How does this have anything to do with a good, dandy sense of mental health, the hyper-individualized and freedom-loving reader might be asking themselves. Read on.

America has been described as the country where immigrants can come and forget their troubled past and begin working for that great American dream. For some, it is about healing old wounds and starting fresh in a different place, and, sometimes, with a different name. It is a very romantic and very naive idea. Reality is nothing like little 7 year-old Vito Corleone quarantined at Ellis Island singing a bittersweet little tune.

Our past is only ever a single thought away.

How many movies and books came out just this year where the character goes looking for his or her past for reasons that are more or less therapeutic? Summer blockbusters have the formula down where the origin of the hero must be told, and then the ultimate conflict in the final act is when the hero has to return home and discovers nothing is the same and that nothing is safe there anymore.

It has been almost ninety years since F Scott Fitzgerald wrote The Great Gatsby and he beautifully showed how the myth of the American past, of Jay Gatsby desperately trying to replace his own past, had terrible and tragic consequences.

One of the enduring strengths of that book is how it holds a mirror up to the face of our nation, a nation obsessed with celebrity, obsessed with surface level change, obsessed with fast acting solutions for deep rooted problems.

And yet, things are worse than they ever were during Fitzgerald’s time.

What does it all mean?

It is very hard to fix something you don’t understand. It is even harder to fix something that isn’t actually true. Friends, neighbors, lovers and strangers that you pass by everyday are burdened by the chains of their past. They are burdened because they refuse or misunderstand how their past can predict their future.

What I am saying is that what Jay Gatsby really needed was a good therapist. Who doesn’t?

“But uh, I must say “no” to you — and I’ll give you my reasons. It’s true, I have a lot of friends in politics, but they wouldn’t be friendly very long if they knew my business was drugs instead of gambling, which they rule that as a — harmless vice. But drugs is a dirty business.”

Vito Corleone to Sollozzo in The Godfather Part 1

The Godfather is of course a classic movie for many, many reasons from memorable lines like “going to the mattresses,” to “leave the gun – take the cannoli,” it is richly endowed with the very essence of American culture that at once is drawn yet repelled by moral contradictions of decent society and the baser human instincts.

Nowhere is this contradictory dilemma better reflected than in the latter part of the movie when the Don, looking to put an end to a war that claimed the life of his eldest son Sonny, stood before the heads of the New York Families to explain his reasons for turning down the “accommodation” that led to the bloodshed in the first place.

“When — when did I ever refuse an accommodation? All of you know me here — when did I ever refuse? — except one time. And why? Because — I believe this drug business — is gonna destroy us in the years to come. I mean, it’s not like gambling or liquor — even women — which is something that most people want nowadays, and is ah forbidden to them by the pezzonovante of the Church. Even the police departments that’ve helped us in the past with gambling and other things are gonna refuse to help us when it comes to narcotics. And I believed that — then — and I believe that now.”

Here is a man who has ruthlessly murdered adversaries, and willfully broken laws as he built his family’s power and wealth, hitting a moral wall when it came to selling drugs. It is this very duplicity of character that like the requirement for family members to be clean cut and respectable in outward appearance, is at once perplexing yet applauded.

In a hate the sin, love the sinner sort of way, this same duplicity is often times reflected in our current, real life views of drugs and drug users.

How many of us for example would fervently read, with great interest mind you, about another Robert Downey Jr. relapse, or mourn the passing of young stars such as a Heath Ledger or Brittany Murphy with a morbid nostalgia. Or in the case of Corey Haim, both a gallows humor interest as viewed through the lens of a TV reality show before his death, to a what a shame lamentation at his passing.

We only point this out not as a means of passing judgment, although some may question the voyeuristic tendencies that compel us to watch lives spiraling out of control with such focused interest, but instead to highlight the seemingly conflicted view we take of both drugs and those that use them. After all, aren’t shows such as A&E’s Intervention amongst the most popular on television?

Even the passing of Michael Jackson, whose accomplishments and the unbridled admiration of his fans transferred the responsibility for his use of a lethal combination of propofol, lorazepam and midazolam, to his personal physician Dr. Conrad Murray.

Murray it should be noted was charged by Los Angeles prosecutors with involuntary manslaughter on February 8th, 2010, and is currently awaiting trial. The good doctor however is claiming that MJ did himself in, arguing that “the pop icon gave himself the fatal dose of Propofol, a hospital-grade anesthesia authorities say killed him.”

While we will confine the legal debate surrounding exculpable actions and provocation to the previous chapter, it would be safe to say that this story will likely bring down the Internet when the trial starts to perhaps the same extent that it did when Jackson’s death was first disclosed to the world.

The key point here is that there is a paradoxical apathy that causes us to either vacillate between harshly executed legal indifference and, a palliative patience that creates a perpetual cycle of empathetic care.

However, from a crime perspective, U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics provides us with an interesting lens through which to view drug addiction in America. According to bureau data from 2002 approximately one quarter of convicted property and drug offenders in local jails committed their crimes to get money for drugs.

Moving ahead to 2004, 17% of U.S. State prisoners and 18% of Federal inmates indicated that they committed their crimes to obtain money for drugs, a trend that has remained relatively stable since the previous report in 1997.

Of course some would argue that even those substances which are considered legal under the law such as alcohol are equally responsible in terms of influencing the commission of a crime.

In the case of alcohol for example, at least 75% of the U.S. adult population are drinkers, with approximately 6% of that total being alcoholics. What is both surprising and worth noting is that reports indicate that 73% of all felonies are alcohol-related.

An even more telling statistic can be found in reports which indicate that 67% of all child-beating cases, 41% of forcible rapes, 80% of wife-battering, 72% of stabbings, and 83% of homicides occur when either the attacker or the victim, or for that matter both had been under the influence of alcohol.

Given the nature and frequency of the crimes that are committed where alcohol is involved instead of drugs, one has to wonder if focusing law enforcement’s attention on policing the distribution and use of illegal drugs represents the best use of time and resources. Especially given the present administration’s view that drug use is a “health problem, rather than a criminal problem.”

Regardless of whether we are talking about a legal or illegal substance, or the difference between drug uses being a health problem versus a criminal problem, the consequences of use should be the primary focus of both legislators as well as law enforcement.

Even though studies on drug related crime, which has been broken down into three distinguishable types; Use-Related, Economic-Related and System-Related crime, seem to indicate that outside of the realms of the third classification (System-Related crime), the majority of infractions are usually of a non-violent nature, it is nonetheless a significant issue.

Compare these statistics with the crime data associated with alcohol-related crime and one could easily wonder if making the use of alcohol illegal might significantly reduce the high number of violent crimes to a level that is commensurate with those of the illegal drug trade.

But wait a minute . . . haven’t we been down this road before?

Certainly another venerable movie and before that, television series by the name of The Untouchables will stir memories of prohibition, or what was also known as “The Noble Experiment.”

Prohibition’s origins go back as far as 1789, well before the passing of the National Prohibition or Volstead Act on October 28th, 1919, and can be linked to the early days of what was known as the temperance movement.

According to history, as the American Revolution approached, the resulting economic change and urbanization was accompanied by poverty which saw a relaxation of ordinances or localized law that led to a dramatic increase in alcohol-related problems.

Adding to the societal concerns regarding the impact of increased alcohol consumption were findings by the medical profession, and in particular Dr. Benjamin Rush, who linked a decline in both physical and psychological health with alcohol use.

Fueled by this revelation from mainstream medicine, a community in Connecticut formed a temperance association in 1789 with the sole focus of banning the production of whiskey. Other states such as Virginia in 1800, and New York in 1808 followed suit.

Despite the early promise of the temperance movement, political in-fighting muted the movement’s overall effectiveness. However, certain segments of the movement and their leaders persevered ultimately spinning off other movements such as the Anti-Saloon League, which became the driving force behind the National Prohibition Act.

What is interesting about the act is that while it outlawed the sale of alcohol, “it did little to enforce the law.” In fact by 1925, there were reportedly an estimated 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasies in New York City alone.

What is also worth noting is that while prohibition was successful in “reducing” alcohol consumption, many believed that it tended to destroy society by other means.

In his May 24th, 2010 article “The Demon Drink,” David Von Drehle made reference to Daniel Okrent’s book Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition (Scribner; 468 pages), and in particular the author’s observation that Prohibition proved “that if alcohol demoralized American society, outlawing alcohol was even worse.”

“The 18th Amendment,” he continued “made criminals out of casual drinkers, turned clergymen into cheats, encouraged doctors to practice deception and sowed the seeds of the Mob.”

It would not be unreasonable to wonder if Gus Vollmer, whose police career spanned to include the era of prohibition, might have been motivated by the principles expressed by Okrent when he came out against police involvement with the problem of drug addiction.

As you will recall from an earlier chapter, Vollmer believed that the “enforcement of moralistic vice laws” would lead to police corruption and in the process “engender disrespect for both the law and the agents of law enforcement.” These are similar concerns relative to a somewhat different, present day debate regarding Arizona’s controversial immigration law, the most controversial parts of which were blocked by Federal District Court Judge Susan Bolton.

The most contentious sections of the law, which prior to the injunction led one Phoenix police officer to make the comment that he felt “like a Nazi,” centered on the requirement for officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws and, demanding that immigrants prove that they were “authorized to be in the country or risk state charges.

The resulting damage that such a requirement would have relative to relations between Arizona’s various police departments and the public it serves would have the kind of far reaching negative consequences Vollmer anticipated from law enforcement’s involvement with drug addiction. It was for this reason that he likely advocated the establishment of a federal distribution network for habit forming drugs.

The real questions that remain unanswered in terms of Vollmer’s proposal regarding illegal drugs, and the ultimate repeal of prohibition is simply this . . . what are the consequences as they relate to societal interests from the standpoint of crime, moral sensibilities and economic impact?

