Michael Corleone's character arc doesn't make sense

I've never watched a single one of these movies.

The third movie shouldn't exist.

That fat fuck Francis wouldn't meet Robert Duvall's rate to reappear as Tom Hayden in this sequel, so they killed him off and replaced him with the much cheaper George Hamilton.

r2 but it's not just the third movie. The first film establishes that he is a kind and understanding man at the beginning. Once he assumes control of his father's organization, he is suddenly incapable of relating on that level, even to his own family.

I think it shows how power can corrupt anyone. Very kind people get ruined by money and clout all the time.

I agree OP. The character arc in the third movie made NO sense.

GF3 is a ridiculous piece of crap, but Michael’s arc in 1 and 2 is tragically brilliant - it takes the tropes “loss of youthful idealism” & “absolute power corrupts absolutely” and embodies them in a character who starts out extremely likable and sympathetic. Coppola’s parallel deeper theme is the shallowness / loss / corruption of the American Dream, especially the self-image we had as a nation right after WWII

r7 but my argument is, if you're capable of empathy and sensitivity as a human being, you don't suddenly lose those traits because of circumstance. If you are genetically wired a certain way, you don't get rewired.

R8 - serious question - how old are you. Plenty of people change drastically over the course of their lives and more personally who we really are and what we are actually capable of isn’t always clear to ourselves when we are young - life and circumstance can really open your eyes about yourself.

Michael could have always possessed those darker qualities, but he saw and styled himself as a “good guy” both out of a sense of rebellion against his family but also largely because that’s who his father wanted him to be - the legit success that “redeemed” his own life.

G-3 doesn't count as part of the character arc.

Character arc in G-1 / G-2 makes sense. Child rejects / rebels from family "business" yet is best-suited to take it over. ("Sonny was a bad Don." We know Fredo was wrong for the job as well.)

The scene outside the hospital where Michael's hands are steady while he holds the cigarette lighter told us all we needed to know about the character arc.

Being married to Diane Keaton would turn anybody into a psycho.

r9 Michael *wanted* to fight in the war for his country. There's no way he would suddenly embrace a latent instinct for crime. He wanted to do the right thing and then out of nowhere, he didn't. It makes no sense despite your assertions.

R12 - I’m sorry but you have a too simplistic view of the film, and perhaps of human nature. Respectfully, R9

The latest version of GF3 is also so badly recut. Putting the Vatican scene in front makes no sense and is confusing.

Michael lost his humanity and morality when his wife, whom he truly loved, was blown up in the car. Before the incident, Michael can be seen wearing predominately brown costumes, signifying he was a simple man. However, upon his return, he wears black, a symbol of power and mystery. He marries Kay because he needs to have children - nothing more. Soon, he is consumed by hatred, power, and vengeance with no evidence of goodness. Since evil is ultimately self-destructive, he destroys himself, as seen in the final shots of Part II. " The Godfather" is not the story of Vito, but is the story of Michael. The story arc makes perfect sense.

Agree completely with R15 that the death of Michael's first wife erased his little remaining humanity (and, Sonny's death). But he may have been emotionally cool prior to those incidents as evidenced by him coolly murdering the Captain and Solozzo. Michael, as presented through the eyes of his family, was an 'innocent baby brother'. Who's to say he ever really was?

GR3 is like some bad Telenovela. The. Worst.

R16, the killing of Solozzo and McCluskey was in retaliation for the shooting of his father. They needed a "civilian" and he volunteered, because he was the only one who would not be suspected. The turning point was when he leaned over the hospital bed of his father and whispered," I'm with you now." He was caught between what his father wanted for him and what he believed was his duty to the family.

Michael also kisses his father’s hand in that scene, r18, just as Clemenza does during the final scene before the door is shut on Kay. Connie also kisses his hand in 2 when she’s done sowing her widow wild oats and accepts Michael as the Don.

Clemenza and Connie kiss Micheal’s hand I should say.

[quote] But he may have been emotionally cool prior to those incidents as evidenced by him coolly murdering the Captain and Solozzo.

My take is that Michael already had it inside of him (able to separate emotions from "business," loyalty being extremely important (too important, really)). It was latent, but it came out when Vito got taken down and then Sonny as well. Fredo, already mentioned, obviously not suited for the job of Don.

Interesting that during the final scene, Kay's hair color, dress color, and make-up really are one with the color of the wallpaper. She has become part of the house for the new Don.

There is a coolness, a cerebral quality, to Pacino's character that suggests that the capacity for almost anything. It's understated, but it's there. And, as R18 notes, it is Michael's love for his father that destroys him. In the famous scene where Vito talks about how he always wanted something better for Michael, Vito is actually confirming that now Michael can never escape, he can never be anything else but Vito's heir.

