One of the other reviewers to The Valachi Papers makes the suggestion through his review heading that "It probably didn't help that this came out the same year as The Godfather". Ironically the release of The Valachi Papers was brought forward to 1972 from its original 1973, to cash in on the huge publicity and general buzz The Godfather was creating world wide. Because of such an occurrence it's difficult not to compare and contrast both films, especially since their content involves Mafia stories. At the same time, their main point of difference as the above reviewer again correctly points out, is that The Godfather is a fictional work, whilst Terence Young's The Valachi Papers is based on Peter Maas's non-fiction book of the same name.
I'm always amused particularly after watching historical fiction, when fans argue the case over historical veracity, with the frequent protest being tendered, that some scene or episode wasn't real enough or true to the facts, bearing in mind that anything not labelled documentary in my view, has a licence to take artistic liberties with the truth to enhance the story. A perceptive audience will generally always know and be aware of changes made.
The Godfather is a masterpiece of cinematic storytelling and in the telling of the tale, there are also significant insights into the workings of a fictional Mafia operation.
The Valachi Papers in my opinion is a good film about a middle level Mafia soldier and his life in the Cosa Nostra amongst many real life gangsters. It's a truer story than The Godfather, but not of the same quality and neither is the film. It's worth remembering that both films were commercially successful, though The Godfather was the mega-hit. The Valachi Papers was less critically successful too. In fact many of the critics, in my opinion were unjustifiably harsh, though I do understand from where they are coming.
Terence Young is guilty of following the book too closely. His story is just too episodic in nature.There's no smooth narrative flow. There's Joe Valachi doing something in 1929 and there he is again in 1937 etc. Though always interesting, it isn't helped by us continually returning to the (1962) present, where Joe is being interviewed/interrogated by the FBI guy Ryan. I liked the movie, but its uneven pacing is notable. Just another very brief example. We see Joe get married in your typical Italian Mafia wedding. The next time we actually see he and his wife together, they are middle-aged!
But don't be put off. In my opinion the Valachi Papers is still a very interesting film which features one of Charles Bronson's better performances, where he is really forced to act and to enunciate a lot more dialogue than you'd normally see him do. After all, he's in about 95% of the movie's scenes. One of the few times I can remember him playing a real life figure. It's a worth while watch.
I'm always amused particularly after watching historical fiction, when fans argue the case over historical veracity, with the frequent protest being tendered, that some scene or episode wasn't real enough or true to the facts, bearing in mind that anything not labelled documentary in my view, has a licence to take artistic liberties with the truth to enhance the story. A perceptive audience will generally always know and be aware of changes made.
The Godfather is a masterpiece of cinematic storytelling and in the telling of the tale, there are also significant insights into the workings of a fictional Mafia operation.
The Valachi Papers in my opinion is a good film about a middle level Mafia soldier and his life in the Cosa Nostra amongst many real life gangsters. It's a truer story than The Godfather, but not of the same quality and neither is the film. It's worth remembering that both films were commercially successful, though The Godfather was the mega-hit. The Valachi Papers was less critically successful too. In fact many of the critics, in my opinion were unjustifiably harsh, though I do understand from where they are coming.
Terence Young is guilty of following the book too closely. His story is just too episodic in nature.There's no smooth narrative flow. There's Joe Valachi doing something in 1929 and there he is again in 1937 etc. Though always interesting, it isn't helped by us continually returning to the (1962) present, where Joe is being interviewed/interrogated by the FBI guy Ryan. I liked the movie, but its uneven pacing is notable. Just another very brief example. We see Joe get married in your typical Italian Mafia wedding. The next time we actually see he and his wife together, they are middle-aged!
But don't be put off. In my opinion the Valachi Papers is still a very interesting film which features one of Charles Bronson's better performances, where he is really forced to act and to enunciate a lot more dialogue than you'd normally see him do. After all, he's in about 95% of the movie's scenes. One of the few times I can remember him playing a real life figure. It's a worth while watch.