According to the Von Drehle article, while prohibition worked from the standpoint of limiting consumption it was an unmitigated bust “as a means to a better society.”

The reasoning behind this perspective is once again based on Okrent’s observation that prohibition “encouraged criminality and institutionalized hypocrisy.”

From a purely financial point of view, Okrent pointed to the fact that the act “deprived the government of revenue, stripped the gears of the political system and imposed profound limitations on individual rights.”

If there is anything we can learn from prohibition relative to the war on drugs, it is the fact that the complexity of interconnecting consequences means that there are no simple answers regardless of accessibility to either alcohol or drugs.

For example, when the 18th Amendment was eventually, and some would suggest predictably, repealed on December 5th, 1933 the new legislation instantly created 500,000 new jobs as brewers and distillers such as Allied Industries called workers back into fully operational plants. The employment boon extended to “every line of business and commerce,” in the process fueling a new economic boom that rippled throughout all levels of society.

At that point in time, it would be difficult to point to the previously referenced statistics regarding the link between alcohol consumption and violent crime and not be viewed as the pessimistic naysayer. This is especially true when one considers the research findings of the Australian Institute of Criminology which suggest that “drug use” like alcohol have what can be referred to as “common origins.” Citing factors such as a “lack of access to economic support systems,” as well as “poor social support systems,” which are usually attributed to a impoverished state means that job creation and a roaring economy would seem to be the perfect elixir to both alcohol and drug-related crime, even with the ready accessibility to alcohol as a result of the18th Amendment’s repeal.

This means that the seeming cross purposes of enforcement versus overall societal impact creates a near untenable situation for the police officer on the street, as the line between access and offense can become somewhat blurred.

Take drunk driving for example. There are very few people who would minimalize the real and often tragic consequences of impaired driving. However, an even smaller percentage of the population would support a ban on alcohol as the solution to the problem. And it is this very balance along the lines of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater analogy that seems to elude the majority of myopically challenged legislators when it comes to both understanding and passing new laws.

Perhaps part of the problem as proposed by Von Drehle in his article The Demon Drink is that Americans disdain half measures, usually following an all or nothing edict as the country did with the passing of the 18th Amendment. But was alcohol the culprit behind rising crime as proposed by the temperance movement?

If as suggested by Australian research that in conjunction with a number of other factors such as poor social support systems, early contact with government services, difficulty in school and membership in deviant peer groups, there is a correlation between the lack of access to economic support systems, then one might assume that the Great Depression and not an accessibility to legal booze would contribute to a spike in crime rates.

However, and in yet another apparent contradiction while not reporting an increase, our research indicated that the crime rate “did not decrease” either during the depression. In short it appears that there was no discernible increase in crime despite a 23.6% national unemployment rate delta in 1932.

This absence in the correlation between tough economic times and an increase in crime is a trend that was supported by recent FBI nationwide statistics from 2008 that reported “a surprising drop in crime last year, with homicide rates in some major cities plunging to levels not seen in four decades, despite a deep and prolonged recession.” A period it is worth noting in which there was a reasonable, even significant accessibility to both alcohol and drugs.

Despite the above findings, it is still a generally accepted believed that high unemployment resulting from a poor economy does in fact contribute to an increase in social problems such as crime. The reasoning behind this position is the fact that if people do not have the same level of disposable income as they did when they were employed, the likelihood that “crime levels will increase within the economy,” is high.

A 1979 study by Dr. M. Brenner who investigated the “Influence of the Social Environment on Psychology,” would seem to support the latter position. Brenner found that for every 10% increase in unemployment numbers there was a corresponding 1.2% increase in total mortality, a 1.7% increase in cardiovascular disease, 1.3% more cirrhosis cases, 1.7% more suicides, 4.0% more arrests, and 0.8% more assaults reported to police.

An April 2001 article in the Journal of Law and Economics titled “Identifying the Effect of Unemployment on Crime” by Steven Raphael and Rudolf Winter-Ember concluded that a “substantial portion of the decline in property crime rates during the 1990s is attributable to the decline in the unemployment rate.”

Regardless of what side of the data you find yourself relative to your view on the correlation between the economy, unemployment and a rise (or decrease) in crime rates, what is society’s perception as to the degree of influence that accessibility to drugs and alcohol have on criminal activity? Even more important a consideration is how everyday citizens view police intervention in these supposed areas of personal choice?

As is the case with abortion in the previous chapter, are drugs and alcohol abuse more of a social issue versus being a law enforcement imperative in the truest sense of the word?

For example, high unemployment can encourage xenophobia (which is the uncontrollable fear of foreigners), and protectionism. On a side note we could not help but wonder to what degree the economic downturn in recent years may have contributed to the creation and popular support of the Arizona immigration law, and the corresponding impact on law enforcement that we have already discussed.

Conversely what about our continuing romanticism with Depression-Era public enemies like the bootlegging Al Capone, or Bonnie and Clyde and John Dillinger, whose bank robbing escapades were viewed as being more in line with a Robin Hood type of heroism versus being a criminal affront to society as a whole?

The troubling questions this raises is if policing America is more of an interim and at times unpopular reaction to greater and more pressing social issues or problems in which economic conditions stir greater demands for law enforcement intervention versus the unlawful use of controlled substances? In short, is policing in a democratic society based primarily on a symptomatic response to acute and somewhat competing sensibilities, thus reducing law enforcement to an at times unnerving and perhaps even unwanted role of an unwelcome interloper?

The why are you stopping me to issue a ticket for speeding when there are real criminals committing real crimes in the world mindset?

In the case of drugs, why not focus on the foreigners taking our jobs or depleting our social services versus a generally harmless and needed escape from reality?

And if this is indeed true, at least to a certain extent, what impact does our view on drugs have on law enforcement’s ability to effectively and safely police America?

The lines between right and wrong, legal and illegal become even more blurred when you consider a 2009 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study shows that prescription drug abuse amongst teens is “on the rise,” with an estimated 20% indicating that they “have taken a prescription drug without a doctor’s prescription.”

Besides the fact that prescription drugs are often easier to get, and that there is a persistent (false) belief that they are safer and less addictive than regular “street drugs,” a major problem from a law enforcement standpoint is the belief on the part of abusers that “they’re not doing anything illegal because these drugs are prescribed by doctors.”

As a result prescription drug abuse and the resulting police intervention, which threatens to move the drug war from the dark recesses of the back alley to America’s living rooms, is bound to be met with the same level of societal ambivalence, resistance and even hostility associated with controlling alcohol consumption during prohibition.

A task made even more daunting when you take into account that parents and adults in general are themselves over-medicated.

Add into the equation the highly publicized misdeeds of pharmaceutical a company such as Johnson & Johnson and Astra Zeneca, who have recently run afoul of the law for illegally “pushing” off-label drugs, and it, is easy to conclude that police are in what is potentially an untenable position that is tantamount to be caught between an irresistible force and immovable object.

So if police involvement in drug enforcement today is somewhat similar to the prohibition era control of alcohol, are there meaningful lessons that can be learned and applied to avoid the pitfalls associated with societal mores and legal edicts that are at cross purposes?

As a first step towards understanding what is undoubtedly a complicated scenario, let’s start by understanding laws and police practices from a general perspective.

In his book titled “The Law and Politics of Police Discretion,” Gregory Howard Williams, a deputy sheriff in Muncie, Indiana for more than 20 years, expressed his opinion that “in addition to determining who should have input into the rule-making process, it is necessary to determine which laws are appropriate for rule making.”

This is an interesting observation as it goes to the heart of determining what should or should not be considered illegal, including police response. In terms of a definitive answer, Williams believes that the laws that are “most appropriate” for the rule-making process are those that “have the greatest potential for abuse.”

Referencing Professor James Q. Wilson’s model, which the author reports classifies “police response to law violations,” there are two primary functions performed by the police which are; law enforcement situations that arise “when there is a clear violation of the law,” in which only the assessment of guilt needs to be determined and, order maintenance situations when there is both a “violation of the law” and a need to “resolve dispute, interpret the law, determine standards of proper conduct, and assign blame.”

What is interesting is that law enforcement according to Williams can be “invoked by either the police or citizens,” fewer than four different scenarios including; police-invoked law enforcement, citizen-invoked law enforcement, police-invoked order maintenance, and citizen-invoked order maintenance.

Professor Wilson, who is an American academic political scientist and an authority on public administration, as well as senior fellow at the Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional Democracy at Boston College, observed the following relative to both police-invoked and citizen-invoked actions:

“in Cases I [police-invoked law enforcement] and IV [citizen-invoked order maintenance] the patrolman has great discretion, but in the former instance it can be brought under department control and in the latter it cannot.

In Case II [citizen-invoked law enforcement] the patrolman has the least discretion except when the suspects are juveniles and then the discretion is substantial and can be affected by general departmental policies and organization.

Case III [police-invoked order maintenance] is intermediate in both the degree of discretion and the possibility of department control.”

Even though Williams generally finds useful what he referred to as Wilson’s “typology of the discretionary situations faced by officers,” he nonetheless questions the breadth of its applicability in real-world situations.

In this regard, Williams assumes the position that police action which is initiated by a citizen actually affords the responding officers with little if any discretionary powers, due to what he called “active citizen involvement.” Williams stressed the point that this is especially true in “citizen-invoked law enforcement situations, the majority of which tend to be felonies.”

Using both the Wilson model and Williams’ adjunct commentary as a guideline, what practical impact does this have in terms of how police can deal with drugs and drug-related crimes?

To start, let’s revisit what we had referred to earlier in this chapter as being the “three types of crimes associated with drugs.”

As you will recall, Use-Related crime is defined as “crimes that result from or involve individuals who ingest drugs, and who commit crimes as a result of the effect the drug has on their thought processes and behavior.” We would of course extend this definition beyond drug use alone to include alcohol related infractions such as drunk driving or spousal abuse.

