With a good plot to draw upon in the first place, a 'riddle' at the end is sometimes best.

For years after Gone With the Wind was made, fans all over speculated as to whether Scarlett really did get Rhett back...as she vowed to do at the end. Vivien Leigh was even asked what she thought about it.

Well, some woman was hired during the 1980's to write a sequel, which was made into a miniseries called, 'Scarlett'. She did in the end get Rhett back. And the overwhelming response was a rousing...'so what'.

For those with imagination, the open ended finish is sometimes far more interesting than having everything wrapped up like a gift box with a tidy little ribbon.

Apple

This is perhaps the most frustrating example you could choose. I love GWTW and there's nothing I would not do to actually know how it really ended (in Margaret Mitchell's mind)! I do not consider the sequel, that was rubbish at the pure state.


Believe me, I got plenty of imagination, but I use it so much in real life that I prefer the gift box with a tidy little ribbon, at least when it comes to movies!

I remember, and I recall finding (as usual) the book much more satisfying than the movie in that respect. It is a more detailed, more nuanced account of the exchange between Micheal and Kay and must go down as one of the most un-romantic marriage proposals in history! It's true that the legitimization of the Family business appears to be more of a priority in the movie than in the book.

Not completely, they still had connections to the old Family business in New York. And there was the little matter of Fredo's murder, and its implications on the "small-f" family. To have left the saga with GFII would have been to end it too abruptly. The audience has to see Micheal, the Senecan tragic anti-hero, answer for his deeds. This is portrayed in several powerful scenes, most notably the confessions to Lamberto and Don Tomassimo's corpse. Imagine watching MacBeth of King Lear without the final act.

"Satisfying" in the sense that it completes the story of Micheal's character: rise, decline and fall. GF is ultimately a tragedy--the Tragedy of Micheal Corleone--and GFIII "satisfies" the need for a proper conclusion.

"Inevitable" in the sense that the downfull of any tragic (anti-)hero is inevitable in literature. Hamlet, Richard III.

This sort of contradicts your preceding statement.

You get mad & frustrated when what happens after a film ends is left to the audience's imagination...yet in the case of GWTW you were uhappy when an answer you didn't care for was ultimately provided (which I agree was rubbish).

So this was apparently a 'frustrating' example since it's a conclusion thought up by someone other than the original author, which you DIDN'T like.

Yet in all other cases...

AppleOnYa

ps - it was either Margaret Mitchell or Vivien Leigh who eventually did answer that Scarlett would be ultimately unsuccessful in her attempt to win Rhett back. I'll have to go look that up tonight in my prized posession, 'GWTW - The Making of Gone With The Wind'.

It is not a contradiction, IMO. I simply don't consider the sequel. As for me, GWTW ended with Scarlett saying into tears "After all tomorrow is another day"! You should agree that we can't compare GF2 or even GF3 with GWTW sequel! In those cases we had Puzo himself writing the script!

I do not agree. Whether well written or badly written, by original author or someone else, a sequel is a sequel and will always be compared to the original.

Yes, Puzo co-wrote both GFII and GFIII. But it is also documented that by this time, anything beyond what was in the original novel was more of FFC's creation. I think it's been discussed here that among other things, Puzo strongly objected to the killing of Fredo (which of course Fredo didn't see coming ), but there it is anyway in GFII.

Apple

Influence, yes. Being directly mixed - no.

You know, Fredo's murder is what enraged Puzo most of all FFC did. He thought it to be impossible, inconsistent with Michael's character. I agree.
I don't see a single powerful scene in GF3, only pretentious.
And I don't see GF as a tragedy. All attempts to persuade me failed . I see it as a stretch on nature of things in this life. It's a book filled with cynical realism, and to make a snotty imitation of McBeth from it - rediculous.
I posted a long essay on subj, if you want to read, I'll link you.
Actually, the fact of its inconsistency with Michael's character is what makes this "tragical story" so unacceptable for me.

Yes. Bravo. So I feel about everything composed in addition, or changed, in GF novel. As if it never happened.

Me too. According to IMDB, Puzo only assented to it provided that Micheal waited until after their mother's funeral. This is a key element that makes the movie different from the book. I'm with Puzo and yourself on that one.

Please don't misunderstand me--I too regard the book and the movie as being completely different in nature. The book was great as a brilliantly attentive and nuanced account of the lives of the Don, Hagen and Micheal (and a little too much on Fontane, that drunk guy and the surgeon who is my namesake). It was certainly not a set-piece tragedy as the trilogy is. The movies, taken together, are less in-depth but this is true of all movies based upon books. And they are also a different creature: more of a typical tragedy than an exploration of human character. It does not entirely eschew the character elements of the book; it simply prioritizes them less.

Yes please

If this is the case, then the death of Mama must have been written into the script specifically to make way for the murder of Fredo. Interesting.

I'm just curious if anyone knows...was Puzo equally enraged at the prospect of Fredo betraying Michael by secretly working with Roth? And if not...did he consider banishment from the family and Michael's life appropriate punishment for this betrayal?

Suppose that had been the conclusion of the Michael/Fredo relationship. Would we as the viewers be satisfied with the 'You're not my brother...' boathouse scene being the end of it? No mother's wake...no plea from Connie...no embrace and recomcilliation...no gunshot on the lake. Fredo's just banished, we see him no more.

I guess we'd still be wondering today 'what ever happened to Fredo...did he & Michael ever reconcile?'

But of course...that question would've (somehow) been ultimately answered in GFIII !!!

Apple

Not wanting to get too off-topic, but I would have preferred it if Micheal had simply banished Fredo. Then in GFIII, Fredo would come in right at the end. He would arrive at the opera house, hanging around for the end of the show in a bid to get Micheal's forgiveness. He sees Micheal and family walking down the steps. Then he sees the assassin draw his gun. In a final act of filial loyalty, he takes the bullet intended for his brother. Vincent shoots the assassin, and Micheal holds his dying brother's head.

FREDO: "Forgive me... Mikey..."

MICHEAL: "I forgive you... brother..."

Fredo dies.

That's a good scenario, Dr. who fixed Lucy...

Except that since the John Cazale had been dead many years by the time GFIII was made, there could have been no such scene.

If Fredo HAD simply been banished in Part II, then I'm sure they would have inserted some bit of dialogue explaining how he and Michael somehow reconciled prior to Fredo's untimely demise at the hands of..... .

While of course, stepping in to take a bullet meant for Michael.

Apple

No, he says this in one of the "behind the scenes" from the DVD collection. It's the one where you see old casting tryouts with Al, Jimmy and everyone

Well... If the movie has no priority for it's main characters... Is it a good movie?

Here it is - two posts in a row. First contains a link to a good thread, that must be also very interesting for you. web page

You may also check this thread.