June
23The Case of the (Almost) Disappearing Godfather
Hollywood doesn’t give a damn about its past.I was reminded of this unpleasant fact last week when Kim Aubry of Zoetrope Aubry Productions showed me his two new docs about “The Godfather” -- one dealing with the movie’s angst ridden production, the other with the salvaging of the negative.
Here’s the darkest Godfather secret: The negative was literally turning into dust until Steven Spielberg, upon closing his DreamWorks deal at Paramount, made a personal call to Brad Grey pleading with him to salvage it. Grey was himself shocked to learn that one of the studio’s major assets was falling apart and he authorized payment of over $1 million for the restoration.
Both of Aubry’s fine docs boast a stellar cast -- Francis Ford Coppola (who doesn’t like to discuss the film), George Lucas, Walter Murch (the postproduction guru), Robert Evans, David Chase (whose Sopranos was inspired by the film) and yes, me.
Coppola himself resents the “Godfather” experience on many levels, even though it made him both rich and venerated. A man of many moods and interests, Coppola believed that the great success of the movie pulled him away from his career plan to make small, artistically ambitious films along the lines of “The Conversation.” On at least two occasions, Coppola told me “you ruined my career,” because I’d given him the newly published book and urged and cajoled him into directing it.
The doc’s only flaw is that it falls into the usual trap of depicting “the artist” versus “the studio.” In the case of “The Godfather,” “the artists” (principally Coppola) fought for all the elements that worked in the film -- Brando, Pacino, Gordon Willis’ darkly moody cinematography, and the 2 hour 20 minute running time, etc.
“The Studio” (in this case, Paramount) fought all these elements relentlessly. Coppola was allegedly a bad idea, as was the cast and, certainly, Willis. The flaw in this theory is the assumption that Paramount spoke with one voice -- something that rarely, if ever occurred at the studios of that chaotic period. In fact the three “supremos” in New York at the time -- Charles Bluhdorn, Stanley Jaffe and Frank Yablans -- were in disagreement about every issue. Meanwhile Evans and I in Hollywood learned that some of the executives serving under us also disdained Coppola and were trying to disrupt the movie.
Hence the problems surrounding “The Godfather” were never a matter of “us” vs. “them”, it was Coppola’s cacophony vs. Paramount’s cacophony. There were too many voices -- a problem exacerbated by Coppola’s ‘70s rebel tendency to avoid engaging the studio, and thus cutting himself off from an intelligent dialogue.
Personally, as vice president for production, my attitude was that it was all working my way. Evans and I favored Brando and the other actors Coppola had cast, though, too many screen tests were mandated, further, despite misunderstandings about the initial contract, Evans had wanted a longer cut.
By the third week we both realized a remarkable movie was being shot at a cost (about $7 million) that, even by ‘70s standards, was rigorously economical. All the noise and rancor ended up creating a better movie -- indeed, one of history’s greatest. Meanwhile, Paramount distribution maven, Frank Yablans, was developing a bold plan to open the movie wide, thus defying established formulae for handling “tentpole” movies. That’s why I still can’t believe that the studio let the negative deteriorate.
The good news: The new Godfather DVD will shortly be released by the studio, it will also will be available on Blu-Ray.
Update: For those interested in the wonky details of "The Godfather," and its restoration, my colleague David Cohen kindly supplied the following: The original camera negative was used for striking prints because there was no good stock for making duplicate negatives until the mid-1980s. Every time the film needed to be printed, the negative had to be sent out. Printing dissolves, in those days, meant running the film back and forth through the printer (more wear and tear on the negative). It had tears from the perforations into the image. It was filthy from having been run through printers so much.
When at the studio, it was properly vaulted but the wear and tear on the negative was “the worst I’ve ever seen in a print from the modern era,” one restoration expert declared. By the time it came for restoration, the film’s first 5 shots were intact, but everything after that through minute 20 was in terrible shape.
Subscribe to Peter Bart's Blog Feed
Wasn't the original, or replacement, choice for director Sergio Leone? Read that somewhere.
Posted by: Rob A. | 7/2/2008 10:09:09 PM
It's a shame to think that the studios do NOT take more care to make sure these priceless negatives do not disintegrate. They have to realize that they do not just belong to them but that they belong to the world and that they are the custodians of these priceless objects of film history. Great article Peter!
Posted by: Eric Bross | 6/24/2008 12:55:08 PM