Michael in Parts I and II was a very reserved person. He only spoke when he was required to speak and wasted breath for no one. He was calculated and cruel when needed.

However, by the time Part III roles around, Michael Corleone is more like the typical Al Pacino role. Gravelly voice, some shouting here and there, and he was a much softer person.

We all know that time will wear someone down, and the more time Michael had, the more he was able to reflect on his life and regret the decisions he had made, but is Michael too different in Part III?

They almost don't seem like the same character to me. I mean Pacino looks so much different than he did in Part II and his acting style changed too. Not to mention the character changes Michael went through.

Anyone else agree?

This is probably one of the biggest underlying problems I have with Part III -- outside of the obvious casting and scrpting issues that everyone has. I still believe he is Michael Corleone, but it is hard to make a connection some times.

Yes, he did.

Granted, people do change and mellow with age. And Michael did strive to redeam the Family and make it legitimate. But it was too, TOO much of a contrast from even the younger Michael.

Personally, I didn't find it believable and it's one of the many reasons I've never been able to sit through GFIII.

Apple

That is a good question, and I think you may have hit the nail on the head, DBCH. For me anyway.

It is a stark contrast to the transformation of De Niro into Brando. In fact it is one of the great attributes of partsI and II, the similarity between young and old cast. Take the very young Vito and the young micheal for example.

But, could this in fact add to visual effect of the story, emphasising the twisted bitterness inside him? Because you know what? in part III, he ain't so pretty no more.

Been thinking the same thing about him for years. He was AL! not pacino (shh)

I thought that the change in Michael in GF3 is too great but when I watched the movie with my mother she said it does makw sense, that people are becoming much softer with age. Still it is completly different Michael than we used to know in GF1 and GF2.
Take for example his attitue to Kay: Michael of GF1 and GF2 would have never forgave her.(personally I think it was a way to keep her in the movie...)

The change in Michaels character and the fact that Pacino looks like a different person are the main reasons why I hate GF3!

Interesting question, DBCH! How much of the "change" in Michael Corleone is due to script, and how much to the changing of Al Pacino? Al was a relative unknown for GF, but by III, he was a top star, and was the big draw for the movie. Plus, Michael Corleone was the bedrock of his reputation as a big star. He could impose his personality and style on Michael's character far more confidently than in the earlier two films. In other words, he played Michael the way he wanted to portray him. Plus, Pacino was a young "leading man"-type actor in the first two. But by 1990, he was a mature, "serious" actor, no longer playing romantic leads. All of this was expressed in his performance in III. This is not to say that he imposed his interpretation of Michael on FFC and Puzo--probably all three worked together, taking into account that Al was the top box office draw in the film.

Now, did Michael Corleone really change? Outwardly he was what you said: a softer person, reflecting the supposedly changed circumstances of his new "respectability," his "retirement" from organized crime, his stature as a "philanthropist" and as a Papal Knight, his trying to reconcile with Kay, etc.
But, as the Don said, "a man has but one destiny." I don't think Michael Corleone really changed. As in the earlier films, he sought respectability on his terms, under his definition. He had not left the Mafia: as Vincent said near the beginning, "Everyone knows that you're preventing Zasa from rising in the Commission." And he presides over a Commission meeting in Atlantic City. He bought his Knighthood, and he tries to buy a position of global business prominence in Immobiliare by secretly bailing a crooked archbishop out of a giant banking fraud. And, when thwarted, he resorts to murder--all the while endangering his family, with the result that his beloved daughter gets killed in an attempt on his life, just as Kay was nearly killed in a similar attempt at Tahoe.
A more mellow Michael? Yes. A more vulnerable Michael? Maybe. A changed Michael? No!

The very fact that Michael was the 'bedrock' of Pacino's stardom dictated that as a professional actor he should NOT have imposed his own 'personality and style' into Michael Corleone. While again, it is true that people change to a degree and mellow with age...what we saw was far too drastic a shift from the younger, reserved, and by GFII somewhat bitter Michael. The fact that people have been discussing that portrayal as at least one of the reasons it does not stand up to the first two..is indication that Pacino, FFC and Puzo made the wrong decision, if as you suggest they made it and worked on it together.