R10- Sonny was a HOT 🥵 head ( unlike Michael who was level headed) and basically STUPID and Fredo was rather a simpleton.

[quote] Interesting that during the final scene, Kay's hair color, dress color, and make-up really are one with the color of the wallpaper.

Her wardrobe was various shades of brown throughout the entire shit movie. It had no meaning other than her role was pointless. When we walked out of that abortion of a film the first thing my partner said, being properly gay, was "who DRESSED that poor woman??"

G3 should be withdrawn and a new chapter shot with new actors but related to the same families of the original.

Diane's wigs in the 40s part of the first movie are hilariously awful. It's rare to see a film from that era when a character who would never wear a wig in real life is obviously wearing a wig.

I do like the color range in G3. The costumes and the sets all feature black with shades of gold and copper. I never had paid much attention to the story line except for the handsome twin bodyguards who die near the end. Such a shame.

The Godfather and The Godfather 2 are my uncle’s favorite movies 🎥.

OP, you're a moron.

And R1, I wouldn't brag about that.

I’m the Fredo in my family. How about you?

I'll have to pay more attention to Kay's hair and wardrobe. I mostly think of her at Connie's wedding, where Kay is wearing a red dress and hat, Michael in military uniform.

Vincent Corleone survives TG3.

I'm calling for a #4.

r30 typical of people who don't know how to argue the point, they start name calling.

It makes about as much sense as that of the main characters in Boardwalk Empire or The Sopranos.

Essentially we are whatever role we are playing, or forced to play, at the moment. Regardless of our own natures or desires.

Someone raised around ruthless psychopathic criminals might desire and aspire to be otherwise, yet when they get placed into the same role as their predecessors, they have to resort to the same mindset and tactics and these are related to survival, so every human can emulate them rather easily.

Only in old age and with assessment of the road not taken can regret for what was and what might have been start to come to the fore, after "survival" is pretty much in the rearview and mortality looks around every staircase.

I think the transformation of Gennaro Savastano in Gomorrah is more believable. He was spoiled and soft, but then his mom sends him to Honduras as collateral for a drug deal, assuming he'd either be killed and that would solve a problem for her or he'd come back hardened. To survive Honduras, he has to become a vicious killer, and he realizes what his mom has done to him. When he gets back Italy, he's ruthless and focused.

R14 I watched that cut on Paramount+ a couple of weeks ago and my thoughts were WTF with that opening scene.

R34, I can argue the point--which exactly? The idiot who doesn't follow the clearly delineated arc of the Michael character in The Godfather movies or the fool who's boasted she's never seen them?

One of the reasons G3 was ill-conceived was precisely because Michael's character arc in 1 and 2 was beautifully complete. Even my mother who lived a sheltered life said "I knew it was going to be Michael the minute he said "that's my family Kate, it's not me." The genius was in showing how it happened--Michael literally saving his father's life and realizing no one else was up to the task.

[quote]Diane's wigs in the 40s part of the first movie are hilariously awful.

At least nobody shit in her wigs!

I always thought Michael was a cold-blooded psychopath from the start. He may have been pushed into his first kill, but the level at which he embraced it was not normal, and neither were any of his relationships. I could therefore never see the tragedy everyone else keeps talking about. IMO his wanting to lead a different life was an attempt to avoid confronting his psychopathy, not revulsion at the family business. His wanting to make the business legal in GIII was a development to be expected in any savvy businessman who has already made his millions. Stringer Bell tried to make the same progression (also unsuccessfully) in The Wire.

[quote] Her wardrobe was various shades of brown throughout the entire shit movie.

Well then, you and your partner were not paying attention or you are both colorblind. Kay was dressed in orange and reds at the beginning of the film so she could stand out as the outsider, contrasting with the others who wore subdued colors. When she encounters Michael when he returns, she is in a black turtleneck, signifying her closed heart. It is at the end where she has abandoned her bright colors and resorts to various shades of brown, culminating in the last scene.

The " destruction of Kay Adams" symbolized in color.

R42 I was talking about G3. I would never call the G1&2 shit movies.

'Godfather III' makes perfect sense to the character arc. It's Michael at the end of his life, looking back across the devastation caused by a lifetime of his choices, and how it has damaged his relationships with the people who mattered most to him - his family. He also thinks of his father, how Vito had never wanted the 'family business' for Michael, how he had always wanted Michael to remain legitimate, but circumstances made that impossible. Michael is also thinking of heaven, and what the hereafter has in store for him concerning his crimes; the one which most haunts him is the killing of his brother Fredo; so he also seeks absolution. Michael wants to put everything right, but ultimately finds that he cannot.

