revisiting the godfathers again

It's not that I have anything new to say after all these years. But last xmas my wife got me the latest box set, which this time is a 4k remaster with the latest revision to the third film, and I finally got around to watching them. Here comes a bit of cut-and-paste, with perhaps some added thoughts if I have any.

The first two:

The Godfather is superior entertainment; Part II takes things to another level. Without the sequel, The Godfather would not reach beyond its own basic excellence (which is no small thing in itself). The sequel gives the original a depth it doesn’t necessarily have on its own. If the first film begins with the lines, “I believe in America,” Part II shows us why Vito dismisses such sentiments by giving us the roots of the character. And the fate of Michael shows us beyond a shadow of a doubt just how corrosive the Corleone’s Sicilian heritage can be.

Part I is the story of a family, and it is understandable that some viewers saw in Vito the kind of benevolent lover of family that we wish was part of our own family. Part II gives the lie to such beliefs. It is unlikely that anyone, watching both movies, would wish they could be a Corleone.

GF III:

III plays like a pretty good movie in the godfather genre ... if it had a different title and different names for the characters, it would have a better reputation. But it doesn't have a different title, it doesn't use different character names. In fact, it relies on the audience's fond memories of the better predecessors.

Some of the plot turns are a bit unbelievable ... Vincent doesn't really demonstrate anything to Michael that suggests he'd make a useful future Don, and Connie's transformation into a hardcore member of the inner circle comes out of nowhere (although Talia Shire does well with what she's given). The main problem, though, is that the film as presented is unnecessary. There's a good story to be told about the post-Michael generation of Corleones, but Godfather III is nothing more than a 165-minute prelude to that story. The bulk of the film is about Michael Corleone ... and his story has already been told in the first two movies. When Godfather Part II ends, we know everything about Michael. Nothing in Part III adds to our understanding of his character, nor is there any reason for us to expect otherwise: the first two films are the greatest movies ever in part because their depiction of Michael Corleone is complete.

The Godfather Part II is the greatest sequel ever because it expanded on our understanding from the first film, by showing both the roots (the "flashback" segments) and results (Michael) of Vito's life. The Godfather Part III is merely a very long coda to Part II, a coda that didn't need to be told. It's nice to be able to revisit the milieu, but unnecessary.

I guess here is where I take credit for the idea that III is a coda, because, of course, a couple of years ago, Coppola did some editing on the third movie and called the result The Godfather Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone. I thought I might have something new to say about the characters of Vincent and Connie in the third film, but I see I already thought those things 20 years ago. And hard as I continue to try, I still don't see Sofia Coppola's performance as anything but subpar.

The changes to this version are less impactful than Coppola desires, I think. He moves a discussion between Michael and the Archbishop to the beginning, and this does clarify the whole Immobiliare plotline. For me, this was the most useful change.