Film Analysis: The Godfather, written by a high school student

The most enthralling texts to study are those that explore individual issues with universal significance.

In 1979, The Godfather, Francis Ford Coppola presents the journey of Michael Corleone, a legitimate young man who becomes the head of a family of organised crime. Coppola highlights Michael’s road to moral decline through a clever confluence of visual and verbal features. This journey ultimately serves to address the human condition and our universal potential for moral corruption.

In the opening sequence of the Godfather, Michael is depicted as a legitimate individual, a virtuous needle in the haystack of the family corporate crime business. This is illustrated even before Michael’s arrival at his sister’s wedding. Vito Corleone, his father and head (Don) of the family, postpones the family photo to wait for Michael. This suggests, immediately that Michael is a character that is respected and admired.  When he arrives, Michael’s costume serves to establish him as virtuous. He wears a military uniform, decorated with badges, in contrast to the criminals around him and is later mentioned by a police officer as a “war hero”. Kay, his love interest, wears a bright sunset orange dress which, too, contrasts with the surround black and white. This conveys the message that Michael’s interests lay outside the corporate crime family. A notion that is cemented when Michael states “That’s my family Kay, not me”. The shade company, which engulfs Michael at the wedding could be seen to foreshadow that there is only one route in Michael’s future. Either way, one thing is for certain – Michael’s presentation as honourable and virtuous will make his eventual transformation all the more tragic and, by extension, all the more striking, in order to convey that even this symbol of morality can be broken.

Towards the middle of the film, a scene in Joey’s diner begins Michael’s journey of change, chaining him to his budding immorality. Earlier in the narrative, Don Vito Corleone neglects to indulge in the illegal drug trade, dubbing it too “dirty”. As a result, he is shot and severely wounded by Sollozzo a member of another crime family. In the restaurant scene, Michael is presented with a significant decision – whether or not to kill Sollozzo and the corrupt police chief and authoritarian figure, McCluskey, who is facilitating the illegal drug trade. At the beginning of the scene, Coppola foreshadows Michael’s decision through costume. The director adorns Michael in a black suit, representing his connection to the mafia side of the family. He retrieves the handgun from the bathroom. When he returns, Coppola uses the diegetic sound of a passing train’s brakes and a slow zoom on Michael’s contemplating face to build tension before the decision. The train is a universal symbol of a journey. Thus, Coppola could be hinting at Michael’s choice ie will he get on the train, kill the two figures and begin his journey to corruption, or let the opportunity pass. The tension culminates in the shooting and killing of Sollozzo and McCluskey, cementing Michael’s imminent moral decline. The value of this scene comes from Coppola’s ability to present that, under the right circumstances, anyone can succumb to moral corruption, even Michael Corleone, the “nice college boy” and “war hero”. What’s more, the director illustrates that immorality is subjective, it’s not black and white. The audience still supports Michael, as the decision was his only option to protect his vulnerable, hospitalised father and, by extension, the family. By furthering Michael’s individual immorality, Coppola captures humanities universal potential to fall to corruption.

The baptism scene, at the end of the film, represents the completion of Michael’s journey to absolute moral decline. His sister Connie and her husband Carlo’s decision to have Michael be the Godfather of their child is indicative of Michael’s transformation. Coppola’s fantastic editing allows him to smoothly transition between the innocence of the baby’s christening and the corrupt vulgarity of the corporate crime world. For example, he uses a match cut of the unveiling of the child, wrapped in fabric, and the unveiling of an automatic machine gun, affectively contrasting this innocence and corruption. To support this Coppola emerges the crescendo of the organ music with the priest asking Michael “Do you renounce evil”, to which Michael replies “Yes” against silence. At this cue, the organ beings its decrescendo at the same time that Michael’s carefully orchestrated plan to murder the heads of all families is undertaken. Before the men are systematically slaughtered, along side harmless, and uninvolved individuals, Michael lies, directly, in the house of God, cementing his decline and damning his soul. Initially, Coppola romanticised the gangster/mafia family, to the extent to which they could be seen as an alternative to government. They embodied honesty, respect and loyalty to family, unlike the Nixon administration. Nixon promised and campaigned to end the Vietnam War. Instead, he exacerbated it, even bombing 500,000 neutral Cambodians in “operation menu”. The Watergate scandal also followed the premiere of the film. In this scene, however, Coppola portrays the criminality of the Mafia. Somewhere along the way, Michael’s killing become about furthering himself. Not protecting the family, but becoming this all-powerful figure, “The Godfather”. In this sense, the zeitgeist of the 1970s was ripe for a film that showed the effects of power on moral corruption. Michael’s tragic journey facilitated the comparison of the films theme to then American government, and power corruption in general.           