To the far right tough guy types who insist people don't ever change, and who want to read Michael only as a psychopath, this upsets them greatly, makes them insecure. They grossly misread 'Godfather I,' which already charted considerable change in Michael from the beginning to the end of the film.

A good man goes bad - that’s the spine of many a great and classic tragedy, including The Godfather. (Totally agree with you on 3, though.)

IMHO the movie reinforces a point I've been making a lot recently - the difference between identifying as something, and actually being that thing. At the beginning of the film Michael *identifies* as a good person, but how good is he, really? Does he actually have ethics and a conscience, or does he just want to live the comparatively easy life of a law-abiding citizen?

I think there was never any real goodness in him, and that if things had gone differently, sooner or later he would have been corrupted. If he'd become a lawyer, he'd have eventually been sucked into helping the mob's interests, same if he'd gone into politics or business, the family ties were too strong and he'd have let family loyalty override whatever sense of right and wrong he possessed sooner or later. Perhaps because his value system wasn't based on real ethics, but on the values he'd been brought up with - clan loyalty and the necessity of getting revenge.

And as he was corrupted, he'd have inevitably turned abusive towards Kay. Like a lot of straight man with no real values, he used her as a sort of external conscience. As he was corrupted, and she disapproved, he'd have beat her down like he beat down his own misgivings.

Parts I and II are brilliant films, OP. You, though, are not a brilliant film critic.

I echo what R48 said.

Michael is radicalized by the attempt on his fathers life. It was all there- he just needed a push. The first two films are American film at its best.

R48 I am not a brilliant film critic, but I am a moviegoer and movie fan here are some things I noticed.

In the three hours of The Godfather, I never got a sense of the Corleone's. We never see the Corleone's interacting as a family i.e. getting together for meals.

Does Don Corleone ever meet Kaye (Diane Keaton)? and is there any meaningful exchange between the Don and his wife?

How did they get that horse's head all the way through that huge mansion and into the bedroom without anyone noticing?

And Brando has about as much dialogue as the Terminator and Brando is rarely ambulatory.

And in the final hour it's just a series of reprisals and killings. Goodfellas and The Sopranos give one the feeling of how organized crime works and how crime families operate and live. The Godfather is really just an old-fashioned gangster film blown up to epic proportions not a bad film but not all that.

[quote] How did they get that horse's head all the way through that huge mansion and into the bedroom without anyone noticing?

It seems like quite a job but possible. The studio head was probably comatose on booze and pills. The horse killers probably paid any servants around to go away.

One of the elements that makes the Godfather films so great is NOT going into excruciating detail about everything. That is why this scene in particular is such a shock. Mediocre and bad movies assume you need everything spelled out, like a user's manual.

Mediocre and bad audiences need everything spelled out, R52.

The Kay character is so bland. These movies get ridiculously overpraised even though they have zero characterization. It's just event after event.

R52-, That studio head was played by John Marley who played the father of Ali MacGraw in Love Story (1970) He was kinda HOT in Love Story. I bet he was hot in the sack back then. I could tell he had a BIG, BEAUTIFUL cock too.

Christopher Jones was an early choice to play Michael, but he was kidnapped by his agent and trafficked to some compound, according to him.

R55 Mario Puzo the author of The Godfather said he had John Marley in mind creating the character of Don Coleone

R54 and that's even more true of The Godfather II which is like bookends to The Godfather

R55- John Marley could easily have played a Mafia type in one of the Godfather movies.

mediocre and bad movies and even good ones are filled with improbabilities R52. and were those shooters at the toll booth in Staten Island just waiting there all day in the hopes that Sonny might just stop by at a time when the family was in seclusion?

R51, the book that the films are based on is raw pulp fiction, with endless narrative and endless explanations. The movies dramatically edit and alter the basic story, making what Puzo spelled out suggestive and subtle. In the book, the horse’s head is not only totally accounted for, it’s just one of a series of horrors. The producer is a child rapist and has been up to all kinds of depravity the night before, so we totally understand why he’s alone and out cold. In the movie, there’s no garish preamble—the appearance of the horse’s head is a shocking demonstration of the ability of the Mob to reach anyone at any time.

Didn't read the book R61 nor did most people who saw the movie. And do you have something against plausible explanations and information?

[quote] and were those shooters at the toll booth in Staten Island just waiting there all day in the hopes that Sonny might just stop by at a time when the family was in seclusion?

