did it from the standpoint of on the outside looking in. When Francis Ford Coppola wrote the screenplay he choose to write from the aspect of what that life does to a family for the good, and for the bad. What could have been very gangster became sort of an opera, by which the American mafia took it's cues.
It's not to say that there cannot be parallels drawn, because there can be. Back in the 40's around the time of era that Puzo wrote from it could be argued that the mafia was essentially a lot like the film, however where the film really takes a turn for the comedic is when Don Vito Corleone tells Virgil Solozzo that he will not engage in narcotics trafficking because it's a "dirty, backstabbing business, and that if he were to traffic in narcotics he would likely lose those politicians he so desperately needed."
While I think it was a great form of writing from Coppola's standpoint, it's entirely untrue. Every single mob boss imported drugs and made money off of drugs. I've mentioned this before, especially when it came to Paul Castellano. He followed Gambino's edict of "deal drugs and die," which loosely meant "get caught dealing drugs and die." I say that because while Castellano used that excuse to try and break up the John Gotti crew, the fact was that Castellano was not only taking proceeds from drug trafficking, but in fact had his own small Sicilian crew running operations out of New Jersey. So the idea that a mob boss had the moral compunction not to sell drugs is amusing to me.
The violence in The Godfather was necessary, but unconventional. Every sequence in the film where someone had to get killed, strangled, or shot was overblown and operatic. There was always a reason for it. Carlo Rizzi was killed for two reasons, but Michael makes it evident as to why. Never mind the fact that he beat Connie Corleone non-stop. Carlo Rizzi was killed because he set Santino "Sonny" Corleone up. He met secretly with Barzini, then called Sonny, and Sonny was killed on the causeway in a hail of bullets. In the life, guys get killed for a multitude of reasons. It made for good watching, but it was meant to be an eye for an eye, because we as humans can identify with that emotion.
The Godfather was more pageantry than real life. The reason why The Godfather is the measuring stick for all mob movies is because it won a ton of awards, and showed the life in a way that was more biblical and philosophical(ends justify the means)rather than portray the life the way it really is: RUTHLESS.
Goodfellas on the other hand, was about as realistic as it gets from the street perspective. I don't really like to compare the two movies against one another because each is coming from two different time periods, but for the sake of this article, I almost have too. If The Godfather gives you a political operatic look at the mob, then Goodfellas gives you th
e meat and potatoes of that life. Goodfellas was brutal. In Goodfellas you didn't need to have a reason to kill someone. If the desire met the need then there was going to be bloodshed. One could argue some of it was unnecessary, but it truly focused on the money driven, and ego aspect of street life. Sometimes guys just get killed for being too friendly with someone else the mob has a beef with. Morry wasn't killed because he owed Jimmy money or that he was breaking Jimmy's balls. He was killed because he had loose lips, and anyone connected in anyway with Lufthansa was going to get killed because of Jimmy's paranoia. See, paranoia plays a huge role in the day to day lives of real mobsters. You never know when your number is up and you live everyday fearing that you won't come home. That's reality. Reality isn't sitting with Senator Geary arguing over Casino gaming licenses.
Goodfellas offers the day to day routine of mob life. It's truly riding a mafia roller coaster and you are glad you make it out alive in the end. If your anything like me, I was very angry at the ending. Of course Henry Hill ratted out Paulie. It was the truth, and it had to end that way. It's closer to the reality of the life, then say Michael Corleone dying in a chair in a villa in Corleone, Sicily.
Where I take issue with Goodfellas, is that the book WISEGUY, which the screenplay was derived is filled with what I call Hill-isms. Hill-isms
are lies perpetuated by ego and self absorption. What many people don't know, is that I spent a week with Henry Hill over a decade ago. How I met Henry Hill is sorta strange but at the time he had a website Goodfellahenry.com, and we exchanged emails regarding a script I was working on. I sent him a few dozen or so pages, and Henry always thinking about money liked what he saw. I ended up flying out to Washington State, where Henry was living at the time. We met and spent the week talking about the life. Not only was he a drug addict, and stone cold drunk, but everything that cane from his mouth was a lie. Everything.
