The Godfather, Part III

[Bluemoon_Rising]

In my opinion, The Godfather, Part II is even better than Coppola's first installment, and the first two films of the franchise are among the greatest films of all time. So what are the flaws that crippled the third and final installment in the series? The Godfather, Part III is a good film. The plot is brilliant and smartly rendered. Yet it falls short of the mark -- the standard -- set by its predecessors. Where did Coppola go wrong? What happened to make what appeared to be a great film on paper come out on the screen to be just an ordinary film?

[Trevelyan]

Well, there was just something about the overall look and feel of it that I cannot put my finger on. It just failed to convey the epic dramatic weight of the previous films.

Besides this, the character who was supposed to be the future just came off as some punk kid to me. He just was not very believable. Also, the whole kissing cousins storyline did not do anything for me; just as Sofia Coppola's horrid acting did nothing for me.

Then there is the ending. What was that about? It felt as though I was clenching air. It gave me nothing. It just kind of ends. That was not a fitting way to end such a saga in my opinion.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Well, there was just something about the overall look and feel of it that I cannot put my finger on. It just failed to convey the epic dramatic weight of the previous films.

Besides this, the character who was supposed to be the future just came off as some punk kid to me. He just was not very believable. Also, the whole kissing cousins storyline did not do anything for me; just as Sofia Coppola's horrid acting did nothing for me.

Then there is the ending. What was that about? It felt as though I was clenching air. It gave me nothing. It just kind of ends. That was not a fitting way to end such a saga in my opinion.

Well, I think the ending is perfect, befitting Michael Corleone’s impossible dream to legitimize his family's business, and the shooting death of his daughter, caught in the crossfire, is the logical exclamation point, the perfect finale, to the story that Coppola is trying to tell.

The "overall look and feel" your talking about is Coppola's attempt to present the conclusion of the saga as an operatic tragedy. The story essentially begins with Anthony’s determination to break away from the family business and make his own way as an opera tenor and appropriately ends with the opera sequence -- the opera within the opera. The camera stands back from the tragic scene, the finale. The family is classically arrayed around the fallen Mary Corleone on the "stage." Kay is inconsolable; Michael, utterly destroyed. The sequence ends and is followed by a series of flashbacks -- Michael dancing with his women, all of whom he has lost. Then the film fast forwards to Michael’s demise. He’s a broken, lonely old man sitting in the sun with no one for company but a cat and a dog sniffing at the ground around him. He collapses. He Dies. The strains of Nino Rota’s “Song of Mary” ends. The curtain falls.

Ambitious stuff. It almost works. As I said, on paper, the plot is brilliant, and for the most part its well executed. It's not a bad film, and the reason it doesn't live up to its promise goes to the flaws in the key sub-plot, the "kissing cousins storyline." The truth of the matter is that the sub-plot is absolutely essential to the overall film's success, yet it is utterly botched and ruins the remainder of the balance of the film which in my opinion is rock solid. Had Coppola gotten that right, we’d see the film in an entirely different light. Perhaps we’d even see it as the greatest installment of the saga.

You get right to it. Garcia’s character is not believable; however, the problem is not with Garcia’s performance. He’s the right man for the job and comes as close as any man could to pulling it off against the odds that are stacked against him as a result of some very serious failures in the sub-plot’s character development (writing), direction and casting.

Garcia convincingly presents the viewer with a violent, though street savvy thug at the beginning of the film and a wiser, more sophisticated and self-assured protégé in the end. The problem is that Coppola doesn’t adequately explain to us just how this miraculous transformation is achieved.

First, Coppola should never have had Garcia’s character Vincent try to bite Joey Zasa’s ear off at the beginning of the film or allowed any female character to be present in the scene where Vincent kills Zasa’s bungling henchmen unless he was prepared to make the film a laborious five-hour affair. Vincent’s rabid temper and his careless disregard for Grace Hamilton’s life (Bridget Fonda) as a means to an end requires way too much character rehabilitation. It is enough that we know that Vincent is capable of doing something like savaging Zasa’s ear. Coppola’s direction and Garcia’s performance got that much across in the brief scene in Michael’s library without the Mike Tyson act. It is more important for us to understand that while Vincent is capable of such viciousness he is already savvy enough at that point in his life without Michael’s tutoring to know better than to actually do such a thing under the circumstances or any other. Also, the Grace Hamilton character added absolutely nothing to the film, and Vincent’s callous use of her as a decoy only made Vincent’s transformation all that much more difficult to believe in the time allowed. One can take one’s time to achieve these kinds of dramatic character transformations in novels, but in an already busy film, there’s just not enough time.

Second, Mary Corleone’s role is arguably the most important in the film. This is not only true because she’s Coppola’s innocent and tragic Ophelia, the personification of Michael’s doomed ambitions (and it’s okay that we know that from the beginning), but it is most especially true because it is she who above all other persons or events is supposed to account for Vincent’s transformation. At least that’s what should have been the case. It should have been she who moved Vincent toward some kind of epiphany that we might have happily believed his character’s transformation and embraced the anguish of his and Mary’s impossible romance. Also, Vincent’s transformation should have occurred in such a way that Michael’s instincts about his potential seemed to be naturally vindicated before Michael relinquished the role of Don. Instead, Vincent’s takeover of the family’s operations comes off as a contrived, made-to-order transfer of power that apparently and magically completes Vincent’s maturation.

The film desperately needed a real actress for the role of Mary Corleone, one that could deliver the goods. The role is everything. Mary Corleone is the film’s key thematic personification and the lynchpin of the film’s plot. Instead, Coppola cast an empty dress. As a result of Sofia’s limitations crucial scenes and dialogue are not even attempted, and no epiphany actually occurs . . . ever.

In short, the biggest reason this film is not a great film is simply because Coppola could not bring himself to cut his daughter from the role. He should have said, “Honey, I’m sorry, but in order for this film to succeed, I need a real actress. There are scenes and dialogue that must be included, and if I film them with you, it will be a disaster. If I keep you in the role and don’t film them in order to spare you of further embarrassment and the audience an even more painful experience, it will be a disaster.”

What we got in the final cut was the second option . . . a disaster of sorts in a film that was otherwise quite good.

[Trevelyan]

Well, I think the ending is perfect, befitting Michael Corleone’s impossible dream to legitimize his family's business, and the shooting death of his daughter, caught in the crossfire, is the logical exclamation point, the perfect finale, to the story that Coppola is trying to tell.


Oh, yeah, but what I meant was the very end of the film, the scene that follows this shooting.

Anyway, hah, it has been quite a while since I have seen this movie, and I have only watched it once, so I was not able to follow everything you wrote in that quite detailed analysis. I never felt like watching it again, but maybe I will consider it now.