You obviously didn't see the movie, or were in da bathroom. Carlo, married to Sonny's sister, was in on the hit and deliberately started a fight with Connie, beating her up so she would call Sonny, who had previously threatened to murder Carlo if he ever hurt his sister again. Sonny raced out of the house to his sister as his killers knew he would

R63 Your explanation makes no sense. Sonny had already beaten-up Carlo so where was Connie at this point? Weren't they all in seclusion at the mansion? and Robert Duvall attempted to stop Sonny from leaving the family compound. .and how long were those guys crouched down in that little toll booth? And BTW was Carlo too stupid to realize who he was married to. I think most men would have been a little more careful in how they treated the Godfather's daughter.

Some people have the attention span of gnats.

R64 = Forrest Gump in the flesh.

R64, being an idiot, also can't keep story or characters or even the events of the two movies straight.

Why did that man do that mommy? Is he a bad man? Are we going to die too someday?

"And BTW was Carlo too stupid to realize who he was married to."

I wonder what happened to Carlo in the books?

Maybe that was his only way out of the marriage, to take the money from setting up Sonny and vanish. Because in those days, good Catholics like the Corleones didn't believe in divorce.

[quote]R64: I think most men would have been a little more careful in how they treated the Godfather's daughter.

Vito had been shot, and his survival was by no means assured. Sonny was the defacto head of the family, with a well-known hot temper. Carlo beat Connie up, knowing it would draw out Sonny - despite Tom's advice. Returning, Sonny was caught on the causeway and shot to death. So the Corleone family was down two heads.

Connie with the cannoli at the opera.

Mary on the steps, "Dad?"

Etc.

^ sorry R65 R66 R67 I don't spend all my time watching and rewatching old movies.

no offense meant ladies R64

My mistake: Sonny was assassinated on his way to get Carlo (it's been maybe four years since I last watched it).

[quote]R72: I don't spend all my time watching and rewatching old movies.

You asked a question and then rejected the correct answer given by R63. That warrants some slapping around.

R75, R74 for the win R72

R72 is a stupid, self-defensive cunt. She's proven that on other threads.

Here's a question R75 Why is the hospital so empty when Michael goes to visit his father There seems to be only one nurse in the entire building, PS I didn't read the book and it's been 20 years since I've seen the movie.

Because the corrupt police had run most everyone out of the building, preparatory to a second attempt by Sollozzo's men on Vito's life.

Stop trolling R78. I suggest getting a dog to fill up those empty hours.

R80 a troll who trolls trolls and calls their life empty?

I see some troll is on this thread that I blocked some time ago.

R82 by' some time ago' do you mean earlier this afternoon? and if you blocked me why are you continuing to troll me on this thread? Do you know what blocking means?

-Some people have the attention spans of gnats'

-can't keep store your characters or even the events of the two movies straight

-a stupid self-defensive cunt she's proven that on other threads

Sound famiLIAR?

Is this the shit you fill up those empty hours with R80

-When we walked out of that abortion of a film the first time my partner said being properly gay was who dressed that poor woman?

-even my mother who lived a sheltered life said I knew it was going to be Michael the minute he said that's not my family Kaye it's not me

-the studio head was probably comatose on booze and pills the horse killers probably paid any servants around to go away

-Carlo married to Sonny sister was in on the hit and deliberately started a fight with Connie beating her up so she would call Sonny who had previously threatened to murder Carlo if he ever heard your sister again

-why did that man do that mommy? is he a bad man?0 are we going to die someday?

Yes, they're all about you, blocked troll. When someone links a number in their respose to you, I can see it. I already knew I'd blocked you--from further back than today. Boy, are you dumb.

R85 you just responded specifically once again to the person you blocked

R82 R85 is bipolar

block unblock ignore follow block unblock ignore follow block unblock ignore follow block unblock ignore follow block unblock ignore follow

Some people prove themselves to be trolls several times over. Such a pleasure to not see them unless someone else links to them.

R88 your arc makes less sense than Michael Corleone's

Can't see the troll when no one links to her, but apparently she's still cunting. What a clown.

I feel sorry for anyone who can’t appreciate the brilliance of The Godfather movies. The first one, in particular, is perfect.

R90 Do you know what ignore means? Man up and take responsibility for your trolling!

The second is a masterpiece.

Apparently a lot of the minchie here have never met a Sicilian familia.

The very silly snipping aside, MAN , do I love serious DL discussions of films, theater, writing, etc ( actually , I enjoy the not-so-serious discussions, so long as they stay “on point”). Thanks to you guys who really add thought to your posts. ( PS I think GF I and II are one of the ten best American films).

Connie had a little bit of a weird character arc. She marries Carlo for his looks, obviously. He is disloyal and causes Sonny's death. Then, she shows up at a wedding, drunk, high, and demanding, with her new boyfriend, Merle, whose source of income is unknown.

After that, she suddenly turns into a nun or some kind of nanny to Michael's children, who are estranged from Kay. Connie is now quiet and has a somber demeanor and wardrobe. Boring.