How Nicholas Pileggi wrote that book is beyond me. There was so much that Hill rearranged and made up that the FBI even said was error filled. If you watch Goodfellas and believe that the film is anyway close to the Henry Hill story, you'd be wrong. It is accurate from many standpoints, but Henry Hill made himself out to be bigger than he ever was. Watch the movie from a movie aspect and you'll be fine, but if you're looking for honesty from the Hill perspective, you'd be wrong.
For starters Henry Hill was nothing more than a drug dealer and thief. He was not some high end earner for the mafia. He wasn't Michael Franzese at all. That Lufthansa heist he says he came up with? Nope. That was a Tommy DeSimone idea. Tommy is the one who came up with it, Henry's job was to help put some guys together.
What is true about Henry is that he was violent. Maybe not as violent as say Tommy DeSimone, but he did his fair share of violent acts. His stance on "I never murdered nobody," I don't believe for one second. He was very much a part of the Billy "Batts" murder. He was very much the shooter in the Purnell "Stacks" Edwards murder which he denied his entire life.
What else is different is this. Tommy DeSimone was not killed in a basement of a making ceremony, nor were his assailants someone he didn't know. The film distorted the truth. I have to admit the scene where Jimmy is told on the payphone that Tommy is "gone" is shot really well, and DeNiro's face really sells it. The
truth is, Jimmy Burke killed Tommy DeSimone in a kitchen. Twice in the back of the head and point blank range. There have been naysayers that say this isn't true, but it is.
First of all, Tommy was killed for several reasons. The major reason NOT being the Batts hit. The real reason was because Jimmy wanted anyone associated with the Lufthansa heist dead. The second reason is because Tommy was unstable. Often when sent to do a simple collection Tommy would end up killing the person. He was wreck less. The third reason is because of the batts hit.
Some have laid claims that John Gotti was responsible for the Tommy DeSimone murder. I don't know where this came from, but it's not even close to reality. I think the reason why it's speculative is because people have speculated that "batts" was in the Gotti crew. Also not true. It's amazing to me how in one sentence people will try and play Gotti down as some ego driven weakling, then in the next try to point the target at his head for something. Funny how that works.
So the DeSimone hit? Jimmy called Tommy to a meeting at a house over the Lufthansa issue. Tommy came in, sat down at a table and Jimmy put two in the back of his head. End of story. That's the truth. It didn't happen in a basement, didn't happen at some random house in the middle of queens. It was planned, cool, cunning and calculated.
Henry Hill has played himself as someone higher up than he actually was. Sort of John Alite type of guy, but John Alite in comparison is much different than Hill, even though both are rats. Hill inflated his stories, much like Alite has, to sell and make money. That's the bottom line.
Both films are great. I'm in no way trying to pokes holes or degrade there value. I'm simply telling you from a historical aspect both have merits, but the truth is, despite Hill's lies, Goodfellas is the closest thing you are ever going to get to looking on the inside of the mob. Just the sheer backstabbing, ego and murder are enough to make Goodfellas very accurate. The Godfather is fantasy in many forms, and always will be, but as I said before this is the film that American mobsters seem to have watched seriously and used certain rules and mannerisms from. While The Godfather is essentially fiction, it also helped evolve the modern day mafia, all though modern day is more like The Sopranos than either films.
So-- take what you want from this article, but if you're looking to see what the life is really like, Goodfellas is about as good as it gets. I enjoy both films, but from my background and my experience, Goodfellas, if it scares you even for a second
, it ought too. It's reality with some trimmings.
It's the one question I get a lot. Which one was my favorite? Which was one more realistic? While both films have there merits and ton of awards, I have issues with both films. From an objective audience member I enjoy both films, but from a historical and accurate standpoint, both fall short of reality.
