I
cannot count the number of times I have watched each of the three parts of the
movie The Godfather. While my favorite
is the first, I was never disappointed. Each time my appreciation for the movie
just keeps deepening. For different reasons.
First,
it was the chilly scenes of premeditated murder. If one wanted the meaning of “cold-blooded
murder”, killings in the movies, particularly in the original and the first
sequel, provide dictionary meanings. Second, the dark frames, across the
original and the subsequent II and III add to the measure of menace implied
- unlimited. Third, the musical score matching, indeed driving, the overriding
theme. I can go on and on, but I’ll stop as this post is not about the movie.
The
proximate reason for my post is that recently the good people at the Z-Classic TV channel have shown all the
three movies of this franchise. After watching all the three, ignoring the
protests of my family members (no children), I said to myself, “You need to put
on record the latest thoughts of yours.” And here I am.
This
is about the central plot, as I saw it, of the third offering in the series. While the ending of the original attests to
the Roman Catholic religiosity of the Corleone family (Baptism sacrament), the third
takes us to the darker side of the same religion – the real estate mafia of the
Vatican, no less. We have an archbishop controlling the Vatican bank and playing
to the tunes of the Corleone clan (Michael) - A papal felicitation in return
for a donation of a couple of million hundred dollars; making a deal for $600
million (bargaining up from $500 million) with the same cast. There must have
been more in the movie but I do not recall.
My
point is that though the movie must have been seen by at least a million Roman
Catholics (a gross underestimate, I agree) the world over, not one of them
seems to have been offended by this unflattering portrayal of the apex
institution of his/her religion. Contrast this with what happened to the Martin
Scorsese directed movie The Last Temptation of Christ. It created a
firestorm of criticism. Though the protests were led by the so-called
fundamentalists, Roman Catholics did join in the criticism for “hurting their
religious sentiments” (a more sophisticated take on it – goes against what the
inerrant Bible says).
What
I understand from the above is Roman Catholics are not as attached to Vatican as
the Vatican would have us believe. You can say pretty much what you want to say
about it and they will take no notice of it. They will not be offended. Perhaps the fundamentalists, not having such a
vast and powerful central controlling body, feel more affiliated to their
religion. Roman Catholics do not care for Vatican, or are too aware of the
worldly ways of the political entity that claims to represent them to be
offended when they are brought out in full public view.
Now,
turn the attention to Hinduism or Islam. While Islam does have a central
shrine, it is beset by factionalism of the most sever kind. Even the Irish
problem never escalated to the severity that we witness in the Islamic world.
About Hinduism, there are at best local skirmishes, if any (the Thenkalai v. Vadakalai namam at the Varadaraja Perumal Temple in Kanchipuram,
for instance). One of the reasons could be that the religion is devoid of a
unitary authority. Could this be the reason that Hindus and Muslims take offence
at what they deem the most trivial positions against their religions?
All
said, Roman Catholics are more tolerant of their institution because they have
one. Coming to think of it, then, it would be better to have such an
institution for both Hinduism and Islam in the interest of diluting the offence
felt by their adherents.
Raghuram
Ekambaram
2 comments:
Very well written Raghu.
Thanks Balu. Thanks for reading and commenting so promptly.
RE
Post a Comment