Apple

That said I think that Pacino should have won an Academy Award for Part III kind of like the way that Return of the King won as kind of a reflection on all the films. I believe that Pacino does his best work in the trilogy in Part III and the Academy should have noticed his work in the trilogy by giving him the award for Part III.

It's hard to believe that the actor who played Michael Corleone in three films doesn't have an Oscar for it.

He has an Oscar...only not for the Godfather films.

And if he didn't win an Academy Award for either of the first two, both of which times he recieved a nomination...then he certainly didn't deserve one just for making a third and bringing the character full circle; especially a third which wasn't and never will be equal in quality to the others.

Apple

Well since the award for Scent of a Woman (I meant that it's sad that the actor who played MC doesn't have an Oscar for that performance) has been called a sympathetic gesture since it wasn't Pacino's best performance, I would think that the same thing can be said for his performance in Part III.

And say what you will about Part III but I think Pacino does the best job in it. He is solid in all 3 movies, but he really comes to life in Part III.

DBC, say what you will about GFIII...however 'solid' you consider Pacino's performance, your most recent post seems to be in direct conflict with your earlier one that began the thread (copied below).

Apple

"Michael in Parts I and II was a very reserved person. He only spoke when he was required to speak and wasted breath for no one. He was calculated and cruel when needed.

However, by the time Part III roles around, Michael Corleone is more like the typical Al Pacino role. Gravelly voice, some shouting here and there, and he was a much softer person.

We all know that time will wear someone down, and the more time Michael had, the more he was able to reflect on his life and regret the decisions he had made, but is Michael too different in Part III?

They almost don't seem like the same character to me. I mean Pacino looks so much different than he did in Part II and his acting style changed too. Not to mention the character changes Michael went through. Anyone else agree?

This is probably one of the biggest underlying problems I have with Part III - outside of the obvious casting and scrpting issues that everyone has. I still believe he is Michael Corleone, but it is hard to make a connection some times."

I would like to join you in this conversation, if I may.


Michael as being the youngest of the male children of Vito Corleone has been in my opinion always kind of seen as the Benjamin of the family. In GFII it has been portrayed beautifully. Vito never had intentions of drawing him in the family business, not like that, but had big plans for him – Senator Corleone… and even Michael never had intentions in working with the family. Remember when he was telling Kay who his family was, when he said: ‘That’s my family, Kay, not me.”

But life is filled with surprises, crossroads – one tiny decision changes everything. I think Michael was the one who was ‘closest’ to Vito’s character. Sony was way to impulsive and didn’t had the wicked master brain of Vito and Michael. Due to that one decision where he decided he was the one to kill Solozzo and McLusky he doomed himself and got automatically sucked in. He got tutored by the best and became a Don well deserved.

However I don’t believe he was ‘bitter’ in GFII, but then maybe he was. He was trying hard to make his family business legitimate and after 7 years he still didn’t fulfill his whish, his promise. He brought the family business on higher levels, but the higher you get the more complicated and dangerous it all became. He was well aware of it. And I understand it must have been frustrating.

Michael (All) didn’t smile once in GFII – that says it all. The weight of responsibilities he carried must have been hard, almost unbearable, not to forget the fact his little sister became ‘not a typical Italian woman’, his brother betrayed him… his family braking up… family that was his centre of life, Vito’s centre of life.

Times changed! When Vito was becoming a Don – the ‘game rules’ where clear, the code was there. The business was ‘innocent’ – gambling, woman… but later Narcotics became the future and Vito was against it for he new what it brought with it self. I don’t know if Michael was in Narcotic business. Nevertheless…. With new generations, with other nations becoming powerful on the streets the ‘game rules’ changed… the code was going to be forgotten eventually.

In GFIII Michael is a Don for around 30 years! With age comes wisdom and he finally sees an opportunity to completely legitimize his business when he get sucked back in ruthlessly. Did Michael change? Yes and No. He became softer and was consumed by guilt and conscious. It is logical he made peace with Kay, after all she is the mother of his children.


You say that Michael was Al in GFIII – I say Al is Michael. I liked his performance in all 3 films.

I don't believe it does. However different Michael may be from Parts I and II, I believe Pacino puts in his best work in Part III. While it may be a different Michael Corleone, I think Pacino really pulled it off. Sure his performace is a "Pacino" performance as we've come to know them, but it's still great. The silent scream was the topper for me. That is the best acting I have seen. Ever.

