It's funny how some personal circumstances are the key elements that influence our judgment. In my case, "The Godfather Part III", was not the last opus of a magnificent saga, but the first film I watched from the trilogy, my first encounter with the Corleone Family, a cinematic love story that would never end.
Speaking of love, I always wondered how a movie like "The Godfather Part III" had crystallized so much hatred and disdain. The unforgettable "Never hate your enemies, because it clouds your judgment" is like a self-defense cry, from a film that wanted so much to be respected like its glorious predecessors, but apparently failed to, for even the fans will always concede after they say how the movie is great "but not as great as the two others"
So, as a fourteen-year old kid, I loved "The Godfather Part III", I couldn't complain about the absence of Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen. I wasn't mature enough to judge Sofia Coppola's acting abilities though I found something physically odd in her. From Michael's relationship with Kay to his haircut, "Part III" was my reference. And I guess I loved the movie for what it was: a great story with an unforgettable climax.
Till now, I can't watch the ending, even the clip, without crying, it broke my heart the first time, and it always does, even after so many viewings. It was like I felt the devastation of a man whose life's only meaning was incarnated by his children, his only inspiration in his quest of redemption. And it's ironically the very part that kind of redeems the film, even for the non fans. The others deserving to be mentioned are Michael Corleone's sadness while hearing the 'Brucia La Terra' song played by his son, and his heart-breaking confession of Fredo's murder
The film is about the redemption of a man who sinned so many times. Many would argue that his sins were necessary because they were the only ways to maintain the interests of his family, but hell is paved with many good intentions, and the way Michael ended at "The Godfather Part II", a ruthless cold-blooded zombie-like figure was demanding a sequel. The last shot of him, sitting alone in the park plunged viewers in a lot of interrogations and interpretations. What was he thinking? Probably, how he got in such a situation, and how this would end. And it's like Coppola, tortured by his own demons, felt there was more to do with Michael Corleone.
And the character's arc was concluded, with nothing I would reproach in Michael's portrayal, he's tired, sick as he had carried the weight of a lifelong guilt that ravaged his soul. He may be too pathetic, too different from the Michael we know,his use of profanity was quite out-of character, but who knows how killing his own brother could affect someone. Michael is still respected and feared, but is more melancholic, explaining how the movie needed to be driven by more active supporting characters. And after I finally watched the two other films, one year later my opinions were mixed.
First, I was fascinated by the sight of young War hero, Michael Corleone, in Connie's wedding, it was so contrasting with the pitiful diabetic Mike of the third opus, watching Part I was an extraordinary discovery, a refreshing experience. Besides, the gallery of new characters, Sonny, Tom, Clemenza, Tessio, enriched the film and made it even more entertaining, Part II confirmed my fascination. And step by step, when I started to watch the first two a little more and while I was sharing my opinions on the Net and learning about Part III's reputation, flaws were becoming more visible: Sofia, Duvall's absence and replacement by that Hamilton guy who was certainly not to Hagen what Pentangelli was to Clemenza, the helicopter scene etc. And the reading of the book made me wonder why they chose as the successor, Sonny's illegitimate son.
But if the film could have been better, it also could have been worse. And when I watch it, I'm more generous, as I see the tragic ending of one of the most fascinating character's story, a man who's always been "pulled back in". The movie respects the spirit of Part I, with a succession on the Corleone's throne, true historical events as back-stories, and so many unforgettable lines. In fact, we can make a parallel between the trilogy and the Corleone brothers:
And of course ...
I'm sure those who prefer the first film also appreciate the last one and those who love the second film and think it's the best one, identify so much with Michael that they hate "Part III", with the same intensity and severity Michael expressed towards Fredo. They don't forgive any mistake ... and consider the last film a disgrace for the trilogy, and symbolically disown it.