Yes, I get that she stepped into a needed role (someone Michael could trust who was in the family). But there was more they could have done with her character. She was a wild card who made bad choices in men, but she was not apparently disloyal, herself.

Her character went from spoiled Mafia daddy rich girl to resentful divorcee sister, which was a terrific transformation, and then became the family matriarch after their mother dies. It was a perfect and perfectly logical arc.

If Apollonia and Michael had both survived, what would have happened. He was only in Italy temporarily, until the dust settled. He was supposed to move back to the US. Would he have brought Apollonia with him? Would she have learned English, aside from "Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday."

R97 - spot on except she was a slutty widow who blamed her brother, not a divorcee.

R98 - No Rose, Italians aren’t allowed to move to America and they are incapable of learning English.

R99, she (correctly) blamed her brother for the murder of her first husband, and acted out accordingly by being the reckless woman. And yes, she was a divorcee. Michael says to her in the second film, "The ink on your divorce papers isn't dry yet and you want to marry this man?" Meaning her new paramour.

Connie, the divorcee.

[quote]I never got a sense of the Corleone's.

Of their what?

R96 while it’s been years, I remember the character of Connie being different in the book. Yes, she was the spoiled “mafia princess”, only daughter, and head strong. She was determined to marry Carlo even tho the Don did not approve, and she did get her way. She wanted out of the family, the over protection of her brothers, her father, their associates. Plus, Carlo wasn’t in “the family business, and was portrayed as this hot catch - I even think Puzo had a line or two about Carlo’s “braciole”, so there’s all that in his favour.

The problem was Carlo felt he didn’t get the full bargain as the Don kept him out of the family business, so his frustrations got taken out on Connie. Even then the Don forbade any interference in the marriage because it was what Connie wanted, and because Sicilian tradition did not allow it. Sonny does eventually lose it, and beats Carlo bloody in public, humiliating him, and setting up Sonny’s own murder. After Sonny’s murder, Connie and Carlo have another child, but the physical beatings do continue, and Connie is more or less a broken woman.

When Michael avenges Sonny’s death, Connie is actually relieved. Her descent into party girl life isn’t about being mad at Michael, but more about being free - at least in the book. Michael even took in, raised her kids while she was galavanting away. It wasn’t until Carmela’s death (I think Carmela may have said something to her about taking care of Michael?), that Connie straightened out, took up raising her and Michael’s kids, and became his loyal supporter, and closest advisor. She even played dumb and supported the whole “Fredo drowned, it was God’s will” line after Michael had him killed. How she was portrayed in the God awful G3 does follow this up, and expands on it. But we should forget G3, period.

I agree, Connie could have been a richer, more complex character.Carmela too. But this was written in the late 60’s, and a mafia book would have been all about the men - with the women really only being bit players in the storyline.

I do think she and Michael are in some ways on similar paths - with both eventually realising they couldn’t escape who they were, their family, their destiny.

The Corleone saga should have concluded with that perfect ending of G2.

GF3's Michael just seemed like Al Pacino playing the same guy he's been playing in every movie for the past 3 decades- gleefully hammy, not the intense brooder of GFs1&2.

Actually, R104, he was never more subtle, introspective, brooding, and silent than he was Michael.

So yes, R104, there was definitely a difference in his interpretaton over the years that culminated in the third movie.

[quote]he was never more subtle, introspective, brooding, and silent than he was Michael.

My point was that he DIDN'T come across this way in the third movie. His yelling in GF3 does not equate with his explosiveness in the first two movies, because the buildup of dramatic tension just didn't seem to be there the third time around.

Agree, R107.

Overall, the three movies are very clear on the character arc and each one is different. First one is citizen to leader. 2nd is leader to tyrant. 3rd is a reverse metamorphosis--a monster/animal trying to become human.

Whether you think this fits with actual human behavior is fair. Because they're not real people. Michael is a character that exists for only 15-30 scenes in each movie.

And in those 15 to 30 scenes R109 in parts two and three he's rather unvarying in the weight of the world on his shoulders act and it becomes a tad tedious.

Lightning didn't strike three times:

it's hard to tell if this thing's serious or parody- Washington Post

the movie is lumbering-The New Yorker

a story told by an aging relative not quite aware of how many times and how much better he has been over the same material before- Chicago Tribune

it covers little new territory the plot is highly derivative of the original-ReelViews

the main performances are generally weak- Christian Science monitor

They should have cast Susan Lucci as Connie!

[quote]I've never watched a single one of these movies.

This is what Datalounge has become, it’s depressing.

R113, some posters prefer " Romi and Michele's High School Reunion." Don't judge.