Let’s consider a situation such as impaired driving. Given the significant public outcry over the countless and unnecessary deaths associated with drivers getting behind the wheel after having one too many, police have taken a proactive role through frequent media campaigns and setting-up random roadside checks. In essence, and in what can be classified as police-invoked order maintenance, with the public’s blessing law enforcement is actively seeking out offenders by pulling over cars in which the majority of the people driving are doing so both responsibly and legally.

Now let’s examine prescription drug abuse amongst teens. If in fact the 2009 CDCP survey is accurate, and 20% of all teens have taken a prescription drug without having a doctor’s prescription, this is a very serious problem. Against this backdrop, how would parents respond to random drug tests of all students, or locker inspections at school?

What about routine home visits by police? Despite increases in unintended prescription drug related crimes such as driving under the influence or sexual assault, a police-invoked order maintenance approach is unlikely to be met with the same level of enthusiasm as the roadside checks associated with reducing the number of drunk drivers on the road.

In either situation the risks and potential consequences are both significant and even deadly, yet society’s view appears to be the polar opposite relative to the role that police should play in terms of enforcing the law. What is ironic is that the legal use of alcohol leads to a more proactive police involvement in our daily lives, versus the illegal use of prescription drugs.

It is this very disconnect in which two equally harmful crimes are both viewed and subsequently treated differently that is at the heart of the drug (and alcohol) issue relative to Use-Related crimes. What is interesting is that this type of crime, like the majority of citizens who frequented the speakeasies during the days of prohibition, involve either directly or indirectly the greatest percentage of the overall population.

It would therefore be safe to conclude that in and of itself, alcohol consumption (which is legal), and prescription drug use (which is illegal), only concern the general public when it crosses the threshold of the user’s personal realm and invades society in the form of a detrimental act. And it is only when prescription drug or alcohol abuse toxically and injuriously intersects with the community that police action is expected. If the consequences of alcohol or drug use remained confined to the users own world or home, then it is unlikely that the public would pay much heed to questions of legality and police intervention.

It is usually when alcohol or drug abuse does manifest itself in an outward criminal act associated with Economic-Related crime, which is defined as being those crimes in which “an individual commits a crime” such as theft and prostitution “to fund their drug habit” that either police-invoked or citizen-invoked law enforcement practices occur and are in fact expected.

An Economic-Related crime can therefore be considered the point at which the line between personal proclivities and injurious conduct is crossed. At this stage, it is no longer a matter of choice re if you choose to take illegal drugs or have several drinks before noon, that’s fine as long as it doesn’t conflict with my interests. It is when these choices extend “outside” and have a negative impact on the community, that we demand that the full weight of the law be brought down to bear on the offenders.

However, there is also an ever present sentiment that users be viewed as having an illness that requires treatment versus punishment. The effectiveness of such an approach after police intervention has received mixed reviews especially when you consider the recent headlines surrounding Lindsay Lohan or a Robert Downey Junior.

In the latter instance Downey had to be incarcerated before he made any real progress in kicking his addictions.

This leads to a question, is the separation of the crime from the individual a viable response and, does it lead to a long-term resolution?

The third and final type of crime associated with drugs is System-Related crime. Defined as being those “crimes that result from the structure of the drug system, which include the production, manufacture, transportation, and sale of drugs,” as well as “violence related to the production or sale of drugs, such as a turf war.”

It is safe to say that this third classification of drug-related crime is one that involves a relatively small percentage of the population, in which daily interaction with the general populace is virtually non-existent.

In the context of this out of sight, out of mind societal perspective, it perhaps presents the least concern for the regular citizen. Ironically, it also presents the greatest risk to police officers who operate within the closed world of organized or semi-organized crime. As a result, police practices in terms of intervention are usually limited to police-invoked law enforcement and order maintenance.

The only time that this area of law enforcement focus crosses the collective consciousness of the public’s radar, is when there is a fatality – often times a police officer dying in the line of duty – or a major drug bust. Outside of these acute events, it is probably the least rewarding area of crime prevention and enforcement for the brave men and women who toil in relative obscurity to effect control over the distribution of illegal drugs, the mere consumption of which is met with community ambivalence.

The data would tend to support the apathy position relative to both drugs and even alcohol given that even with the crackdown on impaired driving, 40% of all traffic deaths in the US are alcohol-related. In fact the State of Nebraska estimates that 1 in every 60 drivers on the road at any given time have consumed alcohol.

This has once again caused some in the US to consider the possible restriction of access to alcohol (did we learn anything from prohibition?), while countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia who have implemented a coordinated Random Breath Test program have seen alcohol-related driving deaths plummet to a much lower level than those in the U.S.

To reiterate our earlier stated position, when it comes to policing controlled substances, it is as much of a general society issue as it is a law enforcement issue.

Given the fluidity of society’s views on both the enforcement and related punishment of drug and alcohol offenders, this will likely continue to be a “moving target” issue in which the police will have to maintain a high level of sensible adaptability.

Click to listen to May 21st, 2011 radio broadcast

30

“But uh, I must say “no” to you — and I’ll give you my reasons. It’s true, I have a lot of friends in politics, but they wouldn’t be friendly very long if they knew my business was drugs instead of gambling, which they rule that as a — harmless vice. But drugs is a dirty business.”

Vito Corleone to Sollozzo in The Godfather Part 1

The Godfather is of course a classic movie for many, many reasons from memorable lines like “going to the mattresses,” to “leave the gun – take the cannoli,” it is richly endowed with the very essence of American culture that at once is drawn yet repelled by moral contradictions of decent society and the baser human instincts.

Nowhere is this contradictory dilemma better reflected than in the latter part of the movie when the Don, looking to put an end to a war that claimed the life of his eldest son Sonny, stood before the heads of the New York Families to explain his reasons for turning down the “accommodation” that led to the bloodshed in the first place.

“When — when did I ever refuse an accommodation? All of you know me here — when did I ever refuse? — except one time. And why? Because — I believe this drug business — is gonna destroy us in the years to come. I mean, it’s not like gambling or liquor — even women — which is something that most people want nowadays, and is ah forbidden to them by the pezzonovante of the Church. Even the police departments that’ve helped us in the past with gambling and other things are gonna refuse to help us when it comes to narcotics. And I believed that — then — and I believe that now.”

Here is a man who has ruthlessly murdered adversaries, and willfully broken laws as he built his family’s power and wealth, hitting a moral wall when it came to selling drugs.  It is this very duplicity of character that like the requirement for family members to be clean cut and respectable in outward appearance, is at once perplexing yet applauded.

In a hate the sin, love the sinner sort of way, this same duplicity is often times reflected in our current, real life views of drugs and drug users.

How many of us for example would fervently read, with great interest mind you, about another Robert Downey Jr. relapse, or mourn the passing of young stars such as a Heath Ledger or Brittany Murphy with a morbid nostalgia.  Or in the case of Corey Haim, both a gallows humor interest as viewed through the lens of a TV reality show before his death, to a what a shame lamentation at his passing.

We only point this out not as a means of passing judgment, although some may question the voyeuristic tendencies that compel us to watch lives spiraling out of control with such focused interest, but instead to highlight the seemingly conflicted view we take of both drugs and those that use them.  After all, aren’t shows such as A&E’s Intervention amongst the most popular on television?

Even the passing of Michael Jackson, whose accomplishments and the unbridled admiration of his fans transferred the responsibility for his use of a lethal combination of propofol, lorazepam and midazolam, to his personal physician Dr. Conrad Murray.

Murray it should be noted was charged by Los Angeles prosecutors with involuntary manslaughter on February 8th, 2010, and is currently awaiting trial.  The good doctor however is claiming that MJ did himself in, arguing that “the pop icon gave himself the fatal dose of Propofol, a hospital-grade anesthesia authorities say killed him.”

While we will confine the legal debate surrounding exculpable actions and provocation to the previous chapter, it would be safe to say that this story will likely bring down the Internet when the trial starts to perhaps the same extent that it did when Jackson’s death was first disclosed to the world.

The key point here is that there is a paradoxical apathy that causes us to either vacillate between harshly executed legal indifference and, a palliative patience that creates a perpetual cycle of empathetic care.

However, from a crime perspective, U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics provides us with an interesting lens through which to view drug addiction in America.  According to bureau data from 2002 approximately one quarter of convicted property and drug offenders in local jails committed their crimes to get money for drugs.

Moving ahead to 2004, 17% of U.S. State prisoners and 18% of Federal inmates indicated that they committed their crimes to obtain money for drugs, a trend that has remained relatively stable since the previous report in 1997.

Of course some would argue that even those substances which are considered legal under the law such as alcohol are equally responsible in terms of influencing the commission of a crime.

In the case of alcohol for example, at least 75% of the U.S. adult population are drinkers, with approximately 6% of that total being alcoholics.  What is both surprising and worth noting is that reports indicate that 73% of all felonies are alcohol-related.

An even more telling statistic can be found in reports which indicate that 67% of all child-beating cases, 41% of forcible rapes, 80% of wife-battering, 72% of stabbings, and 83% of homicides occur when either the attacker or the victim, or for that matter both had been under the influence of alcohol.

Given the nature and frequency of the crimes that are committed where alcohol is involved instead of drugs, one has to wonder if focusing law enforcement’s attention on policing the distribution and use of illegal drugs represents the best use of time and resources.  Especially given the present administration’s view that drug use is a “health problem, rather than a criminal problem.”

Regardless of whether we are talking about a legal or illegal substance, or the difference between drug uses being a health problem versus a criminal problem, the consequences of use should be the primary focus of both legislators as well as law enforcement.

Even though studies on drug related crime, which has been broken down into three distinguishable types; Use-Related, Economic-Related and System-Related crime, seem to indicate that outside of the realms of the third classification (System-Related crime), the majority of infractions are usually of a non-violent nature, it is nonetheless a significant issue.