The Godfather is the model for which all Mafia films will ever be judged. It's not so much the historical aspect of the film which was accurate, but the mob has taken it's cues from the film ten fold.
Historically speaking, The Godfather is told from many perspectives. Mario Puzo(author) used a mix of mob bosses for Don Vito Corleone. Joe Profaci, Carlo Gambino, and Frank Costello are the models Puzo used for Vito Corleone. Joe Profaci was essentially Genco Oil, Frank Costello was used for his relationships with politicians, and Carlo Gambino was essentially every other facet of Corleone.
In The Godfather II, we see two things. The rise and fall of Michael Corleone, and the sprinkling of Cuba and Hyman Roth(who was essentially Meyer Lansky). So from the historical standpoint there were a few markers worth noting, however the film is as fictitious as it gets.
When Mario Puzo wrote the book it did it from the standpoint of on the outside looking in. When Francis Ford Coppola wrote the screenplay he choose to write from the aspect of what that life does to a family for the good, and for the bad. What could have been very gangster became sort of an opera, by which the American mafia took it's cues.
It's not to say that there cannot be parallels drawn, because there can be. Back in the 40's around the time of era that Puzo wrote from it could be argued that the mafia was essentially a lot like the film, however where the film really takes a turn for the comedic is when Don Vito Corleone tells Virgil Solozzo that he will not engage in narcotics trafficking because it's a "dirty, backstabbing business, and that if he were to traffic in narcotics he would likely lose those politicians he so desperately needed."
While I think it was a great form of writing from Coppola's standpoint, it's entirely untrue. Every single mob boss imported drugs and made money off of drugs. I've mentioned this before, especially when it came to Paul Castellano. He followed Gambino's edict of "deal drugs and die," which loosely meant "get caught dealing drugs and die." I say that because while Castellano used that excuse to try and break up the John Gotti crew, the fact was that Castellano was not only taking proceeds from drug trafficking, but in fact had his own small Sicilian crew running operations out of New Jersey. So the idea that a mob boss had the moral compunction not to sell drugs is amusing to me.
The violence in The Godfather was necessary, but unconventional. Every sequence in the film where someone had to get killed, strangled, or shot was overblown and operatic. There was always a reason for it. Carlo Rizzi was killed for two reasons, but Michael makes it evident as to why. Never mind the fact that he beat Connie Corleone non-stop. Carlo Rizzi was killed because he set Santino "Sonny" Corleone up. He met secretly with Barzini, then called Sonny, and Sonny was killed on the causeway in a hail of bullets. In the life, guys get killed for a multitude of reasons. It made for good watching, but it was meant to be an eye for an eye, because we as humans can identify with that emotion.
The Godfather was more pageantry than real life. The reason why The Godfather is the measuring stick for all mob movies is because it won a ton of awards, and showed the life in a way that was more biblical and philosophical(ends justify the means)rather than portray the life the way it really is: RUTHLESS.
Goodfellas on the other hand, was about as realistic as it gets from the street perspective. I don't really like to compare the two movies against one another because each is coming from two different time periods, but for the sake of this article, I almost have too. If The Godfather gives you a political operatic look at the mob, then Goodfellas gives you the meat and potatoes of that life. Goodfellas was brutal. In Goodfellas you didn't need to have a reason to kill someone. If the desire met the need then there was going to be bloodshed. One could argue some of it was unnecessary, but it truly focused on the money driven, and ego aspect of street life. Sometimes guys just get killed for being too friendly with someone else the mob has a beef with. Morry wasn't killed because he owed Jimmy money or that he was breaking Jimmy's balls. He was killed because he had loose lips, and anyone connected in anyway with Lufthansa was going to get killed because of Jimmy's paranoia. See, paranoia plays a huge role in the day to day lives of real mobsters. You never know when your number is up and you live everyday fearing that you won't come home. That's reality. Reality isn't sitting with Senator Geary arguing over Casino gaming licenses.