A sociopath/psychopath chooses the image they want to portray. They are skilled manipulators. In GF 1 Michael presented as affable, nice. His murderous character in GF2 emerged as a result of plot devices - he was reacting to stimulus. He was however always a sociopath/psychopath - the portrayal to the world had changed.

r115 there was a scene where he was coming out of a movie with Kay in the first one, and they were all smiles and laughter. Do you think a psychopath would have agreed to watch "The Bells of St Mary's" with Ingrid Bergman?

Yes if it suited his agenda. He was presenting a character to Kay. It didn’t make it authentic.

I'll give you Godfather 3, when he became an affable, almost lovable old mob guy which made little sense. Then again, you wouldn't be saying anything knew here about that particular film. But as far as the first 2, " absolute power corrupts absolutely" as they say. Michael got a taste of power and he loved it. The moment he was given it, he was never the same. We also know very little about Michael before the power corrupted him. He might have very well exhibited signs that he had a subconscious desire for this power. He did want to be in the government if I remember correctly. Maybe he realized that with his family that would be impossible and decided this was the next best thing.

R118 'he got a taste of power and he loved it'

did he love it? Michael always seemed to be carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders. He didn't seem to be having a good time at all. He became alienated from his family the people he supposedly loved. He seemed miserable to me. Scarface had a better time and had a zest for life.

r119 see, this is my whole argument, which people in this thread have been calling me stupid for. Michael's whole characterization is an inconsistent mess.

^ Michael is acting out of a feeling of responsibility to his family but as presented in the movie it's basically a joyless life and you always gotta watch your back.

Why do you fools think it has to be black or white---that Michael had to be all good or all evil. No one is. Serial killers have been known to love their families and sacrifice for them. Humans are complex.

For anyone (including Vito) to think it was possible for Michael to live an ordinary life.... that was a naive pipe dream. It was never possible. His father 'was' who he was, and it greatly impacted how all of his kids related to the world from the day they are born.

r122 the Michael who wanted to fight for his country in the war is suddenly indifferent about becoming a crime lord who deals primarily in hard drugs? That is a load of bullshit.

"I feel sorry for anyone who can’t appreciate the brilliance of The Godfather movies. "

I don't *love* these movies. I appreciate that they're complex and brilliantly made, but they don't get me in the heart, I think that's because I don't identify with anyone on the screen.

I don't think they way they do, I don't share their beliefs in "family" loyalty above all, I don't believe there's a duty to get revenge, or in being clannish or judging people by how much Sicilian blood they have. I actually do believe in The Rule of Law, and I've genuinely escaped from my dysfunctional family, so I don't have a damn thing in common with anyone on the screen. I can't feel what they feel, I can only look at them from a distance, and that's never going to be the highest level of film appreciation.

But you can identify with " Dumb and Dumber."

R124 Are there films that you are passionate about, or is it not your favorite medium? Sincere question.

I loved the Godfather movies but know lots of people who appreciated them like you but weren't gaga. I'm often in the position of wondering why people were passionate about some movie when I'm thinking, meh, it was okay.

I'm also WASP but I loved how the Godfather movies portrayed a different world that I still found familiar in some way. I'm not trying to argue but I am also a "rule of law" person which is literally a theme of the Godfather--they weren't getting the American law's protection so they made their own. Also, I'm full of spite lol. But I get why some people would think, "good movie" and move on.

R126 not R124 I like the two Godfather films, but I do think they're very overrated. They're really just old-fashioned style gangster films blown up to epic proportions with a series of set pieces but there's really no deep characterizations with violent killings occurring every 15 minutes or so. violent killings occurring every 15 minutes. I like Double Indemnity, Some Like It Hot, North by Northwest, Strangers on a Train, The Collector and Goodfellas which is a much less reverential/sentimental treatment of crime families as it shows how they operate and how they live. I also like The Battle of Algiers, Nights of Cabiria, La Dolce Vita, The King of Comedy, Take the Money and Run, Sleeper, All the President's Men, Rules of Attraction, Go, Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby, Belfast . .

My grandfather fought in WWII, then later almost killed my grandmother several times. Where did some of you get the idea that servicemen are angels? Michael didn't attain sainthood by enlisting. A lot of guys go into the armed forces to avoid prison, get college pay, or for personal aggrandizement. Being a patriot isn't a moral accomplishment.

Sociopaths are capable of superficial emotions- the adage is that sociopaths are charming, to better manipulate others. They can enjoy a beautiful sunset or movie like anyone else. It's their self-centeredness and potential ruthlessness that sets them apart.

"[R124] Are there films that you are passionate about, or is it not your favorite medium? Sincere question."

