I've been reading Al Pacino: In Conversation With Lawrence Grobel, by Lawrence Grobel, which is basically a collection of Pacino interviews taken over a thirty year period (they're friends and softball buddies). Anyway, its an extremely interesting book, which I'll probably review in the book thread at some point. But for now, here's what Al Pacino had to say about THE GODFATHER PART III:

"You know what the problem with that film was? The real problem? Nobody wanted to see Michael have retribution and feel guilty. That's not who he was. The thing about the other scripts was that in his mind he was avenging his family and saving them. Michael never thought of himself as a gangster, ever. Not as a child, not while he was one, and not afterward: That was not the image he held of himself. So anyone who says to me that I played a gangster, I say, 'Not Michael'. He didn't come up that way. He's not a part of the GOODFELLAS thing. That's just not who Michael was. I've played gangsters ... but not Michael. Michael had this code--he lived by something that made audiences respond. But once he went away from that and started crying over coffins and making confessions and feeling remorse, it wasn't right. I applaud Francis for trying to get to that, but Michael was so frozen in that image ... Like he says to the priest, This is pointless to do this. but there was in him a deep feeling of having betrayed his mother by killing his brother. That was a mistake. And we are ruled by these mistakes in life, as time goes on. These crucial, brutal mistakes that we make in life. his choices--he was wrong. Like the way in SCARFACE when Tony kills Manny, that was wrong. And he pays for it. And in his way, Michael paid for it."

"What should Michael have done, in retrospect, with Fredo?" I asked. I loved talking to Al about THE GODFATHER.
"Ban him, exile him in some way," he said. "He was harmless. That part of Michael was off. Just as he denies the mother of his children. How could you do a thing like that? You hurt the children. That's what made it powerful. But where do you go from there?"
"A lot of critics thought Diane's role was a weak, thankless part."
"She tried `to do the best she could in III. there was a tregedy that Francis could have explored: what happened to her? The result of her loving this man. GODFATHER III should have been more about Kay. And Hagen. Michael could still have had that breakdown with the priest, that would have been fine, but that's it. All this contemplation with dealing with the KING LEAR connection: Maybe in retrospect the movie should have been more about Kay. Giving her a tragedy and investigating that. Remember, the last time we saw her, at the end of II, he was closing the door in her face and keeping her children."

I remember reading about Al not wanting Michael to go legitimate. He has valid points.

But the real problem with GF III is that is sucked ass.

Very insightful comments by Pacino. I agree that perhaps most viewers of III weren't ready to accept Michael in his "new" role, but a lot of that may have been due to the overall weakness of the script and plot. I also question if the film could have succeeded if it had been about Kay. She was a far more assertive character in III, but I doubt she could ever have been the focus of a GF film.

His comment about Fredo will resonate among those here who thought Fredo should have gotten a pass. I'm not one of them.

I'm with you regarding Fredo, TB. He was a threat. He was not harmless. The depth of his anger and resentment in the boathouse scene proved that.

As for Pacino's points, while he obviously "knew" Michael better than anyone besides FFC, I disagree with his thoughts about making Kay the focus of III. The only reason we care about Kay is how she relates to Michael. I do, agree, however, that the loss of Tom Hagen was a huge one.

I don't think I could sit through a movie about Kay.

I'm no psychiatrist, but I think Al's sentiments may be more about guilt in regards to his personal relationship with Diane Keaton, than about Michael's relationship with Kay. I really can't see how expanding Kay's role would have brought anything new to the table. Hagen, however, is Coppola's great sin. He should have gotten Duvall the money. Period. End of story.

I dont care how many dago guinea wop greasebell gumbahs come out of the woodwork. Kay never gets that picture! For five years we had her under training. Singing lessons, acting lessons, dancing lessons...And let me be even more frank just to show you I'm not a hard hearted man. She was beautiful, she was young, she was innocent. She was she was the best piece of stuff I ever had and I've had 'em all over the world. Then along comes Al Pacino with his olive oil voice and guinea charm. Then she runs off with him. She threw it al away to make me lok ridiculous, and a man in my position cannot afford to be made to look ridiculous.