Compare these statistics with the crime data associated with alcohol-related crime and one could easily wonder if making the use of alcohol illegal might significantly reduce the high number of violent crimes to a level that is commensurate with those of the illegal drug trade.

But wait a minute . . . haven’t we been down this road before?

Certainly another venerable movie and before that, television series by the name of The Untouchables will stir memories of prohibition, or what was also known as “The Noble Experiment.”

Prohibition’s origins go back as far as 1789, well before the passing of the National Prohibition or Volstead Act on October 28th, 1919, and can be linked to the early days of what was known as the temperance movement.

According to history, as the American Revolution approached, the resulting economic change and urbanization was accompanied by poverty which saw a relaxation of ordinances or localized law that led to a dramatic increase in alcohol-related problems.

Adding to the societal concerns regarding the impact of increased alcohol consumption were findings by the medical profession, and in particular Dr. Benjamin Rush, who linked a decline in both physical and psychological health with alcohol use.

Fueled by this revelation from mainstream medicine, a community in Connecticut formed a temperance association in 1789 with the sole focus of banning the production of whiskey.  Other states such as Virginia in 1800, and New York in 1808 followed suit.

Despite the early promise of the temperance movement, political in-fighting muted the movement’s overall effectiveness.  However, certain segments of the movement and their leaders persevered ultimately spinning off other movements such as the Anti-Saloon League, which became the driving force behind the National Prohibition Act.

What is interesting about the act is that while it outlawed the sale of alcohol, “it did little to enforce the law.”  In fact by 1925, there were reportedly an estimated 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasies in New York City alone.

What is also worth noting is that while prohibition was successful in “reducing” alcohol consumption, many believed that it tended to destroy society by other means.

In his May 24th, 2010 article “The Demon Drink,” David Von Drehle made reference to Daniel Okrent’s book Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition (Scribner; 468 pages), and in particular the author’s observation that Prohibition proved “that if alcohol demoralized American society, outlawing alcohol was even worse.”

“The 18th Amendment,” he continued “made criminals out of casual drinkers, turned clergymen into cheats, encouraged doctors to practice deception and sowed the seeds of the Mob.”

It would not be unreasonable to wonder if Gus Vollmer, whose police career spanned to include the era of prohibition, might have been motivated by the principles expressed by Okrent when he came out against police involvement with the problem of drug addiction.

As you will recall from an earlier chapter, Vollmer believed that the “enforcement of moralistic vice laws” would lead to police corruption and in the process “engender disrespect for both the law and the agents of law enforcement.”  These are similar concerns relative to a somewhat different, present day debate regarding Arizona’s controversial immigration law, the most controversial parts of which were blocked by Federal District Court Judge Susan Bolton.

The most contentious sections of the law, which prior to the injunction led one Phoenix police officer to make the comment that he felt “like a Nazi,” centered on the requirement for officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws and, demanding that immigrants prove that they were “authorized to be in the country or risk state charges.

The resulting damage that such a requirement would have relative to relations between Arizona’s various police departments and the public it serves would have the kind of far reaching negative consequences Vollmer anticipated from law enforcement’s involvement with drug addiction.  It was for this reason that he likely advocated the establishment of a federal distribution network for habit forming drugs.

The real questions that remain unanswered in terms of Vollmer’s proposal regarding illegal drugs, and the ultimate repeal of prohibition is simply this . . . what are the consequences as they relate to societal interests from the standpoint of crime, moral sensibilities and economic impact?

According to the Von Drehle article, while prohibition worked from the standpoint of limiting consumption it was an unmitigated bust “as a means to a better society.”

The reasoning behind this perspective is once again based on Okrent’s observation that prohibition “encouraged criminality and institutionalized hypocrisy.”

From a purely financial point of view, Okrent pointed to the fact that the act “deprived the government of revenue, stripped the gears of the political system and imposed profound limitations on individual rights.”

If there is anything we can learn from prohibition relative to the war on drugs, it is the fact that the complexity of interconnecting consequences means that there are no simple answers regardless of accessibility to either alcohol or drugs.

For example, when the 18th Amendment was eventually, and some would suggest predictably, repealed on December 5th, 1933 the new legislation instantly created 500,000 new jobs as brewers and distillers such as Allied Industries called workers back into fully operational plants.  The employment boon extended to “every line of business and commerce,” in the process fueling a new economic boom that rippled throughout all levels of society.

At that point in time, it would be difficult to point to the previously referenced statistics regarding the link between alcohol consumption and violent crime and not be viewed as the pessimistic naysayer.  This is especially true when one considers the research findings of the Australian Institute of Criminology which suggest that “drug use” like alcohol have what can be referred to as “common origins.”  Citing factors such as a “lack of access to economic support systems,” as well as “poor social support systems,” which are usually attributed to a impoverished state means that job creation and a roaring economy would seem to be the perfect elixir to both alcohol and drug-related crime, even with the ready accessibility to alcohol as a result of the18th Amendment’s repeal.

This means that the seeming cross purposes of enforcement versus overall societal impact creates a near untenable situation for the police officer on the street, as the line between access and offense can become somewhat blurred.

Take drunk driving for example.  There are very few people who would minimalize the real and often tragic consequences of impaired driving.  However, an even smaller percentage of the population would support a ban on alcohol as the solution to the problem.  And it is this very balance along the lines of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater analogy that seems to elude the majority of myopically challenged legislators when it comes to both understanding and passing new laws.

Perhaps part of the problem as proposed by Von Drehle in his article The Demon Drink is that Americans disdain half measures, usually following an all or nothing edict as the country did with the passing of the 18th Amendment.  But was alcohol the culprit behind rising crime as proposed by the temperance movement?

If as suggested by Australian research that in conjunction with a number of other factors such as poor social support systems, early contact with government services, difficulty in school and membership in deviant peer groups, there is a correlation between the lack of access to economic support systems, then one might assume that the Great Depression and not an accessibility to legal booze would contribute to a spike in crime rates.

However, and in yet another apparent contradiction while not reporting an increase, our research indicated that the crime rate “did not decrease” either during the depression.  In short it appears that there was no discernible increase in crime despite a 23.6% national unemployment rate delta in 1932.

This absence in the correlation between tough economic times and an increase in crime is a trend that was supported by recent FBI nationwide statistics from 2008 that reported “a surprising drop in crime last year, with homicide rates in some major cities plunging to levels not seen in four decades, despite a deep and prolonged recession.”  A period it is worth noting in which there was a reasonable, even significant accessibility to both alcohol and drugs.

Despite the above findings, it is still a generally accepted believed that high unemployment resulting from a poor economy does in fact contribute to an increase in social problems such as crime.  The reasoning behind this position is the fact that if people do not have the same level of disposable income as they did when they were employed, the likelihood that “crime levels will increase within the economy,” is high.

A 1979 study by Dr. M. Brenner who investigated the “Influence of the Social Environment on Psychology,” would seem to support the latter position.  Brenner found that for every 10% increase in unemployment numbers there was a corresponding 1.2% increase in total mortality, a 1.7% increase in cardiovascular disease, 1.3% more cirrhosis cases, 1.7% more suicides, 4.0% more arrests, and 0.8% more assaults reported to police.

An April 2001 article in the Journal of Law and Economics titled “Identifying the Effect of Unemployment on Crime” by Steven Raphael and Rudolf Winter-Ember concluded that a “substantial portion of the decline in property crime rates during the 1990s is attributable to the decline in the unemployment rate.”

Regardless of what side of the data you find yourself relative to your view on the correlation between the economy, unemployment and a rise (or decrease) in crime rates, what is society’s perception as to the degree of influence that accessibility to drugs and alcohol have on criminal activity?  Even more important a consideration is how everyday citizens view police intervention in these supposed areas of personal choice?

As is the case with abortion in the previous chapter, are drugs and alcohol abuse more of a social issue versus being a law enforcement imperative in the truest sense of the word?

For example, high unemployment can encourage xenophobia (which is the uncontrollable fear of foreigners), and protectionism.  On a side note we could not help but wonder to what degree the economic downturn in recent years may have contributed to the creation and popular support of the Arizona immigration law, and the corresponding impact on law enforcement that we have already discussed.

Conversely what about our continuing romanticism with Depression-Era public enemies like the bootlegging Al Capone, or Bonnie and Clyde and John Dillinger, whose bank robbing escapades were viewed as being more in line with a Robin Hood type of heroism versus being a criminal affront to society as a whole?

The troubling questions this raises is if policing America is more of an interim and at times unpopular reaction to greater and more pressing social issues or problems in which economic conditions stir greater demands for law enforcement intervention versus the unlawful use of controlled substances?  In short, is policing in a democratic society based primarily on a symptomatic response to acute and somewhat competing sensibilities, thus reducing law enforcement to an at times unnerving and perhaps even unwanted role of an unwelcome interloper?

The why are you stopping me to issue a ticket for speeding when there are real criminals committing real crimes in the world mindset?

In the case of drugs, why not focus on the foreigners taking our jobs or depleting our social services versus a generally harmless and needed escape from reality?

And if this is indeed true, at least to a certain extent, what impact does our view on drugs have on law enforcement’s ability to effectively and safely police America?

The lines between right and wrong, legal and illegal become even more blurred when you consider a 2009 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study shows that prescription drug abuse amongst teens is “on the rise,” with an estimated 20% indicating that they “have taken a prescription drug without a doctor’s prescription.”

Besides the fact that prescription drugs are often easier to get, and that there is a persistent (false) belief that they are safer and less addictive than regular “street drugs,” a major problem from a law enforcement standpoint is the belief on the part of abusers that “they’re not doing anything illegal because these drugs are prescribed by doctors.”