Oh yes, I love film and have seen all the "great films"! But the "Godfather" films will never be a personal fave, I just can't get emotionally involved with the characters, not the way I get involved with, say, the protagonist of "Lawrence of Arabia". I'm really nothing like Lawrence but I *do* have empathy with a man who seems to be nothing like me, I feel his love of "empty places" and no-bullshit people at the opening, and then his growing madness as things progress... and I just don't react to Michael Corleone the same way, I never feel what he feels.

Part of film appreciation is intellectual and an informed appreciation of artistry, and part of film appreciation is purely emotional, subjective, and personal. If I say that I don't connect to the "Godfather" films on a personal level it's not really a criticism, the films are stunning in their way, but they hit some people right in the gut, but they don't have that effect on me.

Michael isn’t just a psycho out of nowhere. In the first film we see signs. After the cop hits him he wants revenge. He claims it is “strictly business”, but he clearly wants to kill that cop for busting his jaw.

None of the arguments in this thread defending Michael's arc are very convincing.

it's not an arc R131 it's a quick conversion from nice kid who is distancing himself from his family's business to a cop assassin after getting his jaw broken. In reality he'd have let Family handle it. Surely, he knows that once he pulls that trigger there's no going back.

"There was this girl who grew up with me. Sorta looked up to me, you know. As much as anyone, I loved her and trusted her. That girl's name was Marilyn Monroe. This was a great girl, of vision and guts. Someone intentionally overdosed her. No one knows who gave the order. When I heard it, I wasn't angry; I knew Marilyn, I knew she was head-strong, talking loud, saying stupid things. So when she turned up dead, I let it go. And I said to myself, this is the business we've chosen; I didn't ask who gave the order, because it had nothing to do with business!

[quote] My grandfather fought in WWII, then later almost killed my grandmother several times. Where did some of you get the idea that servicemen are angels?

I agree. Posters have been saying that b/c Michael was in the military, it means so many positive things.

I have family members who were in the military and, also, lived in 2 towns that were located next to military bases. Being in the military is not a guarantee of good character.

R134 We're talking about a fictional character and the way he was portrayed in the film as opposed to people you may have known. The majority of those who served in the military did not wind up being psychotic

One of the things that don't make sense to me is how in Part II, Kay thinks she can just walk out with the kids and Michael is going to be, like, "Yeah, okay, Kay. How much should I send you monthly?"

And then telling him she aborted their child. Yeah, Kay, I'm sure that will go down well, too.

R136, the gangsters in The Godfather believe that they have a code: there is the world of women and the family, which they purport to respect, and there is the outside world of “business.” They commit all of their crimes out of their alleged loyalty to their families. If Michael killed Kay it would reveal that code to be a fraud—the killers around him would be appalled.

I agree, R136. I never thought of it that way, but she would have known that he wasn't going to be picking up the kids on the weekends, paying child support.

R137, do you know how Mafia families deal with women who don't stick to the code, or their assigned role of minding the home and kiddies?

I ask because most patriarchal cultures have ruthless ways of dealing with disobedient women, and the Mafia is a very patriarchal subculture. So how do they deal with wives who slut it up or file for divorce, wives who get an abortion, or daughters who marry honest citizens, or want a doctorate instead of a husband? Or a wife instead of a husband?

[quote]We're talking about a fictional character and the way he was portrayed in the film as opposed to people you may have known.

Bitch, please. Movie soldiers haven't always been portrayed as virtuous. Why would Michael's character be any less complex than the Don's was?

You thought the Don was a complex character? R140 Brando had about as many lines as Arnold did as the Terminator and the Don is rarely ambulatory. And I'm not talking about movie soldiers in general I'm talking about a very particular character, and you see you seem to go from the specific to the general.

(^.^) Brando appeared in approximately 40 mins of The Godfather a movie almost 3 hours long. His performance represented a little more than20% of the film's running time.

The change in Michael's personality and ambitions makeup arc aside, what I dislike about his character in G3 is that he doesn't even seem like the same person from the first 2 films. Michael in G1 and G2 had that Italian cool swag, while in the third iteration he's sort of a sometimes befuddled nervous fussbudget. I could understand him changing psychologically and wanting to atone for his "sins," but it seemed like he was portraying Michael as a completely different character in the third film even beyond the result of the passing of the years, events and lessons learned.

Michael's enlisting in the military isn't about some pure, noble love of country. He's trying to escape his family. How do you escape a family or institution that "owns" you? You become the property of another one just as or more powerful. It's similar to young girls who want to escape a domineering father/culture who run away and get married--instead of being controlled by their father, now they are controlled by their husband, and that's the only option their father will respect (similar to Connie's arc in the book). (I'm Italian and that's what happened with both my mother and grandmother in Italy--married as teens to escape their controlling fathers. My grandfather was supportive of my mother and liked my father, but my grandmother had to run away to elope and then hid with my grandfather for weeks to escape her father's wrath. But he had no choice but to honor the marriage.)