Thank you for the dinner and a very pleasant evening.

I dont care how many dago guinea wop greasebell gumbahs come out of the woodwork. Kay never gets that picture! For five years we had her under training. Singing lessons, acting lessons, dancing lessons...And let me be even more frank just to show you I'm not a hard hearted man. She was beautiful, she was young, she was innocent. She was she was the best piece of stuff I ever had and I've had 'em all over the world.

Then along comes Al Pacino with his olive oil voice and guinea charm and she goes to his party and wears this god-awful burnt orange outfit. She wore it to make me look ridiculous, and a man in my position cannot afford to be made to look ridiculous.

Yes, but by GF III Pacino lost his olive oil voice.

Yes. It's not generally known, but after Vito died, Michael had his body cryogenically preserved. He slipped some of Vito's DNA to Kay in a watercress sandwich. Her discovery of that attempt at cloning was the major reason for her abortion. Then Michael exhumed Vito and had the world's first larynx transplant.

TB,
Given the plot holes in GFIII, I'm surprised that scenario wasn't used by FFC.

Al Pacino:
"...Maybe in retrospect the movie should have been more about Kay. Giving her a tragedy and investigating that. Remember, the last time we saw her, at the end of II, he was closing the door in her face and keeping her children..."

Unlike most, I happen to agree with Pacino's thoughts on Kay.

Considering such comments as:
"...the real problem with GF III is that is sucked ass."and:
"...a lot of that may have been due to the overall weakness of the script and plot..."
It is apparent that almost anything would've been better than what we got in GFIII.

I doubt that Pacino meant that Kay should've been the main focus of the film. He must realize that Michael Corleone is the central character. But he's right that the 'redemption' stuff was a mistake, NOT in character, and something audiences were simply not prepared to accept. ( I sure wasn't)

Considering this, the character of Michael would've had almost nowhere to go. He certainly could've mellowed a bit with age, as people do. But not the transformation we got...was too much. So with a bit more focus on Kay and how SHE dealt with the aftermath of her life as Mrs. Corleone, instead of the namby-pamby remarriage/reconcilliation they wrote in just to have a reason for Diane Keaton to be there, there may have been much more richness to that personal aspect of the story.

Really, Pacino in that statement is abslutely right. Nearly every choice FFC made in the making of GFIII was the WRONG choice.

It wasn't just the writing. It was the choices.

Apple

And besides how is it that Anthony could sing onstage, but not in the shower?

A movie about Kay would have been one that I never sat through

Mr. Pacino asserts, in reflecting on Michael Corleone's "motivation" in The Godfather:

Quote:

He's not a part of the GOODFELLAS thing. That's just not who Michael was.

I always believed that's what made The Godfather different from all other mob movies. It was never about the nuts-and-bolts of daily mob life, making your nut each week and kicking-up to the bosses. It was never about the daily grind. That's because Michael was never a foot soldier in that army, and consequently had an easier time rationalizing his role as the strategic leader of a bigger enterprise. Sonny or Fredo probably logged more time on the street in a day than Michael did in his entire life.

But that's not what GFIII was about. I agree when he says that nobody wanted to see the emotional, retrospective, and remorseful Michael. THAT really wasn't his character and was one of the contributing factors to the film's failings.

tony b.

I agree, Tony, although I disagree that Fredo was an innocent, I think Pacino's take on the film is right on the money.

FYI----Read that book if you're a Pacino fan, it was fantastic!!

I agree with this. Compare it to what Vito Corleone said in his last days about not making apologies for what he did in his life to Michael's narcissistic self-pity.

GF III would have been just fine were it not for the God-awful acting of FFC's daughter as Mary. She makes me want to throw brick at my TV.

Nepotism at it's finest, that was.