Patrick

As NOVEMBER  2005

Does Martin Scorsese's "Goodfellas" differ from more traditional Gangster movies?


 Gangsterism being such a dangerous, perilous, yet sex fuelled subject makes it the perfect topic for film, and many films, many now classics, are movies solely about gangsters, or involving the same content. All of these movies contain gangsters (obviously), and some form of illegality or suspicious happenings. This is about where "Goodfellas" seems to leave the rest of the genre behind.
Gangsterism being such a mysterious and powerful happening, movie makers seem to feel inclined so as to make the movies have the same effect. Most gangsters in films seem untouchable, almost like mythical creatures, who can do anything and wisecrack all the time, with black slicked hair, maybe a moustache and a tommy gun. Or at least in all the " Pre-Godfather," movies, this was the case.
 Films such as "Key Largo" (not really a gangster film but gangsterism definitely being a huge subject ) and "Little Caesar," both starring Edward G. Robinson, portray gangsters as powerful, untouchable, humorous, and volatile individuals. Francis Ford Coppolla's "The Godfather" challenged this. The gangsters, although in some ways powerful and almighty, and more vulnerable, and some are even innocent. None of them are really disrespectful apart from Santino, all displaying class. Their image was much more refined than before, bling and tommy guns didn't matter in "The Godfather". Also, the noiresque visuals were also barely apparent. Only in the meeting rooms of Vito and in some other scenes do we get the dramatic lighting and atmosphere of noir. Basically "The Godfather's" gangsters seemed all the more real, and in turn, a bit more "touchable."
Also, "The Godfather" was much bigger in scale. Not only time wise ( The first and third instalments are around three hours long. The second is an hour and twenty minutes) but also in terms of setting, and time in the actual film. Movies beforehand seemed to concentrate on certain incidents, heists and robberies etc., where as "The Godfather" series spans from the very early nineteen hundreds to the nineteen seventies. In the first film alone many years pass, many lives are given and taken, and many places visited. So it wasn't all in the rain slicked streets of Chicago, but in Corleone, Sicily, and Las Vegas.
Scorsese's "Goodfellas" goes one step further. Some of the gangsters are portrayed as untouchable, but this is explained by them being "made" and seems creditable. Otherwise "Goodfellas" bridges both the petty gangster crime reminiscent of Scorsese's earlier "Mean Streets," and also the glorious, almost royal gangsters of  "The Godfather." In my mind, I can't remember another film that has encompassed both types of gangsterism. In this way it is extremely different to the more traditional gangster movie.
Also, in terms of action, it is rather sparse. There are scenes of extreme violence, but the realism and not extravagant way in which Scorsese shows us the violence, it doesn't seem to glorify the gangsters as untouchable, but render them as heartless. Not many traditional gangster films never glorify violence. Also, many films about gangsterism falls into action at some point. Michael Mann's "Heat" suddenly descends into a heist movie by the end, an absolutely huge shoot-out taking place after the robbing of a bank. Brian De Palma's "The Untouchables" also relies on action in many places: The raiding of Capone's liquor deliveries, the awesome shootout in the train station stairway (a homage to "Battleship Potemkin", being a few examples. Whilst both these films are very good (in my opinion) they both do do what the traditional gangster movie does, in assuming that the audience expects some action every half hour. "Goodfellas" instead, seems to never give us any action. The entertainment is instead provided by the cinema of the piece. Two huge heists take part in the movie, in one Henry and Tommy merely walk in and walk out with the money, and one isn't even shown to the audience: Henry merely hears about its completion over a radio in the shower. In this way, Scorsese doesn't follow gangster movie tradition with action, but instead relies on other components for his film to get across the ruthlessness of the gangsters.
No noiresque shots are in "Goodfellas", no portrayal of these gangsters as gods apart from when Henry is a boy. No effort to glorify their ways of doing business apart from the deluded narration of Henry.
This is another way in which "Goodfellas" is different to traditional gangster movies: it has a voice over. This lets the audience into the head of Henry, lets us see his perception of what is happening in contrast/ comparison to ours. This is very different to the traditional gangster movie as most of the time gangster movies are from the eyes of the cops trying to bring them to justice. Even other attempts at a gangster's POV seem to glorify and toughen these beings somewhat, where as "Goodfellas" opts to show them as people.
"Goodfellas", also differs to the traditional gangster movie because of its timeline. It follows Henry through his whole life as a gangster. In this way, it doesn't concentrate on the cars, hyperbolic style, the guns, and the booze as is the norm, but instead it catalogues the life of a gangster, from his initiation, his highs, and eventually his downfall. It makes big things of Henry's marriage to Karen, in fact, it makes a big thing out of Karen herself. Her narration to some of the scenes offers some empathy for women which never really has been in traditional gangster movies, up until Connie in "The Godfather."
The business deals, the looks, the physical side and the style of gangsterism doesn't seem to matter too much in "Goodfellas" , and in some ways this makes other gangster movies seem a bit vein because of it. "Goodfellas" differs because it is all about the emotions of these people, about them as people and not stylistic gods.
In terms of the style of film as well, it differs. Gone are the eighteenth century Sicilian folk tunes, and the pounding, suspenseful music of action and adventure. Instead Scorsese seems to choose tracks which do help the scenes, but also get across to the audience the times and the era of the scene, using actual tracks from the time, from "The Rolling Stones", "Cream", and "Harry Nilsson," to a range of fifties classics. This film is definitely more of a montage of the times and the life of Henry, rather than a traditional movie tale of gangsterism.
There are ways in which "Goodfellas" is similar to the traditional gangster films. Granted, these ways are not really of a high number, but they are worth a mention. "Goodfellas" does show the bad and violent side of gangsters. It does have a few untouchables, and it does end with the villains in jail or dead. I suppose the biggest way with which "Goodfellas" is similar to the traditional gangster movie, is in that it ends by telling us that although gangsterism can be a glorious thing, it always ends in upset and downfall. It does go a different way about telling the audience this, but the underlying and most obvious message is still the same, and told the same. It gets us to like a few characters, hate a few characters, yet punishes all for being gangsters. This is pretty much the ending of most mob movies I can think of. The cop/ "goodie" always wins when up against gangsters.
So, in conclusion, "Goodfellas" is sometimes similar to traditional gangster movies, but it is mostly quite different in many ways, most notably in what the film is actually about: the life and not the lifestyle.