Michael's claim of patriotism is just the start of papering over his choices with noble sounding justifications. The military is the one place his family can't get to him. And away from his family's control, Michael imagines he can create a life for himself. But starting with his sister's wedding, he's pulled back in, both because of circumstance but also because of who he is. His big line from the terrible G3 says it best: "Just when I think I'm out, the pull me back in." It represents Michael both at the beginning and the end of his arc, but there the ever-present element of delusion in it (or he's just lying). He not just pulled back in, he allows it to happen.

And this is reflected in Michael's reasoning for his first mafia kill. First of all, it's not at all a stretch for a military man to justify a "good" kill, so there's zero contradiction there, regardless. But more importantly, Michael's rationale is demonstrative of how much he's willing to mask his choices in rhetoric. He wants revenge on that cop. When Sonny laughs at him and says a "good" college boy can't kill a cop AND calls him out for TAKING IT TOO PERSONALLY, what's Michael's response?:

[quote]Where does it say that you can't kill a cop? I'm talking about a cop that's mixed up in drugs. I'm talking about a dishonest cop and a crooked cop who got mixed up in the rackets and got what was coming to him. That'd make a helluva story. Now we got people in the newspapers, right Tom? They might like a story like that. ... It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business.

He's lying--of course it's personal too! But that becomes Michael's new cover--it's all strictly business. And he promises Kaye that he that his business/family will be legit. Because he can "strictly business" his way into so much power he can do what he wants. But of course that legitimacy never comes.

One interesting thing about that crooked cop line--I'm pretty sure that was a change from either the book or original script. Originally Michael riffs on how yes it is personal, just like his father took Michael's leaving to join the military personally. That version of Michael was either more self aware or just more open about his true motivations.

^ Forgot to add, Michael's path also has a subtle parallel to Vito's, further demonstrating how much he is like his father. Just like Vito couldn't stand to be controlled by Don Fanucci, Michael can't stand being under the thumb of his own family. But it wasn't enough for Vito to kill Fanucci--he took over. And with Michael, he wanted to escape until he could take over.

Nice thread. I enjoy reading it.

I want to add that, if we accept that G3 doesn't count and that the arc was complete by the end of G2, the last thing Michael says is in the flashback is :" Well, I have other plans for my life." to a bemused Tom who just mentionned that the family had plans for him.

The last thing that is said to him, before the scene goes back to the present, with Michael sitting on a bench, more powerful and alone than ever : " You're really stupid ! STUPID!!!" Courtesy of Sonny. Not as smart, but he had a heart, loved his people and knew how to be loved by his family and his men.

But Sonny wasn't his father. Sonny was muscle, Fredo was heart, Michael was the brain.

Yes, R147. The ideal solution would have been Sonny and Michael leading together. With Tom as a consigliere during Peace time.

Thank you, R144, well analyzed! And while I don't love this film on a personal level, it really does do a great job of showing power dynamics and how they lead people into traps. Michael starts out like so many young men, just wanting to live a life where nobody tells him what to do, and he gets drawn back in with the mistaken belief that if he gains enough power within his Family, then nobody will be able to tell him what to do.

There's an old Chinese saying that ends with "... and the king is a slave to his people", and that's been true in every civilization. People burn the world down in order to become the monarch, to exercise absolute authority rather than being subject to it, but the fact is, a monarch whose word is law and whose authority is absolute has very few options and little personal freedom. The demands of maintaining power color every action and interaction, the king has to do what will maintain his power, not what he wants to do, and that NEVER ENDS. There's never a moment when the king can relax and enjoy life, because the threats to his power never end. Absolute power means absolutely giving up your life, and that's what young Michael without having a clue what he was in for, because it's not like rebellious young men ever think about what their fathers have gone through to get where they are.

An insider weighs in

I don't think Michael did it for power, or for control or dominance, or to escape having anyone control him. I think at the outset, as a young college boy buoyant with post-WWII modernity, he felt suffocated by the whole Italian Mafia family thing and sincerely wanted to make his way in the world independent of that. But the attack on the Don cracked open the deep blood ties of love and loyalty inside him, for his father and his family. Yes, he was like his father--ridiculous though it is given that we are talking about predators and criminals, the mythic "GF" vision of the Don's motivation was, love for family, and protecting his people from bullying injustice. The cop's brutality and the attack on the Don brought that out in Michael . . . but it corrupted and consumed him. People continue to love this story not because Michael was a sociopath, but because he was a good man destroyed by the classic tragic flaw, as in Shakespeare.