As a result prescription drug abuse and the resulting police intervention, which threatens to move the drug war from the dark recesses of the back alley to America’s living rooms, is bound to be met with the same level of societal ambivalence, resistance and even hostility associated with controlling alcohol consumption during prohibition.

A task made even more daunting when you take into account that parents and adults in general are themselves over-medicated.

Add into the equation the highly publicized misdeeds of pharmaceutical a company such as Johnson & Johnson and Astra Zeneca, who have recently run afoul of the law for illegally “pushing” off-label drugs, and it, is easy to conclude that police are in what is potentially an untenable position that is tantamount to be caught between an irresistible force and immovable object.

So if police involvement in drug enforcement today is somewhat similar to the prohibition era control of alcohol, are there meaningful lessons that can be learned and applied to avoid the pitfalls associated with societal mores and legal edicts that are at cross purposes?

As a first step towards understanding what is undoubtedly a complicated scenario, let’s start by understanding laws and police practices from a general perspective.

In his book titled “The Law and Politics of Police Discretion,” Gregory Howard Williams, a deputy sheriff in Muncie, Indiana for more than 20 years, expressed his opinion that “in addition to determining who should have input into the rule-making process, it is necessary to determine which laws are appropriate for rule making.”

This is an interesting observation as it goes to the heart of determining what should or should not be considered illegal, including police response.  In terms of a definitive answer, Williams believes that the laws that are “most appropriate” for the rule-making process are those that “have the greatest potential for abuse.”

Referencing Professor James Q. Wilson’s model, which the author reports classifies “police response to law violations,” there are two primary functions performed by the police which are; law enforcement situations that arise “when there is a clear violation of the law,” in which only the assessment of guilt needs to be determined and, order maintenance situations when there is both a “violation of the law” and a need to “resolve dispute, interpret the law, determine standards of proper conduct, and assign blame.”

What is interesting is that law enforcement according to Williams can be “invoked by either the police or citizens,” fewer than four different scenarios including; police-invoked law enforcement, citizen-invoked law enforcement, police-invoked order maintenance, and citizen-invoked order maintenance.

Professor Wilson, who is an American academic political scientist and an authority on public administration, as well as senior fellow at the Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional Democracy at Boston College, observed the following relative to both police-invoked and citizen-invoked actions:

“in Cases I [police-invoked law enforcement] and IV [citizen-invoked order maintenance] the patrolman has great discretion, but in the former instance it can be brought under department control and in the latter it cannot.

In Case II [citizen-invoked law enforcement] the patrolman has the least discretion except when the suspects are juveniles and then the discretion is substantial and can be affected by general departmental policies and organization.

Case III [police-invoked order maintenance] is intermediate in both the degree of discretion and the possibility of department control.”

Even though Williams generally finds useful what he referred to as Wilson’s “typology of the discretionary situations faced by officers,” he nonetheless questions the breadth of its applicability in real-world situations.

In this regard, Williams assumes the position that police action which is initiated by a citizen actually affords the responding officers with little if any discretionary powers, due to what he called “active citizen involvement.”  Williams stressed the point that this is especially true in “citizen-invoked law enforcement situations, the majority of which tend to be felonies.”

Using both the Wilson model and Williams’ adjunct commentary as a guideline, what practical impact does this have in terms of how police can deal with drugs and drug-related crimes?

To start, let’s revisit what we had referred to earlier in this chapter as being the “three types of crimes associated with drugs.”

As you will recall, Use-Related crime is defined as “crimes that result from or involve individuals who ingest drugs, and who commit crimes as a result of the effect the drug has on their thought processes and behavior.”  We would of course extend this definition beyond drug use alone to include alcohol related infractions such as drunk driving or spousal abuse.

Let’s consider a situation such as impaired driving.  Given the significant public outcry over the countless and unnecessary deaths associated with drivers getting behind the wheel after having one too many, police have taken a proactive role through frequent media campaigns and setting-up random roadside checks.  In essence, and in what can be classified as police-invoked order maintenance, with the public’s blessing law enforcement is actively seeking out offenders by pulling over cars in which the majority of the people driving are doing so both responsibly and legally.

Now let’s examine prescription drug abuse amongst teens.  If in fact the 2009 CDCP survey is accurate, and 20% of all teens have taken a prescription drug without having a doctor’s prescription, this is a very serious problem.  Against this backdrop, how would parents respond to random drug tests of all students, or locker inspections at school?

What about routine home visits by police?  Despite increases in unintended prescription drug related crimes such as driving under the influence or sexual assault, a police-invoked order maintenance approach is unlikely to be met with the same level of enthusiasm as the roadside checks associated with reducing the number of drunk drivers on the road.

In either situation the risks and potential consequences are both significant and even deadly, yet society’s view appears to be the polar opposite relative to the role that police should play in terms of enforcing the law.  What is ironic is that the legal use of alcohol leads to a more proactive police involvement in our daily lives, versus the illegal use of prescription drugs.

It is this very disconnect in which two equally harmful crimes are both viewed and subsequently treated differently that is at the heart of the drug (and alcohol) issue relative to Use-Related crimes.  What is interesting is that this type of crime, like the majority of citizens who frequented the speakeasies during the days of prohibition, involve either directly or indirectly the greatest percentage of the overall population.

It would therefore be safe to conclude that in and of itself, alcohol consumption (which is legal), and prescription drug use (which is illegal), only concern the general public when it crosses the threshold of the user’s personal realm and invades society in the form of a detrimental act.  And it is only when prescription drug or alcohol abuse toxically and injuriously intersects with the community that police action is expected.  If the consequences of alcohol or drug use remained confined to the users own world or home, then it is unlikely that the public would pay much heed to questions of legality and police intervention.

It is usually when alcohol or drug abuse does manifest itself in an outward criminal act associated with Economic-Related crime, which is defined as being those crimes in which “an individual commits a crime” such as theft and prostitution “to fund their drug habit” that either police-invoked or citizen-invoked law enforcement practices occur and are in fact expected.

An Economic-Related crime can therefore be considered the point at which the line between personal proclivities and injurious conduct is crossed.  At this stage, it is no longer a matter of choice re if you choose to take illegal drugs or have several drinks before noon, that’s fine as long as it doesn’t conflict with my interests.  It is when these choices extend “outside” and have a negative impact on the community, that we demand that the full weight of the law be brought down to bear on the offenders.

However, there is also an ever present sentiment that users be viewed as having an illness that requires treatment versus punishment.  The effectiveness of such an approach after police intervention has received mixed reviews especially when you consider the recent headlines surrounding Lindsay Lohan or a Robert Downey Junior.

In the latter instance Downey had to be incarcerated before he made any real progress in kicking his addictions.

This leads to a question, is the separation of the crime from the individual a viable response and, does it lead to a long-term resolution?

The third and final type of crime associated with drugs is System-Related crime.  Defined as being those “crimes that result from the structure of the drug system, which include the production, manufacture, transportation, and sale of drugs,” as well as “violence related to the production or sale of drugs, such as a turf war.”

It is safe to say that this third classification of drug-related crime is one that involves a relatively small percentage of the population, in which daily interaction with the general populace is virtually non-existent.

In the context of this out of sight, out of mind societal perspective, it perhaps presents the least concern for the regular citizen.  Ironically, it also presents the greatest risk to police officers who operate within the closed world of organized or semi-organized crime.  As a result, police practices in terms of intervention are usually limited to police-invoked law enforcement and order maintenance.

The only time that this area of law enforcement focus crosses the collective consciousness of the public’s radar, is when there is a fatality – often times a police officer dying in the line of duty – or a major drug bust.  Outside of these acute events, it is probably the least rewarding area of crime prevention and enforcement for the brave men and women who toil in relative obscurity to effect control over the distribution of illegal drugs, the mere consumption of which is met with community ambivalence.

The data would tend to support the apathy position relative to both drugs and even alcohol given that even with the crackdown on impaired driving, 40% of all traffic deaths in the US are alcohol-related.  In fact the State of Nebraska estimates that 1 in every 60 drivers on the road at any given time have consumed alcohol.

This has once again caused some in the US to consider the possible restriction of access to alcohol (did we learn anything from prohibition?), while countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia who have implemented a coordinated Random Breath Test program have seen alcohol-related driving deaths plummet to a much lower level than those in the U.S.

To reiterate our earlier stated position, when it comes to policing controlled substances, it is as much of a general society issue as it is a law enforcement issue.

Given the fluidity of society’s views on both the enforcement and related punishment of drug and alcohol offenders, this will likely continue to be a “moving target” issue in which the police will have to maintain a high level of sensible adaptability.

Click to listen to May 21st, 2011 radio broadcast

30

Sequels to hit movies are always a gamble. Like the dreaded “difficult second album” syndrome that plagues musicians, following up on a successful debut outing can be a daunting task for any filmmaker to undertake. More often that not the law of diminishing returns applies and while the follow up film may not be bad it is par for the course that it will be largely inferior to its predecessor in almost every way. On rare occasions though sequels manage to live up to (and in some cases, like The Empire Strikes Back for example, surpass) the standards of the original film. There are those who claim that the second installment of the Godfather series is better than the first. I have to say that I think they are wrong. It is certainly on a par with the first part though, a momumental achievement given the brilliance of the Corleone family’s debut.

Following on from the first film we rejoin Don Michael seven years after he has risen to the head of the Corleone family and consolidated their dominance among the various American Mafia families. Business is good, the Coreleone’s move into the casino business having been a shrewd one. This good fortune though has attracted powerful enemies though and before too long it becomes clear that there are traitors in the midst of his organisation who are prepared to help said enemies take Michael out of the game. Alongside this story we are given a history of his father Vito’s rise to power from poor Sicilian immigrant child into respected (and feared) Mafia Don.