To conclude, Francis Ford Coppola cleverly illustrates the universal idea that anyone can succumb to moral corruption under the right circumstances. Michael’s tragic decline, facilitated by a desire to protect his family, then, ultimately, to further himself allowed this theme to be explored and addressed. With brilliant use of cinematography, costume and other various verbal and visual techniques, Coppola used the issues of one individual to address an issue of universal significance. Ultimately, the director makes us ponder that perhaps it’s not our morality that makes us human, but our universal potential for hedonism and corruption that truly epitomises the human condition.  

The significance the Indian Mutiny had on New Zealand

New Zealand was and still to this very day, are under British rule. As a result, if an imperial crisis strikes out, it will definitely impact Britain’s other colonies just like New Zealand. Consequently, due to Britain’s Colony, India, fighting against the British rule in 1857, New Zealand was significantly impacted despite it from being tens of thousands of kilometers from the actual event. Thus, the Indian Mutiny possesses a significant factor to New Zealand’s history.

The aftermath of the Indian Mutiny was not pretty for British colonies such as New Zealand. Because of the Indian Mutiny, the British became paranoid as they thought the events and actions which occurred in India in 1857 would have consequently encouraged other colonies to do the same thing. As a result, Britain developed skepticism against the indigenous colonies – particularly the Maori in New Zealand. Digging further into Bender’s comprehensive document, he quoted that during the implications for Imperial Governance, ‘reports of another “Cawnpore” circulated among British troops sent to suppress Maori resistance, and colonists expressed frustration with current native policy.” This quote by Bender proves that colonial governors/officials such as in New Zealand indicated the fear that indigenous colonies in particular, took inspiration into India’s rebellion and would rebel also. In addition, to prevent this from happening, the British began to send British troops to suppress Maori resistance – using force to maintain British control. This caused the tempers between New Zealand and Britain to flare and their relationship quickly escalated into conflict such as the Taranaki Wars. What makes the Indian Mutiny significant to New Zealand is that the negative driven relationship developed between New Zealand and Britain were contributing factors to how New Zealand is today which was ultimately a monumental moment in New Zealand history as the aftermath of these conflicts resulted in a changed attitude towards the Maori on how they are dealt on a colonial standpoint.

Building further onto the Bender’s statement that the Indian Mutiny built exceptional experience to help develop British officers and settlers such as Sir George Grey which allowed him to be appointed colonial governors and exercise their skills and experiences from both pre-owned and also from the Indian Mutiny to future imperial crisis. Some British officer’s rank were sought to be promoted when the Taranaki Wars ie the Parihaka Attack (1860 – 1863) erupted.

A war that broke out in New Zealand due to the disagreements between the British and the Maori as the British were starting to be skeptic to indigenous colonies – the Maori. As a result, due to Sir George Grey’s heavy contributions during the Indian Mutiny where he was the governor of the Cape Colony and did an excellent job of ‘supplying resources’ for the British efforts in India, he indirectly displayed to the British his ‘intense popularity among the colonists’ and his ‘ability to suppress the threat of native resistance.’ Consequently, he was elected by British administration to become the governor of New Zealand. Without Sir George Grey’s compelling leadership and aggressive nature, it is questionable that the Taranaki Wars could have concluded in peace. Like it was said, that Sir George Grey was to ultimately “make peace between the two parties through his mana and authority.” Ultimately, the events during the Indian Mutiny developed many methods of management and resulted Britain in producing many officials and settlers with a change in mindset and leadership with a more proactive and aggressive approach. This revolutionary change within the British Crown consequently calmed the uproars of imperial crisis’ such as the Taranaki Wars and were prepared to confront future rebellions by all means necessary.

