Which? The Godfather or Pulp Fiction?

Answer 1

Godfather

Answer 2

Pulp Fiction.... You've seen the Godfather too many times!

Answer 3

WHAT? You have to be kidding me right?
How can you compare pulp fiction to the godfather?

hands down the godfather; it is by far way much better than pulp fiction. after all the godfather won seven academy awards and let's not forget godfather part two also won best picture, making it the only movie sequel to win best picture UNLESS I am MISTAKEN...

Answer 4

The Godfather definately.

Answer 5

the godfather is the classic of the genre

but pulp fiction has a funkier feel

Answer 6

Pulp Fiction all the way

Answer 7

I like Pulp Fiction better.

Answer 8

I believe that in the beginning of the drug trade in the U.S.like in the Godfather is pretty much true. I herd that even today the Mafia has trouble with drug addiction in there own family. Thats why they didnt want the drug trade like in the movie. The family is everything in the Mafia. You have to be Italin to be in the family. So you can see problem of having a drug addicts in the family that will betray there own family. Someone in the mafia told me the problem with being in the mafia is that they allway are thinking there members are allways stealing from them. So there allways wacking them. With not as much drama like in the movie. They say they go to sleep and they never wake up.

Answer 9

the godfather hands down

Answer 10

The form of Classical Hollywood films is, first and foremost, invisible. In a Classical Hollywood film, the narrative is foremost, and style serves the narrative. Camera angles, lighting and editing patterns such as the shot/reverse-shot pattern aim to give us the best possible perspective on the unfolding events(1). These events are arranged in a strongly causality-oriented linear narrative, with one event causing the next. This narrative is arranged around a central, active protagonist, whose decisions and actions are the key to the pattern of cause and effect that drives the story(2). This pattern seems so logical, so natural, that the audience of the classical Hollywood film is supposed to feel that they are receiving the material without the mediating intervention of the filmmaker. The link between heroes and the spectator under this model is therefore one of relatively unproblematic identification. Even films that featured anti-social heroes, such as the thirties gangster genre, modified the pattern only through imposing the strongly moral, tragic sequence of rise and fall; the audience's identification remained firmly with the central protagonist(3). Such a situation, under these assumptions, puts the audience in an apparently perverse situation, and it is therefore hardly surprising that the infamous Hays code of the thirties moved to ensure that "the sympathy of the audience shall never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin(4)."

The assumption of audience identity with the hero was never unproblematic, and of course the classical Hollywood model of filmmaking partially outlined above never existed entirely without challenge. Nevertheless, it is clear that up to the fifties the classical Hollywood model was relatively applicable and that challenges to it were largely ineffective. However, beyond the fifties, the model became increasingly irrelevant. The reasons for the downfall of the classical paradigm are complex, and related to economic changes within the industry (the forced dismantling of the vertically integrated studio system that placed production, distribution and exhibition roles under the one organisation) as well as wider cultural shifts that occurred during the sixties (the widespread social upheaval and increasing prominence of counter-cultural challenges to mainstream ideologies). Perhaps most crucial, however, was the growing media-literacy of the population, with television in most homes and (moving further forward in time) the appearance of a generation that had grown up with television. As old movies began to appear on television, the audience's familiarity with them increased, and, as Robert Ray notes(5), this causes audience recognition of the conventions' artificiality to increase.

........... . ................ . ....................... ... ..... .....