No, the right film. Yes, I know the post was about ALoTO, but I commented that another film was viewed by many (including the director) as having an INSANE thematic message that undermines half the film.
I agree with Deth. That’s a decent example of my OP…it doesn’t drive me crazy though. And its an uphill battle arguing with the director if he’s saying Deckard is a replicant.
It also undermines Batty saving Deckard. In saving Deckard he ‘rises above how he’s acted the entire film.’
I’d need to see the film again though to raise the point that Batty inspires Deckard to save Rachael.
Reputation in Sicily isn’t the same. We see what that’s like. Those with impeccable reputations in Sicily have guys walking around with shotguns.
You are going by what you perceive his facial expression was. I am going by what I perceive his facial expression was and also what was initially in the script. You can say that doesn’t count because it was cut but that’s what Puzo was thinking and nothing in the final cut contradicts that.
There were three Americans in the film: Hilts, his buddy Goff, and Hendley, in his RAF uniform. The last was at least partially accurate, since the only American left in the compound after all the others were moved was George Harsh, who was shot down and captured while flying for the British.
Aside from Hilts not being put to death for assaulting (and killing) German servicemen, and the escape happening in August instead of March, I’ve always thought the biggest departure from reality was Blythe being allowed to escape with Hendley. NO WAY would the senior officers have let a blind man jeopardize the entire operation like that!
Here is the original script. It’s clunky so it’s no wonder they trimmed it down.
KAY
Tell me, Michael. What really
happened with Pentangeli?
MICHAEL
His brother came to help him.
KAY
I didn't even know he had a brother.
And where is he now?
MICHAEL
On a plane back to Sicily.
KAY
And that's all he had to do. Just
show his face.
MICHAEL
That's all. You see, in Sicily, in
the old days... there was only one
legitimate reason to kill a blood
relative... only one. IF he was a
traitor.
KAY
You would have killed his brother?
MICHAEL
Kay, you've got it wrong. That
kind of thing's all over, I promised
you. This was between the two
brothers. Years ago Frankie had a
young girlfriend; he called her his
co-wife. That was his joke, but he
meant it. He wouldn't divorce his
wife... because she was a great
cook. He said he girlfriend made a
spaghetti sauce once and it was so
terrible he knew he could never
marry her. He set her up in a
house in Jersey. She had to be
faithful... and she had to have kids.
And she did, two, a boy and a girl.
He had her checked out and watched
so she couldn't cheat... but the
girl couldn't stand that kind of
life. She begged him to let her go.
He did. He gave her money and made
her give up the kids. Then Frankie
took them to Italy, and had them
brought up by his brother Vincenzo.
Where he knew they'd by safe.
Kay begins to realize.
MICHAEL
When he saw his brother in the
hearing room, he knew what was at
stake.
(pause)
I don't think Vincenzo would have
done it. He loves the kids, too.
Omerta, Kay. Honor, silence. It
had nothing to do with me. It was
between those brothers.
It was made clear that Frank Pentangeli’s brother could not speak or understand English. The whole purpose of bringing him to the trial was to send a message to Frank. The brother was just a prop to get the message across.
Michael couldn’t get to Frankie. He was smart enough to figure out a way where he didn’t have to do anything. It was between the brothers.
That doesn’t make your case any stronger. There is either canon or there isn’t. All I can say is Puzo and Coppola didn’t think as much of what was initially in the script as you do, so I’ll go with what they decided to show instead of what they decided not to show.
Nothing in the final cut backs it up, either. And I’m going by more that just his expression. You add in the deer-in-the-headlights look with Tom later telling Frankie, repeatedly, “don’t worry” about Vincenzo (what’s to worry about if Vincenzo is some tough mafioso who isn’t in any danger?) and, most importantly probably, with the overarching theme of how Michael is a blunter instrument than Vito, and the sum of the parts points closer to Michael threatening Vincenzo’s life.
You can have your opinion even if it contradicts the author and just about every other cite I’ve looked up. It was between the brothers Kaye.
And you can have your opinion even if the director and the writer completely dropped it from inclusion in the film. Whoop-de-doo.
What “cites” have you looked up that aren’t just opinion or discussion pieces just like we’re doing here?
There are two possibilities
1: Michael: “we can get to anyone”
2: The Brother: “You’re gonna be a rat? You gonna bring shame to our family? Fine. Do it right in front of me. Do it. And look me in the eye while you answer the questions “
I lean towards the latter.
Slightly different subject. The whole assasination attempt “Michael Corleone sends his regards” foiled by cop thing is just a mess. So Michael just let him believe Michael was behind it? I’ll bet he could have convinced him he (Michael) had nothing to do with it.
It’s pretty well established with Mikey, despite the adage ‘don’t take it personal’….”it’s always personal”
But I wonder if his father felt that way too
Ridley Scott is a brilliant but somewhat erratic director, who’s prone to the occasional bad decision. My guess is that the instinct that made him retcon Deckard into a replicant is the same instinct that caused him to make Alien: Covenant.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen it, but as I recall, Pentangelli approached Michael at the christening party and asks for his help defending his territory in New York. Michael doesn’t help, but asks Pentangelli for help in his plan to cozy up to Hyman Roth. While carrying out that request, Pentangelli is almost killed. Do I have that about right?
Which makes Michael quite a slimy bastard. He wants to appeal to Pentangelli’s loyalty to not testify against him; but where was his loyalty to Pentangelli when it was needed?
“Yeah, I’ll bet you have.”
Han shot first.
This one may not fit this category, but it’s the question that brought me to the Dope in the first place if you were wondering who to blame for that. What happens to Shane at the end of the movie? (The movie is called Shane if you are unaware). He was shot in the big finale, rides off into the sunset, and as the movie closes he seems to slump over in the saddle. It’s not real clear in the movie, there was no Shane 2 made that would clear it up. The general consensus based on the book (which I’ve never read) is that it’s supposed to be unclear, the reader and viewer are to draw their own conclusions. That’s unsatisfactory to me. He’s not Schrodenger’s gunfighter, he’s either alive or dead. If he wasn’t dying why would he leave town? Some say he didn’t leave because he was dying but because his world was over, there was no place for a gunfighter anymore. Others say he was dying but didn’t want the little kid to find out. Why he left doesn’t matter to me, I’m pretty sure he slumped over dead in the final scene.
That belief and/or ignorance that Han wouldn’t shoot first is held by the director. Is it possible that an artist doesn’t understand his own art? Absolutely!
Case in point: the writer of Blade Runner was talking to Scott about how Deckard was worried about “meeting his maker” (meaning God) but Scott heard “Maker? You mean Deckard is a replicant? Brilliant!” and he runs off with the writer mumbling “Wait…that’s not what I meant…”
I get Bladerunner the movie mixed up with the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? on which it is based. But I don’t remember there ever being an implication in the book that Deckard was a replicant. In the book, Rachael betrays Deckard and he reluctantly kills her (or a replicant that looks like her? I seem to remember she seduced him so he would find it hard to kill replicants that looked like her.)
I think the suggestion there is that Rachael is different than Deckard.
It’s a very different story. But an excellent one!
It’s a sadder, even more depressing story, of a sad, empty man with a robot sheep. And, later, a real goat, that gets killed by Rachel.
I actually like the movie better, even with its problems.
I do remember being surprised that the title references literal electric sheep.