Pleasingly, where a character remains from the original installment the original cast member who played them also remains. This brings a comforting consistency to the story and instantly puts you at ease thanks to the familiarity of the characters. The only exception to this is Marlon Brando who did not reprise his role as Vito Corleone in the second film. Supposedly this is because he felt cheated and abused by Paramount after the first film. Instead, Robert De Niro puts in an Oscar winning turn as the young Vito Corleone in the various flashback sequences that chart his rise to power in New York city. It’s fair to say that he earned that Oscar as he is responsible for some of the greatest moments in the film.

The focus of Part II though is very much on Michael Corleone. As the first film draws to a close he comes off as something of a heroic character, pursuing the honour code of the Mafia against those who betrayed his father and salvaging the Corleone family from the brink of defeat with boldly stated claims of turning the Corleone family legitimate. It becomes clear fairly early on that this endeavour has not come to fruition in the sequel. In fact there is a sense that the Corleones have never been less legitimate. The glamourous, honourable Mafia portrayed in the first film is abandoned here, balanced out by the more brutish and destructive side. Murder is the quick fix for anything and life is cheap in this new era of organised crime.

That’s not the only change in Michael. For all of his talk about putting the family first the lines are blurred between his biological family and his business one. His relationship with his brother and sister have deteriorated beyond hope of salvation, he doesn’t spend any time with his kids and his marriage to Kay has been poisoned by dishonesty. He seems far more interested in the hopes and ambitions of his crime family. Coupled with a growing arrogance, the new Godfather is not a particularly likeable man. Constantly striving to fill his fathers shoes seems to be beyond him and while he may match his old man for cunning and ruthlessness he is light years behind him when it comes to humanity and respect.

In every other aspect the film is on a level pegging with the first one and so it should be following on so closely and with the same cast and crew on the project. It’s just as beautifully shot. Nino Rota reprises the iconic score. Although it keeps strictly to the look and feel of the earlier film and maintains the story arc set out there it has enough individuality to set itself apart from its predecessor. Sadly it still suffers from the slightly inconsistent restoration work that the first film did (I may be judging it too harshly – I am using Coppola’s phenomenal restoration of Apocalypse Now on blu ray as a point of comparison) but it is still stunning to behold and the young Vito sequences in particular look amazing on the high definition disc. The other benefit of the blu ray is that the entire film is now housed on a single side of a single disc so no more flipping/disc changing at the intermission!

As far as films go this really should be on everybody’s “must see” list if, somehow, for whatever reason you haven’t seen it already. Just make sure you’ve watched Part I first.

Ever since I can remember, I wanted to be a gangster. Or a ninja. Or both. Largely due, I suppose, to the string of films and other artworks that serve to glamourise the lifestyle of the mob. The power, the money, the women, the respect. While the genre is an overpopulated one it’s also got more than its fair share of excellent pieces of work. Goodfellas, Scarface, Carlitos Way, Once Upon A Time In America, Casino. And that’s just the more recent ones. It would be a brave, nay, foolhardy observer who would dare to overlook the prominence of Coppola’s Mafia epic, a film that not only set the bar for every other gangster film that would follow it but which seared itself indelibly into the psyche of generations of movie lovers.

In a nutshell it charts the fortunes of the Corleone crime family, headed by Don Vito Corleone (Brando). When rival mafioso move against the Corleone’s it is up to Vito’s sons Sonny (Caan), Michael (Pacino), Fredo (Cazale) and his consigleri Tom Hagen (Duvall) to steer the family right in what become rather turbulent times. It’s difficult to briefly summarise the plot with its epic scope and intricate detail so I won’t even attempt it. Suffice to say that Michael is the favoured son, a war hero and a man insistent he wants nothing to do with the family “business” until an attempt is made on his father’s life, an act that changes his life irrevocably, drawing him into the shadowy world of the American Mafia.

It’s a many layered film that is in no rush to tell its tale of family, loyalty, betrayal, love, respect and power. It pulls no punches in its depiction of the brutality of the mob but at the same time takes great pains to illustrate the moral code by which the mafia (claimed) to live. How much of this is due to the influence of the real life mobsters whose cooperation was required in order for the film to be made is anybody’s guess but it’s probably no coincidence. Set in the late forties/early fifties it sees the Five Families of the American Mafia at a turning point in their history, looking to expand out of their traditional vice rackets and break out into the drugs market which becomes a bone of contention between competing families who view the narcotics trade alternately as a fast track to wealth and power or the catalyst for their downfall due to the heat it would bring down. The resulting tension is the spark for an all out war between the various crime clans.

It could so easily have turned out as a cheap, pulpy crime thriller. A lesser filmmaker may have skipped over the protracted family sequences, favouring instead to “get to the point” with action and criminal shennanigans. Not Coppola. Seeing the importance of the family relationships he takes the time to build patiently and quietly to the hard stuff. Taking full advantage of a stellar cast he gradually builds the characters of each member of the family in a series of fairly intimate encounters. To have assembled such a group of actors is an amazing feat but more amazing is the fact that (despite attempts by the studio to prevent it) the lead role of Michael, the lynchpin of the entire film, was given to the tremendously talented but at the time utterly unknown Al Pacino. Hot on the heels of his performance as a desperate junkie in The Panic In Needle Park (you’d be forgiven for never having seen it, although it is excellent) here he is, carrying a film of spectacular scale and more importantly becoming the centre of gravity for all the other performances, no mean feat when your fellow performers are the likes of Brando, Caan and Duvall. Despite numerous attempts by the studio to get rid of the young upstart, Coppola stuck to his guns and secured his and Pacino’s reputations for eternity.

The same attention to detail that would be on display seven years later in Apocalypse Now is very evident in The Godfather. The period look of the film is absolutely perfect, the grandiose locations and sets are spectacular. The period detailing is perfect. The look is amazing. Spectacularly photographed by Gordon Willis it is a visual delight. Similarly, Nino Rota’s instantly recognisable score sets the whole thing off perfectly. There is very little about the film that hasn’t become iconic from the opening strains of the main theme, to the dialogue (“I’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse”), to those oh so memorable moments (the horse’s head, the countless assassinations) that have lived on in the collective unconscious simply because they are as spectacular as they are emotive. Why not top it off with one of the greatest climaxes in cinema history Francis? Oh, you did.

My most recent viewing was of the Coppola Restoration blu ray edition and frankly, it’s looking better than ever. Sadly there are several scenes that don’t seem to have borne the ravages of time as well as others and show obvious signs of wear and tear. Considering the consistent greatness of the recently released Apocalypse Now blu ray this is a little disappointing but to put it in persepective it’s still the best quality version of the film I’ve seen and in the main is a thing of glowing beauty. The sepia toned feel of the film is wonderful vivid in the high definition format and the scenes in Sicily are more beautiful than ever. The vibrancy of the wedding and christening scenes is simply superb. The best thing about acquiring this particular blu ray set is that it is the best excuse to watch the film again, usually at least an annual ritual in my house.

Simply put, The Godfather is one of the greatest, as near to perfect films that has ever been committed to celluloid. If for some reason you have never seen it then make it your personal mission to make it the next film you see. An icon of twentieth century cinema it is often imitated and parodied and while there may be a better gangster film out there somewhere, I am yet to see it.

“Joliet” Jake Blues, The Blues Brothers

-

Willy Wonka, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

-

Jack Torrance, The Shining

-

Wall-E

-

Nurse Ratched, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest

- 

Vito Corleone, The Godfather

-

The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, Ghostbusters

-

E.T., E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial

-

Nicholas Angel, Hot Fuzz

-

Ulysses Everett McGill, O Brother, Where Art Thou?

-

Ree Dolly, Winter’s Bone

-

Doctor Emmett “Doc” Brown, Back to the Future
 

Atticus Finch- A single father and a brilliant lawyer, Atticus has time not only to teach his daughter Scout to stick to her moral guns in a time of deep-rooted racism, but he also practices what he preaches.  Gregory Peck delivers a series of brilliantly written monologues both in and out of the courtroom, which won him an Oscar as well as an endearing place in movie history.

Mufasa- Far and away the saddest Disney parent death, mostly because Mufasa is an iconic character from the beginning.  He shows his son the meaning of life and saves him from death not once but twice.  The original version of Hamlet doesn’t let us get to know dad, but Disney wisely gave James Earl Jones the second immortal role of his career.

Vito Corleone- Most of his crime partners see The Don as an imposing business partner, but many fans of this impossibly popular classic take away his sage words.  Though he’s endlessly quotable, Marlon Brando’s best moment comes at the end when he’s near-death and he reveals to his son Michael that this wasn’t the life he wanted for him.  He ultimately just wanted a better life for his kids than he had, the goal of any great movie dad.

Bob Parr- Mrs. Incredible made the Mom list, so it’d almost be a sin not include her husband.  Along with his wife, Bob Parr gives up his life of crime-fighting to raise a family.  He’s drawn back in during a midlife crisis, but we still see him do anything to protect his family, even when their powers reveal that they don’t need much protecting. 

Darth Vader- When we speak of Darth Vader, it’s often his grand, sinister entrance at the beginning of A New Hope or his hand-cutting shinanigan in Empire Strikes Back, but rarely do people consider his ultimate, redeeming sacrifice at the end of Return of the Jedi.  He saves his son Luke Skywalker from the evil lightning hands of the Emperor, and turns on everything he’s worked for.

Who are some of your favorite movie dads?

With the New York executives’ final acceptance of [director Francis Ford] Coppola and [producer Albert S.] Ruddy, the issue of casting remained the final barrier.

At the first mention of Brando’s name, Bluhdorn launched into a tirade that he was “box-office poison.” When Coppola said he favoured Al Pacino for the role of Michael, Stanley Jaffe, the 30-year-old president of Paramount, snorted that “the Pacino kid” was too young and inexperienced. [Studio president Robert] Evans advocated Jimmy Caan for the Michael role, [chairman Charles] Bluhdorn proposed Charlie Bronson for the Godfather, and, again, chaos prevailed. Offers went out to Jack Nicholson, David Carradine, even Danny Thomas. Screen tests were shot in New York encompassing a wide range of film and TV actors.