And no matter how similar Pacino's performances may be, there are always little flourishs in them all that do separate them from the others. That is how I base my opinion when it comes to this.

I don't think that anyone is saying that anything Pacino did in Part III was wrong. I do however, believe that the biggest thing that lead to Part III failing to live up to expectations was the amount of time that passed. Everyone changed, not just Michael Corleone or Al Pacino... we couldn't expect the movie to fit nicely next to Part II after 16 years. I think that is the biggest problem with Part III. Michael's changes are just a bi-product of that time gap.

If anything, I think Pacino's work in Part III is the best -- because he was able to get back into that character and then advance him so many years.

And I don't think you'll find a bigger Part III supporter around here than me.

Hello DBC !

I understand completely what you’ve said, and I agree with you too. It is true when you say: “I believe that the biggest thing that lead to Part III failing to live up to expectations was the amount of time that passed.”

In my surroundings I do not know any girl-friends who actually liked the ‘Godfather Saga’, male-friends however do all like it but have doubts about the third one. When I first saw GPIII my mind was blank, I couldn’t decide whether I like it or not… so I watched it a couple of more times, made up my mind – I love it!

Yes, it was a shocker to see Michael changed… but this change was so natural. The darkness Michael possesses which was obvious in GPII was there in GPIII as well. He became older, wiser, softer…. But the essence was still there.

Don’t get me wrong when I say Al is Michael for in my eyes he embodied Michael Corleone into perfection (in all 3 parts).

Un saludo.

I think my favorite "Michael" has to be the one in GFIII (but Al Pacino is still better in GFII). I liked how he was trying to redeem himself and how he was an old man with regrets. I liked how he was portrayed and how GFIII was about Michael's character and not really about the plot (it kind of shows because the plot almost made no sense to me when I first saw it).

I didn't mind that Michael was too "soft" and too "tired" in GFIII. I would actually be surprised if he didn't have these characteristics. I believe Michael in GFIII was quite lonely and just wanted a peaceful life with his family, which meant for legitimacy. I think if he wanted respect from the church and the public, this is how he should portray himself and I think he really became that kind of person -- the kind that would be honored by a church, the one that would donate large sums of money, etc.

As for the Al-is-Michael and Michael-is-Al argument, I really thought GFIII kind of represented most of Al Pacino's 90's performances. Many of you mentioned "Oscar" and I did thought Al Pacino deserved Oscar-recognition for his performance in GFIII -- I'm quite surprised he wasn't nominated! But on the other hand, I think he still deserved it for GFII and it's a shame that he lost out to Art Carney.

Another one of his 90's performance that was mentioned above -- Scent of a Woman (love that film, btw) -- kind of reminded me of his portrayal of Michael in GFIII. A man filled with regrets and loneliness ... guiding a young man to what life had to offer, etc. I thought the relationship between Lt. Col. Frank Slade and Charlie in Scent of a Woman reminded me of the relationship between Michael and Vincent in GFIII.

He was certainly an old man with regrets in the very last scene. But before that, I found him to be basically the same Michael--manipulative, ruthless, striving for "legitimacy" only on his terms, buying respectability, still involved with the Commission, etc.

You can divide Pacino's career into two parts: The younger Pacino, and the Pacino with the gravel voice. The latter is a master actor at the hight of his game. Compare that to GF I when Pacino came to work every day thinking they were going to fire him.

Michael in GF III is truly the summation of all the choices he made in life. He is wealthy beyond belief,l he is headed into the "legitimate" world, but he is isolated with no firends or family. Really he only has Connie. Perhaps one of the most underestimated scenes in GF III, which I like more each time I watch it, is in the kitchen when he says "every time I try to get out they pull me back in," right after which he has the diabetic stroke, from which he never fully recovers.

By the end of the movie he was old and sick, and he suffered the grief of losing a child.

Put plainly, a man EXACTLY like his father.

Sure, he was still manipulative (he was still in the business), but I think he was getting tired and he was having regrets -- how he didn't have the kind of family his father had, how he killed Fredo, etc.

Wow. I always assumed that Pacino was nominated for Part III and he wasn't. Garcia was nominated, and while his performance was good, it was way more flawed that Pacino's.