Another interesting fact post Indian Mutiny was that a lot of veterans of military service in India immigrated to New Zealand (see below). Most of them decided to live the rest of their life in New Zealand spanning from Canterbury to Auckland. Furthermore, one notable Indian Mutiny alumni, John Cracroft Wilson who also immigrated to New Zealand was later appointed to the House of Representatives for the electorates of Christchurch, Coleridge and Heathcote. As a result, this shows that even after the Mutiny, Cracroft Wilson were just one of the many Indian Mutiny alumni that continued their careers by settling to New Zealand and impacting New Zealand using their experiences during their times in India ie House of Representatives, politics and culture.

Consequences of the Indian Mutiny on the British Empire

The Indian Mutiny caused a lot of change in the British Empire and their attitudes towards Indians. The experiences they gained during their time in India helped Britain reevaluate their strategies and methods of governing their other colonies.

A prime instance of this case is, after the Indian Mutiny had ended, the experience and knowledge in indirectly distributed to the British presented many opportunities for qualified the settlers and officials the job of colonial governors during the imperial crises. British colonies such as New Zealand were heavily impacted from the Indian Mutiny. This is because the Indian uprising provided many British settler and officials the experience to help develop their specific role in the British crown which consequently provided them with further opportunities to exercise these skills for future causes such as the imperial crises; (Taranaki Wars, please see impacts on New Zealand).  Bender explicitly stated: “The uprising in India in 1857 offered an opportunity for both settlers and officials to discuss the appropriate role of colonial governors in imperial crises.”  The Indian Mutiny also indirectly affected other British colonies as the British Crown would appoint their own people who were campaigned in the Mutiny of 1857 to take the role of colonial governors. If there were any benefits from this historical event, it is that it boosted British administration as the aftermath of the Mutiny gave Britain more options to elect their colonial governors.  

While the Indian rebellion and fight against the British government did provide some benefit them, they did not hold back towards the Indians as their attitudes quickly shifted from “relative openness to insularity and xenophobia” quoted by the U.S Library of Congress. This is a clear demonstration of Britain’s ignorant attitudes towards the Indians. Furthermore, “private clubs where the British gathered for social interaction became symbols of exclusivity and snobbery that refused to disappear decades after the British had left India.” This further builds onto the claim as British activity rapidly became a symbol of segregation even after Britain left India enforces the negative British attitude on India and its people. The sense of segregation and exclusivity developed complex perception and emotional reaction to such a degree of patriotism. And it was at this point, the patriotism (also refer nationalism) established the Independence campaign for India.

The Indian Mutiny had stirred major controversy during its coverage on British media. Streets claimed that British coverage on the Indian Mutiny exaggerated India’s acts as inhumane and barbarous where others would argue (mentioned above) that India were not fighting against the anti-colonial sentiment, but were fighting against them, in attempt to defend their religion and cultural identity. These false accounts by the British caused an ‘emotive’ and ‘vengeful’ response by the British public. It is stated by Heather Streets, that without this corrupt act of propaganda depicted to the British public, they would not have received the support and sympathy from back home. Heather also stated: “On the British side, this was in large part due to the fact that English-language accounts of the Rebellion framed it in terms of a savage attack on British women and children, who were allegedly being raped and murdered by fanatic soldiers in alarming numbers.” These were the type of fictitious content Britain was broadcasting to the British public to put it all in perspective. These claims immediately impacted Britain’s attitude and views towards Indians, as they were shown the rebellion ‘dramatically increased racial antagonism.’ Furthermore, the heavy coverage on the Indian Mutiny in British media was also a significant moment for British history as this coverage was the first time the “events of an imperial conflict to reach a truly ‘mass’ audience in Britain.” This fundamentally revolutionized British propaganda strategies as it introduced Britain’s mass media outlets, which would be extremely helpful to them for future imperial notifications to be showcased to both Britain and its colonies. 