Eager to break the logjam, Coppola confided to me that he had organized his own surreptitious screen tests in San Francisco and had invited Jimmy Caan, Al Pacino, Robert Duvall and Diane Keaton to participate. The tests were persuasive to Coppola — he had chosen the right cast. I felt he was correct.

Next Coppola tried an even shrewder ploy. He went to Brando’s house on Mulholland Drive, atop Hollywood, with a skeleton crew, telling the actor that he wanted to shoot some trial footage in an effort to get a “take” on the character of the Godfather. He emphasized that this would not be a screen test: He was testing some equipment and also some character points.

Brando, attired in a kimono to conceal his girth, welcomed the young director. He had read the book again and felt that, whoever played the part, the actor should speak in a slurred manner — he had been shot in the throat at one time and his soft gravelly voice would carry more authority.

To Coppola’s delight, Brando had started to get into the part. He stuffed Kleenex into his mouth, causing his jaw to jut out. He blackened his hair with shoe polish and put on a jacket with a rolled-back collar. When he started speaking his lines, Marlon Brando had become the Godfather.

I was not invited to witness the “Miracle on Mulholland,” as Al Ruddy later described it. Learning about it a day later, however, I was intrigued by the paradox that both Coppola and Brando were resentful of Paramount, yet both had become enveloped in a love-hate relationship with the material. Brando knew Bluhdorn and Jaffe did not want him for the movie. Coppola was well aware that the project had been offered to several other filmmakers. Yet, from what I could glean, Brando had instinctively concluded that this would be a great role for him and, indeed, after the disastrous opening of Burn, he needed a great role. Coppola, meanwhile, had not exactly been deluged with offers from studios to direct other movies. He, too, needed money and, much as he resisted “commercial movies,” he understood that The Godfather, based on the success of the novel, could be spectacularly successful. For Coppola and Brando alike, The Godfather had taken on the form of a literary narcotic.

——————

The atmosphere on the set of The Godfather during the first two or three weeks was at best chaotic. Coppola knew that he hadn’t had enough prep time and hadn’t studied his locations. His screenplay ran to 163 pages, which was roughly 40 pages too long. Al Ruddy was impatient with Coppola for being too protective of the dialogue. Much of it, Ruddy reminded him, had really been written by Puzo, not Coppola. Gordon Willis, his cameraman, was behaving disrespectfully toward his director. “You’re not using your actors right,” he declared in a loud voice. By contrast, Brando was mumbling his dialogue, still finding his way into his character.

The first flashpoint was prompted by the dailies. Coppola and Willis had agreed they wanted to shoot a dark, moody film, but the first few scenes were so dark that both Evans and I simultaneously removed our glasses, checking that we hadn’t been wearing sunglasses by mistake. “I can’t understand Brando and I can’t see the actors — other than that the work is great,” Evans commented, his voice laden with sarcasm.

——————

Toward the end of the shooting schedule, Coppola brought forth his final demand. He would prefer to edit the movie at his ministudio in San Francisco, not in Los Angeles.

The motivation behind that demand was readily apparent. Coppola wanted to go home. He wanted to insulate himself from the noise.

It was all perfectly understandable, but profoundly inept politically. For one thing, Coppola had never elicited a firm understanding about the length of the cut he was expected to deliver. His instructions were to deliver a cut of two hours, 10 minutes, he later claimed. Evans insisted his mandate was for two hours, 50 minutes. Frank Yablans, the head of distribution who had just been appointed to succeed Stanley Jaffe as president, felt the proper length was two hours, 20 minutes. He had set a Christmas release date on that premise. Yablans’s release plan was a bold one: a wide release (for its time) in 400 theatres. Though some exhibitors wanted to book the movie with an intermission, Yablans held firm, even cancelling some bookings over the issue.

Yablans was furious when he received a phone call from Evans stating that the Christmas release was impossible and that he and Coppola had differences about running time. In fact, the “differences” were more of emotion than fact. When Evans ran Coppola’s shorter cut — the one he claims he was asked to deliver — Evans correctly felt it was too stark. Coppola’s curt response was that Evans simply wanted to add material that he had cut so he could claim credit for “saving” the movie.

My instinct was to try to serve as a middleman between the two. I had lured Coppola into this adventure and felt he deserved the right to exercise control over the cut, even though his contract did not specify final cut. I also felt it was imperative to preserve their working relationship, which was quickly deteriorating.

But Coppola was in an angry sulk, and Evans had become obsessive about the subtle moments and nuances in the film that the director had overlooked in his editing. He felt that if he could seclude himself in an editing room, his vision of The Godfather would be vastly superior to the one that Coppola had delivered.

The dialogue became nasty. “You’ve delivered a trailer, not a movie,” Evans snapped at one point.

“Bob Evans’s ego is running rampant,” Coppola told anyone who would listen, including the press.

Adding to the muddle was a health issue. Though Evans had not previously suffered back pain, he was now in such agony that he needed to remain prone on a hospital-type gurney. The bed was wheeled in and out of the editing room, where Evans remained during 18-hour days. Back in San Francisco, Coppola read an item in a gossip column about Evans’s new mission in life — that he was working night and day to salvage The Godfather. Coppola reacted by firing off an irate letter, insisting that his film did not require “salvaging.”

Steadfast, Evans kept working. Now and then Coppola would glimpse some scenes and give his comments. Two or three times a week, Evans would summon me to the editing room and we would exchange ideas.

One evening Evans and I ran about 90 minutes of the reedited film.

After the screening we both sat in silence for a while. “I think it’s becoming a movie,” he said finally.

I was in a daze. I didn’t want to respond. “It’s really taking shape,” I said in a noncommittal voice.

When I got home, I went to my den and tried to sort out my feelings. Amid all the noise and rancour, an absolutely brilliant movie was somehow coming together. Had I become lost in self-delusion? I wondered. Or was this nightmare somehow becoming a transcendent experience — one that could change the lives of everyone involved?

I decided not to share my ruminations with any of my colleagues. Especially not with Evans or Coppola.

But I couldn’t help but wonder: Did they sense this, too?

• Excerpted with permission from Infamous Players: A Tale of Movies, The Mob (And Sex) by Peter Bart. © 2011 Peter Bart. Published by Weinstein Books.

           http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/greatest-and-otherwise/id416176197

10. Big Daddy (Nic Cage, Kick Ass)
A dad so determined to look after his daughter, he’s prepared to shoot her in the chest while she’s wearing a bulletproof vest to prepare her for being shot at. I cannot say that my dad did the same thing for me. He was also a bit tougher on bad language than Big Daddy seems to be.

9. Guido Orefice (Roberto Benigni, life is Beautiful)
A lot of people don’t like Life is Beautiful, thinking it tasteless or crass or whatever. But there is little denying the length’s Guido will go to protect his son. To explain why exactly the Nazi’s are doing what they are, Guido convinces his son its all apart of an elaborate game, which somehow does sum up the incomprehensibility of it all.

8. Mac MacGuff (J. K. Simmons, Juno)
A dad so awesome that even when his daughter messes up badly enough to have a baby with Scott Pilgrim, he sticks by her and gives her unequivocal support and brilliant advice. And he also gets some of the funniest lines in the film as a reward.

7. James Cromewell in general
What connects Jack Bauer, Prince Charles, Gwen Stacy, George Bush, Lewis Skolnick and the concept of Warp Speed? That’s right, James Cromwell has played the father of all of them. Usually as a grouchy father, sometimes struggling to understand his children (in the case of Jack Bauer trying to kill him week after week) but always as the father. He is cinema’s daddiest dad.

6. Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson, The Shining)
What says “I love you son” like chasing your son through a random maze with an axe?

5. King Hamlet (Various, Hamlet)
A dad so awesome he sets Shakespeare’s greatest play in motion by being killed. He turns up (played by Shakespeare himself on the stage) as a ghost to tell Hamlet to get on with avenging him, and is surely in his best incarnation as BRIAN BLESSED (I think its law to put his name in caps) in Kenneth Branagh’s all-the-words version of the play.

4. Geppetto (Christian Rub, Pinocchio)
So desperate to be a father, he builds a son of his own out of wood. That’s pretty commited isn’t it? He also wishes him into life, and gets the full pride when his puppet becomes a real boy.

3. Henry Jones (Sean Connery, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade)
A hard nosed father, Henry Jones senior was a bit of a jerk to his son in his youth, but when the two are thrown together by circumstance in a quest for the Holy Grail itself, the two men learn alot about each other, and begin to understand each other. Although Jones senior is still more worried as to whether that vase is a fake as to his son’s well being. In a crowded field of Spielberg dads, he is the best.

2. Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando, The Godfather)
A man can’t be a real man unless he spends time with his family. And Vito Corleone is perhaps the ultimate family man. Ultimately wishing the best for his sons, perhaps due to his own torrid parental history, Corleone’s whole business set up is designed to help his family.

1. Darth Vader (David Prowse, Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi)
The top two are both quite scary dads, but Vader shades it for having cinemas most iconic dad line. I’m not entirely sure you would want him as a dad (although if you were on his side it could be fun?) but ultimately he is an unlikely family man. He had no father of his own, but he is desperate to be a father figure to Luke and ensure his happiness by bringing him over to the Dark Side (which realistically would mean sacrificing himself, or the Emperor) though he eventually does the right thing and proves that there is good in him afterall.

Have you ever wanted to be fully accountable for a global P&L worth circa $500 million? Due to a near fatal shooting, we now have an interim requirement (6-24 mnths) for an experienced crime manager to control the strategic and operational projects of the Corleone Family. Based in New York and reporting in to absolutely no one, you will head up all business units specialising in extortion, gambling, racketeering, loan-sharking, bribery, murder and the exporting of kitchen-based commodities (knowledge of the olive oil market particularly desirable).

