Sofia Coppola’s lips are the only reason to watch III.
i need dope on this. a local quiz show asked, “what fruit in the movie ‘the godfather’ portends death?” i didn’t answer but it was supposed to be an orange. you agree? we’re talking about the movie. i read the book and oranges were definitely not puzo’s favorite. in GF2 and 3 maybe but not in GF1.
i can recall the number of times an orange appeared:
GF1:
- connie’s wedding (orange tossed by tesio - no one died)
- fruit vendor (vito was shot)
- garden where vito played with anthony (vito suffered a heart attack)
no orange when paulie died (just canoli,) or when luca brasi died, or when solozzo died, or sonny, or the four heads, or carlo.
GF2:
- michael sucking an orange as he plotted several deaths at the end (pentagelli, roth, fredo)
- the young vito buying an orange from the vendor (no one died)
no orange before the hit attempt at michael’s house, or first attempt at roth, or death of ciccio, or fanuzzi.
GF3:
- orange rolled out from the lazy susan (just before the helicopter opened fire)
- altobello tossed an orange to mosca’s companion (as they plotted to kill michael)
no orange at vinnie’s apartment, or with luchesi, or with keinzig, or with cardinal gilday, or with altobello.
conclusion: badly thought-of question.
GFIII also had Michael drop an orange when he died as a very old, lonely, broken man in the epilogue. Of course by this time it was quite a deliberate choice on the part of the director. Coppola intended nothing with oranges in GFI. (I don’t remember what he said about when he picked up on the the critics talking about the oranges.)
The kid ran through that nice garden. The beautiful tomato plants stood out famously.
I don’t doubt that, but do they actually say he was Sonny’s godfather? Don Tommasino (sic) is a good guess if Michael was a little baby when Vito went back to Sicily. That’s the only way that would have happened.
it does with the book.
Using my faulty memory, I think I recall FFC saying the oranges in GF2 foretold Michael’s diabetes.
Trying to hold fiction to this standard is a non-starter. A silly example, Lucas McCain was portrayed as an honest, upstanding God-fearing man and an excellent father on The Rifleman… except he killed someone in almost every episode.
You didn’t watch the movie very carefully. Fredo clearly states that he is smart.
Usually several people per week. While living on a ranch, miles away from a town of about 200.
Well, in The Rifleman’s case, “they needed killin’” (or at least the audience required to see killing). And when the audience requires a drastic reduction in moral ambiguity if a good movie is to become a franchise, Vito is really making a futile yet heroic effort to keep America drug-free, and both Michael and Hannibal Lecter only kill bad people (and we agree to overlook the girl in the brothel and the nurse whose face was bitten off).
This is actually the second time I watched the movie already. I was prepared to acknowledge that I might just not have enjoyed it the first time.
I liked the backstory scenes because honestly that’s what I liked in the book, too. It was nice to see them brought onto the big screen.
One thing in GF2 that bugs me is a continuity issue with the Senate hearings. They are all in Washington DC, and then the hearing is adjourned IIRC until Monday, so presumably this is on a Friday. Next scene Michael et al are out west talking about Michael having committed perjury. Next scene they’re back in D.C. again. Now back in those days, would it have been realistic to fly back & forth like that in a single weekend? Not to mention somebody going to Sicily to fetch Pentangeli’s brother? Why wouldn’t they have just had the same conversation somewhere in Washington?
My favorite thing about Part 2 is the visual joke Coppola makes at one point, which in trying to relate, I will probably get a lot of details wrong about: Michael and Co. have just arrived (in Havana, I think, but maybe Miami) and are driving to their destination. At one point, they have to go through a lovely square with a big statue of a general on horseback at the center. The camera stays on the car they’re traveling in faithfully that you think maybe a car bomb is about to go off or something, but then, as the camera is following them around the square, it suddenly stops tracking the car and lets it turn and exit the scene while the frame remains still.
Why?
Because the way the picture is framed now leaves only the horse’s head from the statue visible. Shoutout!
I like the whole flashback story, but as I recall I couldn’t really see the basis for the editing, how each “modern” scene specifically related to the “past” scenes shown before and after it. Is there that kind of interplay between the times?
As I recall, there was a DVD version of the trilogy released (but only available briefly) in which all those scenes were presented in their own chronological order, so you could watch the story of young Vito uninterrupted, then old Vito/young Michael, then old Michael. And it occurred to me that that was really the best way to do it, if indeed there was not some cinematic interplay going on in the interleaving of scenes in II.
That was actually a TV miniseries version known as The Godfather Saga. It has never been issued on DVD.
True, but the same could be said for GF2 if you are rooting for Michael.
You’re right, no DVD. Strangely, I was also sort of mistaken about the limited availability, because Amazon has in stock The Godfather Trilogy 1901-1980, apparently the longest/most complete film version of all, in the bulky and expensive form of five VHS tapes.
This.
:eek:
Do any of the book readers remember the subplot of the woman who, in the film, Sonny was fucking up against a door?
I don’t know why that stuck with me all these years. Maybe because when I read it at age 12 it was very exotic to me…
I don’t know. That’s not what people say.
Didn’t it have something to do with her vagina being too tight and needing surgery or something?