 |
| Henry Hill |
Where I take issue with Goodfellas, is that the book WISEGUY, which the screenplay was derived is filled with what I call Hill-isms. Hill-isms
are lies perpetuated by ego and self absorption. What many people don't know, is that I spent a week with Henry Hill over a decade ago. How I met Henry Hill is sorta strange but at the time he had a website Goodfellahenry.com, and we exchanged emails regarding a script I was working on. I sent him a few dozen or so pages, and Henry always thinking about money liked what he saw. I ended up flying out to Washington State, where Henry was living at the time. We met and spent the week talking about the life. Not only was he a drug addict, and stone cold drunk, but everything that cane from his mouth was a lie. Everything.
How Nicholas Pileggi wrote that book is beyond me. There was so much that Hill rearranged and made up that the FBI even said was error filled. If you watch Goodfellas and believe that the film is anyway close to the Henry Hill story, you'd be wrong. It is accurate from many standpoints, but Henry Hill made himself out to be bigger than he ever was. Watch the movie from a movie aspect and you'll be fine, but if you're looking for honesty from the Hill perspective, you'd be wrong.
For starters Henry Hill was nothing more than a drug dealer and thief. He was not some high end earner for the mafia. He wasn't Michael Franzese at all. That Lufthansa heist he says he came up with? Nope. That was a Tommy DeSimone idea. Tommy is the one who came up with it, Henry's job was to help put some guys together.
 |
| Tommy DeSimone |
What else is different is this. Tommy DeSimone was not killed in a basement of a making ceremony, nor were his assailants someone he didn't know. The film distorted the truth. I have to admit the scene where Jimmy is told on the payphone that Tommy is "gone" is shot really well, and DeNiro's face really sells it. The
truth is, Jimmy Burke killed Tommy DeSimone in a kitchen. Twice in the back of the head and point blank range. There have been naysayers that say this isn't true, but it is.
First of all, Tommy was killed for several reasons. The major reason NOT being the Batts hit. The real reason was because Jimmy wanted anyone associated with the Lufthansa heist dead. The second reason is because Tommy was unstable. Often when sent to do a simple collection Tommy would end up killing the person. He was wreck less. The third reason is because of the batts hit.
Some have laid claims that John Gotti was responsible for the Tommy DeSimone murder. I don't know where this came from, but it's not even close to reality. I think the reason why it's speculative is because people have speculated that "batts" was in the Gotti crew. Also not true. It's amazing to me how in one sentence people will try and play Gotti down as some ego driven weakling, then in the next try to point the target at his head for something. Funny how that works.
 |
| Jimmy Burke |
So the DeSimone hit? Jimmy called Tommy to a meeting at a house over the Lufthansa issue. Tommy came in, sat down at a table and Jimmy put two in the back of his head. End of story. That's the truth. It didn't happen in a basement, didn't happen at some random house in the middle of queens. It was planned, cool, cunning and calculated.
Henry Hill has played himself as someone higher up than he actually was. Sort of John Alite type of guy, but John Alite in comparison is much different than Hill, even though both are rats. Hill inflated his stories, much like Alite has, to sell and make money. That's the bottom line.
Both films are great. I'm in no way trying to pokes holes or degrade there value. I'm simply telling you from a historical aspect both have merits, but the truth is, despite Hill's lies, Goodfellas is the closest thing you are ever going to get to looking on the inside of the mob. Just the sheer backstabbing, ego and murder are enough to make Goodfellas very accurate. The Godfather is fantasy in many forms, and always will be, but as I said before this is the film that American mobsters seem to have watched seriously and used certain rules and mannerisms from. While The Godfather is essentially fiction, it also helped evolve the modern day mafia, all though modern day is more like The Sopranos than either films.
So-- take what you want from this article, but if you're looking to see what the life is really like, Goodfellas is about as good as it gets. I enjoy both films, but from my background and my experience, Goodfellas, if it scares you even for a second
, it ought too. It's reality with some trimmings.
Comments
Post a Comment