This is a very hands-off role and candidates should feel comfortable deligating significant amounts of work to management working within an organisational structure built around the Roman army. Knowledge of opening up new markets for horizontal and verticle revenue streams, for example in Nevada, will be looked upon with considerable favour.

Don Vito Corleone, CEO, addresses shareholders in 2009

The Corleone Family is an organisation that prides itself on internal promotions, particularly among blood relatives, so a critical component of this role will be in talent management and succession planning, both strategically and operationally.

The post of Corleone Family CEO is one of the most rewarding and challenging in the whole of organised crime, and requires a strong influencer of senior stakeholders eg. statesmen, judges, film producers etc. as well as a high degree of resiliance (candidates should be comfortable with at least one attempt on their lives during the duration of this FTC).

Italian-American elder preferred, though individuals with relevant experience will still be considered.

* PLEASE NOTE – THE SUCCESSFUL APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO PASS A PRE-EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; ABSOLUTELY NO RECREATIONAL DRUG USERS TO APPLY. *

-

Candidates should send a current CV and letter of interest to Tom O’Hagen (GermanIrish863@lycos.com), who will conduct initial telephone screenings at the end of July.

1. It almost didn’t get made. Paramount was in a heap of trouble and was about to go under. Robert Evans, head of Paramount, had to make a personal appeal to the new owners, almost beg for them to let them pursue it.

2. Paramount didn’t want Brando. They wanted Ernest Borgnine! Brando had a reputation for slowing down production, and they only agreed after seeing a screen test and making sure he put up a bond to ensure he wouldn’t be the quagmire to the shoot. He eventually won an Oscar for the role.

3. They didn’t want Pacino either. They wanted Robert Redford to play Michael, if you can believe it. Apparently, in the book, the son of Vito Corleone was blonde-haired, blue eyes. Really? Somehow, some Northern Italian blood must’ve gotten in the mix!

4. The studio also didn’t like the score. They especially didn’t like how it played in the horse-head scene. So, the sound editor did a clever mix, put the intro trumpet sequence in first, as we pan in on the exterior of the villa, and then slowly brought in the tract. They loved it, and the classic score was saved!

5. Luca Brasi never slept with any fishes. He was allergic to seafood! Okay, I’m kidding on that one.

6. The production was rocky, the plug almost pulled at times. The scene where Michael guns down Sollozzo and the police captain literally saved the picture.

7. What do you got, huh? Add to the list (or I’ll get really mad like Sonny and bite my fist.)

*I never reveal my sources, but in this case, I’ll make an exception: the bonus features of the new Coppola edition.

I am a massive fan of the mob movie genre – which is weird because I am extremely squeamish about gory violence and there are about a million movies I can barely watch, including anything that contains the threat of something awful happening to an animal. Remember the scene in American Psycho where the bank machine tells him to feed it a kitten? Me = hysterics. Was able to watch the rest of it no problem (except for having to cover my eyes when the music got in any way “something scary is about to happen”). Will inevitably cry in The Incredible Journey, Milo + Otis, et cetera.

So anyway, back to The Godfather. I hadn’t seen the trilogy since about five years ago, on cable in New York – but I wondered if perhaps it had been weirdly edited for TV, a la Pallies:

As we trekked through the first three-hour foray of Godfatheriness, I was still pretty into it, I remembered most of it, and was lovin’ it lovin’ it as most of the editing, although peppered with Pacino’s long silences, was reasonable and necessary. I spent what little non-essential-to=the-story time there was trying to pinpoint the exact moment in Al Pacino’s career where he began to look like a walking pickled liver, which admittedly took up only about half of the initial wedding scene (that goes on for like eighty hundred hours, but as it’s at the beginning of the film – we can look at that long, probably deserving-of-some-editing scene as exposition for the rest. Personal opinion. Kill me in the comments section, already).

So yesterday, because the TIVO à la BT Vision completely screwed the pooch in recording Back To The Future II - a sequel that manages to out-do the original (Go on: take notes), I wound up watching the second Godfather, which although I was bummed in not catching Doc Brown’s sexy ways and Flea’s appearance in the future, I was semi-excited for the whole follow-up to the night before’s film – which for some reason I was having a hard time remembering altogether, but I chalked it up to brain-blendering The Godfather, Goodfellas, Casino, Boondock Saints, Reservoir Dogs, True Romance, The Sopranos and Boardwalk Empire, which, don’t front, is easy to do, because essentially it’s the same cast in every bloody movie et cetera.

HERE’S WHY The Godfather II FALLS SHORT:

• We open in the past, presumably to follow Vito Corleone’s journey to America – which ends up flashing back and forth throughout the entire film unnecessarily. It would be one thing if there seemed to be relevant moments that Michael Corleone is remembering either because he was there, or at least that corresponded to the “current day” action. As it is, not only is it confusing, but it’s straight-up BORING and DRAGGY. Every time you get past Pacino’s long silences and face-tilted to 49-degrees-ness, it seems like there’s no POINT. And then we’re back to watching Bobby DeNiro speak Italian in the past. Yes, I get it that we are supposed to be comparing Michael’s achievements & adversities to Vito’s, but they’re not even doing similar types of things? So why not have all the flashback sequences at the beginning of the film so there’s some fucking flow & buildup for the rest of the character development?
• Oh wait, What Character Development? As I said, I am a fan of the genre, but the only character development we see in Michael Corleone seemed to have happened in the first film, and the second seems to be more storyline development of his movements, things that happen to him, business deals he makes — but HE doesn’t seem to change at all. With the exception of finding out his baby has been aborted rather than miscarried and he switches on “anger” from “indifference”, even as he’s telling Fredo “I know” and all that, he’s so boring and cold. Whether that’s supposed to indicate how business-oriented and masculine he is or whatever I don’t know-slash-care, but it’s so tedious to watch, particularly after having just watched the dynamics of the first film.
• Too many crowd scenes and crane shots and music and bullshit makes me think the locations were more just to attempt to create some kind of tension/release in the non-killing “action” scenes, as the rest of the film lacks character development, is badly lit and overly full of meaningful silences.
• ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
• Why do people go on like “its the best one”? Is it strictly because the first one was so good and then “OH MY GOD THERE’S A SECOND ONE AND IT ALSO STARS ROBERT DENIRO AND THE BEST FRIEND FROM When Harry Met Sally?!” It’s so not even on the same level – period.

I could go on about it but to be honest I’d happily etch-a-sketch that wasted 3 hours of my life and try re-recording BTTF: II.

I leave you with this – something to cleanse the palate, internerd-style.

Robert De Niro (Vito Corleone), Al Pacino (Michael Corleone), Robert Duvall (Tom Hagen), Diane Keaton (Kay Adams), Talia Shire (Connie Corleone), John Cazale (Fredo Corleone), Lee Strasberg (Hyman Roth). Screenplay by Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola. Directed by Francis Ford Coppola. Rating: 18. Running time: 200 minutes.

There is a scene in The Godfather Part I where after meeting with the heads of the five families, Vito announces that the Barzinis, not the Tattaglias, were the source of the problems for the Corleone family all along. It’s a rare, cryptic moment in an otherwise transparent film, and it forces us to revisit the previous scene time and time again, taking care to listen to the dialogue, watching intensely for clues in the body language.

This one aspect is taken from the first film, and magnified tenfold for the second. Coppola, having exhausted most of Puzo’s original novel already, had to write new material for Michael’s story here, and in doing so he weaves an intricate web of family politics, second-guessing and deception, testing our ability to pay close attention to the limit. Repeat viewings are needed to fully follow and appreciate the story here, but its consistency and complexity is undoubtedly there, and thoroughly rewarding when mastered. At over three hours in length, stories as epic as this just aren’t made anymore. Only against the backdrop of a film as magnificent as Part I could Coppola have gotten permission to develop this one in so much detail, slowly building up a picture that is carried quite incredibly by his stellar cast.

Thank God De Niro failed in his auditions to play Santino. That may have given us the historic privilege of seeing him exchange lines with both Al Pacino and Marlon Brando in the space of one film (good Lord), but then we would also have sacrificed what we’re gifted here: him embodying the younger Vito, smoothly speaking Italian only a year after his raw debut in Mean Streets, making a name for himself in a much older-looking Little Italy. These flashbacks at times threaten to rival the film’s already-outstanding main focus. Both strands are totally watchable on their own, but wouldn’t be half as incredible if not serving as a contrast throughout between the effortlessness with which Vito created fortune for his family, and the strife that Michael encounters later on to hold a disintegrating family together.

I had never appreciated, watching this at a younger age, just how desperate Michael’s situation is. By the end of Part I he has already lost most of his family through either old age or hits, but here the deaths continue just as his marriage breaks down, business is bad and assassinations begin on his own life. The existence he ends up owning almost makes us forget what he was like before, as that innocent young war-hero back at Connie’s wedding. And then we’re given one final flashback to the old Michael who recognised the hypocrisy of the Corleone family’s way of life, who wanted nothing to do with its idea of business and obligation, and was quite content to let Santino take control. Only his brother Fredo congratulates him on his decision to risk his life for his country after the events of Pearl Harbour, rather than focusing exclusively on his closer ties with his flesh and blood. What a tragedy that memory must turn out to be, for a man who ends the film alone, smoking on a bench, with the weight of many murders on his mind.

It’s hard to decide which of the opening two parts of this incredible trilogy is better. Part I was, obviously, the original, and it had Brando and everything new going for it. But Part II does something quite outrageous, in providing new, utterly worthy material for the continuation of a story and world which had already reached the peaks of cinematic excellence. Both have their virtues; both are absolute masterclasses in the creation of drama.