INDIAN MUTINY OR INDIA’S FIRST WAR OF INDEPENDENCE?

This historical event has been referred to many names from the ‘Indian Mutiny’ to ‘India’s First War of Independence’ to ‘the Great Rebellion’ and to complex titles like ‘the Indian Insurrection’. All of these event names are titles for the historical event that occurred in 1857, however, what differentiates the names apart are the historical figures that name the event. Over the decades, British and Indian Historian debate passionately regarding to the name of the event employing various and unique methods to dissect the events leading to the Mutiny. As a result, what should we really refer this event as? The Indian Mutiny or India’s First War of Independence? We find out below.

Doctor Phillip V. Allingham affirmed that Britain did not have the original intention to form a new local empire in India. Britain strictly wanted to employ India’s geographical location to fund the nascent Industrial Revolution via expanding its trade to the further corners of the world. However, overtime, British influence on the Indian population was heavily impacted by Britain’s strong hopes to capture economic benefit from the nation’s land. Allingham expanded his argument – “Land was reorganized under the hard Zamindari system to facilitate the collection of taxes to enrich British coffers.” Furthermore: “In certain areas, famers were forced to switch from subsistence farming to commercial crops such as indigo, jute, coffee and tea.”  Allingham addresses the idea that Britain’s commercially driven activity dismantled local Indian farm land completely just to “enrich British coffers”. This resulted in several famines of unprecedented scale as Indian land was confiscated by British administration. The response to this was great agitation. Allingham and many Indian historians declare that the Indian population were not happy with the westernization in India as not only were their lands were getting confiscated in order fuel British coffers, but also were unable to practice their own religious exercises. Through Allingham’s ideologies, the Indians were trapped under British control and that the Indians were indeed were fighting for freedom and independence as Britain’s way of ‘helping India’ was in fact damaging its cultural landscape and religion.

British historian Niall Fergusson had an opposing view obviously – “the Mutiny was much more than its name implies”. Surprisingly, Fergusson claims that it is ingenuous to assume that the event was just a mutiny. Fergusson regarded that the First War of Independence is something only “Indian schoolbooks call it” as he stated that “Indians fought both sides.” Fergusson’s rather condescending call that “The First War of Independence is what Indian schoolbooks calls, exposes out the Indians that had to conceal their two sided acts by attempting to change the views of this event to the younger generation of India.

It is difficult to determine a final answer from the debates of the two differing sides as not only do both views hold weight, but the reference of The Indian Mutiny and India’s First War of Independence is too vague. Ultimately, the real answer falls somewhere within the disjunction of the two names which I believe cannot be retrieved due to the disjunction and bias between the two parties.

What was the Indian Mutiny?

The British Empire was seen as territorially, the largest empire in the world and was regarded as a global superpower in world history. At the peak of its power, Britain governed over a population of 400 million which were to be found in all regions of the world. A significant factor to their success was the Indian subcontinent which catered Britain with a huge trading port due to its geographical location at the centre of the world. This rapidly broadened Britain's trade and consequently help build on to their superpower status.  

     

Britain’s rule in India came into risk when both the Indian sepoys and public started to rebel against their British rulers. Many prominent historians today such as William Dalrymple and Niall Fergusson believe that religion was a primary influence into the outburst of the Mutiny. In addition to this, other historians believe it was the colonialism aspect pushing the boundaries of the Indian people which consequently led to the clash of two civilisations.

Whether this historical event should be referred to the Indian Mutiny or India’s First War of Independence, its name has been debated for decades – the majority of Indian historians claim it to be India’s First War of Independence while the British believe this event was the Indian Mutiny. This has only left us to determine how we want to refer this historical event as.    

This was a critical moment in history as The Indian Mutiny reshaped the attitudes and policies on imperialism which consequently impacted the definitive approach on the indigenous people in the colonies such as New Zealand. Ultimately, this historical event was very significant as the consequences lead to an adaptation of control and the principles of action proposed by the British Empire.