Speaking of love, I always wondered how a movie like "The Godfather Part III" had crystallized so much hatred and disdain. The unforgettable "Never hate your enemies, because it clouds your judgment" is like a self-defense cry, from a film that wanted so much to be respected like its glorious predecessors, but apparently failed to, for even the fans will always concede after they say how the movie is great "but not as great as the two others"
So, as a fourteen-year old kid, I loved "The Godfather Part III", I couldn't complain about the absence of Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen. I wasn't mature enough to judge Sofia Coppola's acting abilities though I found something physically odd in her. From Michael's relationship with Kay to his haircut, "Part III" was my reference. And I guess I loved the movie for what it was: a great story with an unforgettable climax.
Till now, I can't watch the ending, even the clip, without crying, it broke my heart the first time, and it always does, even after so many viewings. It was like I felt the devastation of a man whose life's only meaning was incarnated by his children, his only inspiration in his quest of redemption. And it's ironically the very part that kind of redeems the film, even for the non fans. The others deserving to be mentioned are Michael Corleone's sadness while hearing the 'Brucia La Terra' song played by his son, and his heart-breaking confession of Fredo's murder
The film is about the redemption of a man who sinned so many times. Many would argue that his sins were necessary because they were the only ways to maintain the interests of his family, but hell is paved with many good intentions, and the way Michael ended at "The Godfather Part II", a ruthless cold-blooded zombie-like figure was demanding a sequel. The last shot of him, sitting alone in the park plunged viewers in a lot of interrogations and interpretations. What was he thinking? Probably, how he got in such a situation, and how this would end. And it's like Coppola, tortured by his own demons, felt there was more to do with Michael Corleone.
And the character's arc was concluded, with nothing I would reproach in Michael's portrayal, he's tired, sick as he had carried the weight of a lifelong guilt that ravaged his soul. He may be too pathetic, too different from the Michael we know,his use of profanity was quite out-of character, but who knows how killing his own brother could affect someone. Michael is still respected and feared, but is more melancholic, explaining how the movie needed to be driven by more active supporting characters. And after I finally watched the two other films, one year later my opinions were mixed.
First, I was fascinated by the sight of young War hero, Michael Corleone, in Connie's wedding, it was so contrasting with the pitiful diabetic Mike of the third opus, watching Part I was an extraordinary discovery, a refreshing experience. Besides, the gallery of new characters, Sonny, Tom, Clemenza, Tessio, enriched the film and made it even more entertaining, Part II confirmed my fascination. And step by step, when I started to watch the first two a little more and while I was sharing my opinions on the Net and learning about Part III's reputation, flaws were becoming more visible: Sofia, Duvall's absence and replacement by that Hamilton guy who was certainly not to Hagen what Pentangelli was to Clemenza, the helicopter scene etc. And the reading of the book made me wonder why they chose as the successor, Sonny's illegitimate son.
But if the film could have been better, it also could have been worse. And when I watch it, I'm more generous, as I see the tragic ending of one of the most fascinating character's story, a man who's always been "pulled back in". The movie respects the spirit of Part I, with a succession on the Corleone's throne, true historical events as back-stories, and so many unforgettable lines. In fact, we can make a parallel between the trilogy and the Corleone brothers:
- The Godfather is like Sonny : fierce, brutal, yet tender and good-hearted, it's entertaining and deep in the same time. And we all just love 'Sonny' ...
- The Godfather Part II is Michael : deeper, darker, smoother, yes, even 'boring' sometimes, but it's more implacable and ruthless ... we can't love it with the same intensity as the first opus, but we respect the cinematic achievement, and it leaves us with an extraordinary feeling. It's not the most entertaining, but certainly the most fascinating.
And of course ...
- The Godfather Part III is Fredo : it tries too much, it has a good heart but it's weak and even sometimes 'stupid' but hey, it's still a blood brother of the first two films, we still feel Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola's touch and it features some heartbreaking moments, like Michael's silent scream that will haunt me forever. Some magnetism was lacking from the very start, but can we really hate 'Fredo'?
I'm sure those who prefer the first film also appreciate the last one and those who love the second film and think it's the best one, identify so much with Michael that they hate "Part III", with the same intensity and severity Michael expressed towards Fredo. They don't forgive any mistake ... and consider the last film a disgrace for the trilogy, and symbolically disown it.