I agree with comments made by Joseph in another thread that while the trilogy is for the most part better without the deleted scenes now available on the DVD, there are some notable exceptions.

I suppose that if I were re-editing The Godfather and given the opportunity to retrieve something from the cutting room floor, I would include both of the "Janie" scenes.

Before I explain, let me state that I am part of that small minority of Americans who read Mario Puzo's 1969 novel before seeing the movie. What made the character of Hollywood producer Jack Woltz so despicable to the reader was not his refusal to release Johnny Fontane from his contract (perfectly valid under the laws of all 50 states), but his purchase of an underage girl for sex. I had wondered how the movie would handle such a delicate subject and was hardly surprised that the matter had been dropped entirely in the version that was released to theatres.

When I recently viewed The Godfather DVD bonus disk I was both startled and delighted to discover that Coppola and Puzo had fully intended to associate the evil Woltz character with child molestation. The novel had briefly but in no uncertain terms announced that Woltz had paid off the mother of a little girl to let him have his way with the child. The deleted scenes (Tom witnessing Woltz throwing a birthday party for Janie at the studio; Tom spotting Janie and her mother at the Woltz mansion; Tom confirming to Vito that the rumors about "that girl" are true) subtly but effectively hint at the gross immorality of the movie producer.

My only cavil is that while Puzo's novel indicated that the girl was only 12, the actress who played Janie in the deleted scenes looked like someone old enough to vote but made up to appear about 16. Still, I have already acknowledged that Puzo and Coppola were treading on very sensitive ground here.

Had the scenes been included, I think the popular outrage over the cruelty of decapitating a man's horse and slipping it under his silk sheets would have been tempered by the anger aroused by Woltz's loathsome child abuse. The scenes would also have fit in well with Woltz's monologue to Hagen, delivered in John Marley’s superb craggy voice, about how Fontane had made off with his favorite starlet: "And let me be even more frank, just to show you that I'm not a hard-hearted man, and that it's not all dollars and cents. She was beautiful! She was young! She was innocent! She was the greatest piece of ass I've ever had, and I've had 'em all over the world!"

That is an excellent point Elliot Templeton.

I remember the look on Tom's face,when he realises what the girl is doing up there and hears the girl's awful mother telling her that she was not to leave her room. Like you, I think inclusion of the scene in the original theatre version would have reinforced in viewers minds what a scumbag Woltz was.

Though it obviously would not have justified
the horse's head, it adds an important dimension
to this part of the story.

Hi,
The scenes that you are referring to were aired on TV. It was part of The Godfather:The Complete Novel For Television. There were also extra scenes with Sonny shown.

Paul

I have the DVD, but I didn't see the scene anywhere...where can I find it?

I agree w/ you though, I read the book, but not until after I saw the movie. And I really didn't feel any contempt for him, I almost thought they were being too harsh, until I read about him in the book.

It's on the Deleted Scenes part of the bonus disk. It's called "Hagen sees Janie". The seen were Tom tells Vito about Janie is called "A Family Fight". The latter is a great scene which I really thought should have been in the movie.

Hi,
In the scene Vito says, "It's an infamnia."

Paul

whats an infamnia?

infamia means infamy, shame
The expression means : it's absolutely scandalous !

Doesn't one of the Dons use that term in the meeting with DOn Vito when talking about drug trade?

Hi Oblong,
Yes one of the Dons uses that expression. He insists that the drug trafficing be controlled.

Paul

The Janie scenes are a good illustration of why the book is almost always better than the movie.

I thought the omitted Janie scenes were badly done anyway. In the book, Janie is described as 12 and the most beautiful girl that Hagan had ever seen. The actress in the scenes was older and not "shockingly" attractive, stunning, like she was to Hagan in the book.

Woltz was despicable to Hagan, because he saw predatorial sexual opportunity where Hagan saw a beautiful girl, to be admired, not used. This abuse by Woltz parallels the treatment he receives from the Corleones, i.e., this thing that he sees as beautiful and nonsexual, his horse, is abused as an object, but more extreme, because he is more extreme and therefore more deserving.

I can't remember where I read it but a long time ago I read that this fictional child from the book and you say her name was Janie was actually based on Judy Garland!

It was said her mother did this to her as a young child entering Hollywood. Her mother was a horrible stage mother and Judy we know was a psychological mess for years.

Like much that Puzo included in his novel, I thought it was unnecessary. Woltz could have been the best guy in the world, but that would not have affected Vito's efforts to secure the movie role for Johnny. So, informing us of Woltz's "infamiTa" activities was about as useful to the reader as learning of Lucy's vagina issue.

I don't recall anything like that about Judy's mother.

shades of roman polanksi




---------------------------------

I think that part of the story wasn't necessary for the film.

While I may not have chosen to decapitate Khartoum (my mother, an animal lover, said she'd never speak to me again if I did, perhaps the head of a horse already killed for other reasons could have been placed in the bed, like Coppola did for the movie), if I was in Vito's position I wouldn't have stopped until I was able to coerce Woltz into giving Johnny the part. I wouldn't have let an asshole like Woltz ruin the career of somebody I loved (and that's what he said he planned on doing at the dinner with Tom). I just would not let that happen.

You wouldn't recall it because as I stated, I read it somewhere a long time ago. It makes sense to me too as we know Mario Puzo used many real life inspirations for some of the characters.

Woltz would not have caved to the possible blackmailing
regarding the girl, and in some Hollywood quarters he probably already bragged about it. The horse was what he loved most, and the message sent to Woltz was clear. "Give Johnny the part or you'll be seeing Khartoum sooner than you think."

You are talking about a movie made in 1972, that no one yet had confidence would become the classic that it is now. While the 'Jane' scenes were filmed, any reference to child sexual abuse may have affected the movie rating and therefore the theater distribution.

All in all, it was wise to leave it out because its omission did not really affect the overall story. Vito Corleone got his way and Johnny Fontaine got the part, in a thorougly believable way without having to include the sexual favors of a young girl, except for referrences in Woltz's own story (which pretty much admitted revenge as his reasons for wanting to ruin Johnny's career).

If we're thinking in today's mindset of anything goes PLUS extended profits from pay-per-view and dvd sales, then of course that stuff would've been directly referred to without hesitation.

I agree with Apple. It was not a major omission. The purpose of the Woltz/dinner scene was to establish that Woltz was, like Geary, a man who thought with his dick. It was enough that he cited the starlet whom Johnny lured away as his reason for denying Johnny the part.

Agreed the pedophilia was not necessary except to emphasize
Vito's "morality" and his disgust at ths infamnia. And as TB
and Apple point out we learn all we need to knw about Woltz, who was trying to run Fontaine out of the business just because he took away the best piece of "stuff" he ever had.

If Woltz had been "the best guy in the world," he would have given Johnny the role on his own. No intimidation on Vito's part would have been necessary. After all, Woltz admitted to Tom that Johnny was perfect for the part.

no disrespect intended to anybody...and if you're offended we can talk about it...


I saw a doc. recently about the controversy surrounding the filming of and release of the godfather... opposition from individual Italian Americans, Italian "organizations" and actual cosa nostra members who fronted one of these "Italian civil rights" organizations.

The mobsters shook down the studio in several ways(ironically shades of the don threatening to impede Wolf's studio from operating)...under the guise of protecting the image of Italians...but I'm sure plenty of hard working people despise seeing yet another italian mobster film.

I think several jewish groups may have protested the film including the scene portraying the (implied) Jewish studio head as a p edophile. The scene was shot but not included in the release....nor in the previous home video video versions.That speaks to the power of the protest groups

Before he died Brando delivered a speech/rant on Larry King about how every other ethnic group in America is stereotyped in Hollywood films EXCEPT for jews.

Marlon Brando, brilliant as he was, could be a real asshole at times. It's funny that he turned down the Oscar because he didn't like the way American-Indians were stereotyped by Hollywood, yet he had no qualms at all about propagating a negative Italian-American stereotype in his portrayal of Don Corleone. He was a fucking hypocrite in that regard.

And Jews aren't stereotyped? PUH---LEEZE.

This is along the lines of what I meant by offending people.

"where the F do I live?"

No need to use that kind of language.I'll clarify my entire post and the specific line you quoted.

You are aware that when the GF came out...and until fairly recently that many college team logos and mascots were of caricatures and stereotypes of native americans? If not the college you went to, then almost certainly one school in your athletic conference had one. Where did these images and stereotypes come from?

I bet that pre 1972 that there were at least 25 to 1...Westerns to "Italian crime syndicate" films made by Hollywood. In the Westerns, the Native people would invariably be "the villains"...not even be specific to a certain tribe or nation, and would be viewed as the aggressors/or mindless savages.

Because we don't read a lot in this country, we suspend logic and feed into these films...the "Red" man is a savage who exists just so the cavalry can come in and save the day.

Around the time the Oscars aired the year in question, there were Native civil rights struggles in general taking place and one public standoff specifically. Brando's speech was meant to lend support to the struggle and make a personal statement against the "How!"..."injun" foolishness that hollywood had ran with for years.

I don't think the one dimensional "savage" roles of Amerindians in film can be compared to one of the more complex and fleshed out roles...gangster or otherwise in the history of US films. Vito was a HUMAN being with a history and strengths weaknesses not a man riding a horse wearing generic "injun" clothes spouting "gibbersih lines that came from NO actual language".

Not fair to say that Brando was playing into stereotypes because he gave life to one of the most interesting film characters of all time....

on an interesting note....I watched a doc. about Native Americans in film and Iron Eyes Cody..aka Native man crying over pollution in those 70s psa
is ACTUALLY Sicilian, beleive it or not.
=
I believe that Jewish interests lobbied to keep the Wolz scene out of the film and home video releases. I applaud the groups if they got that done.

You're assuming that most people who saw the movie came away with a negative (or at least completely negative) impression of Vito. I think that's highly questionable. I certainly didn't. My name on this board isn't VitoC for nothing!

Another thing--when you do a performance on the level of Brando's portrayal of Vito Corleone, it doesn't matter to you whether you get an award or not. It would be like Beethoven receiving an award for his Fifth Symphony. It would have been meaningless to him.

I understand the possible anger or frustration Italian people may have about The Godfather and Don Corleone stereotyping them as hoodlums.

But I agree with VitoC, because to me it wasn't a negative portrayal at all. Besides, Don Corleone did show himself as a man of good principles and the closest a gangster could come to a real man of honor.

Do you have any reason to think that, or is it just a guess? I really am skeptical that Jewish groups would have protested such a thing, esp. since it's never mentioned that Woltz is Jewish. Many scenes were filmed but not included in the movie. It's a stretch to claim that this one particular one was pulled because of top-secret protests, especially when the other protests around the film have been so well documented.

As for Brando's comments, they're his opinion. Nobody took them as much more than the ravings of an old, bitter, unstable man. I'm sure a brief review of film history can uncover many stereotypical portrayals of Jews, just like every other group.

Well put, LW. Your post included (as usual) the tact that mine lacked .

Thanks, PB.

I guess us Long Island kids aren't as blunt as you Bronx guys.