The Godfather: Part III : Pacino is the issue here

Pacino is the issue here

Did anyone get the feeling that Pacino had trouble capturing the essence of his performance from the first two films? In I and II, Michael had a sort of steely, remote nature. There was hardly any emotion at all coming from him. Even his body language was subdued and scarce. Pacino could pull that off then, but by the 90s, Pacino had moved into his loud and boisterous phase. He simply wasn't the same actor. You could tell that he was having trouble keeping it subdued in part III the way he did in the previous movies.

His body language is totally different in this movie. His dialogue is different (cursing, jokes, smiling, laughing, screaming, impassioned monologues). The effect is less Michael Corleone and more Pacino. I get that it's supposed to be an older Michael, perhaps worn out and more embattled with his own demons. It's still way too much of a difference in my mind. He doesn't feel anything like the Michael from the first two films.

Even more than Sophia's terrible acting, it's this thing about part III that really sets this movie apart from the first two.

Re: Pacino is the issue here

Don't forget also that about 20 years passes between II and III. A lot of blood has gone over the bridge, a lot of anxiety, and a lot of uphill walking toward the salvation that is always just out of reach.



The Fabio Principle: Puffy shirts look best on men who look even better without them.

Re: Pacino is the issue here


Don't forget also that about 20 years passes between II and III. A lot of blood has gone over the bridge, a lot of anxiety, and a lot of uphill walking toward the salvation that is always just out of reach.


Agreed, good points. Michael was looking for redemption in this one, regretting the things that he did in the first two films.

"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna `*beep*` wit me!"- Hudson in Aliens.

Re: Pacino is the issue here

I sort of agree with you, and what was very telling to me was Pacino's own Italian-American personality coming thru the character more than the subdued Michael Corleone we saw in Godfather 2. To me the GF3 doesn't add up in terms of Michael's motivation for redemption. The entire grand scheme of buying into the Catholic Church seemed like an odd choice considering the well publicized corruption of the Church itself at this time, so I don't see how Puzo figured that the audience would appreciate Michael's foray into owning a Catholic conglomerate as some sort of "new direction" for him.

Re: Pacino is the issue here

Since I'm not Catholic in any proper sense I don't remember where the Catholic church was at in 1979. The 90s, when this film was made, was definitely a time of discovery of corruption. Which are you referring to?



The Fabio Principle: Puffy shirts look best on men who look even better without them.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Pacino is the issue here

Har har, this the same Martin Luther that damned the Jews for not converting to his personally reblended version of Christianity?

Don't buy the Kool-Aid, kid, look into the real facts.

Re: Pacino is the issue here

One might say that the financial corruption of the Church at the time was exactly what made redemption accessible to Michael: he could buy it.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Pacino is the issue here

The real aging Michael Corleone is shown at the end of GF2, with greying hair as he quietly reflects on his past. GF3 was nothing but a bad dream Coppola had after eating too much linguini.

Re: Pacino is the issue here

I think it's all due to the changes Coppola did with the characters. Some of the personality changes in the third one are a bit hard to swallow really.

Like Michael. Here he goes from this serious powerful Mafia boss to a ill, joking, regretful, religious and loud type.
It isn't a very believable change. The old Michael would never joke in the same way as this Mike. Nor would he be as loud.
Small changes are OK, but this way it feels as if he is a whole new person. To much really!

Maybe Coppola changed the character so that it would fit the new Pacino, the loud one!

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Pacino is the issue here

You, my friend, have hit the nail on the head.

My wife and I were eager to see this movie when it opened on Christmas day, and when the film was over, there was only dead silence from the packed theater. The wife and I were speechless, we refused to talk about what we just watched.

Over the years, I have re-invested time into this 3rd installment, hoping that time and age on my part would make this film any better...it has not.

All of the minor annoyances or changes are tolerable, however, it is Al Pacino's performance that sinks this movie; as KGB states it's more Pacino than Michael Corleone.

What a pity...

Re: Pacino is the issue here

http://everydouchebagandtheirmom.tumblr.com/post/64532853066/the-only-good-scene-in-the-godfather-3

I've always thought that If they would have followed the godfather novel on - this third instalment wouldn't have been half bad - but you're right - Pacino really hammed it up and although I realise now it was not entirely Sofia Coppola's fault that she sucked so bad in this movie - her death scene is still the best part of this movie (see the gif above)

Re: Pacino is the issue here

It's apparent that you aren't a long-term Pacino fan; that or you just aren't incredibly observant. You wrote: "But by the 90s, Pacino had moved into his loud and boisterous phase. He simply wasn't the same actor." Al Pacino's "loud and boisterous phase" is actually Al Pacino's entire film career! Have you NEVER seen The Panic in Needle Park, Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, ...And Justice for All or Scarface?! Al Pacino is one of my favorite actors and he is known for his explosive, impassioned performances. I can't think of any actor that does "boisterous" or "loud" any better than Al Pacino. Pacino's long-time friend, teacher, colleague and great professional influence Lee Strasberg, as well as Pacino himself have made no secret of the fact that Pacino absolutely loves performing those big, loud, over the top, explosive scenes and characters. He loves it and I believe it's one of his greatest trademarks as an actor. It's especially noteworthy because most actors do not do it well. It can very easily come off as "over-acting," so the fire and heart simply must be authentic to the actor that's performing it. Per Dog Day Afternoon, does the dialogue, "Attica! Attica! Attica! Attica!" mean nothing to you?

If you'd watched any of his absolutely amazing performances in any of the aforementioned films (from the 70s up to and including Scarface in the early 80's), you'd know that Pacino's work in The Godfather films is notable because of the amount of restraint demonstrated by Pacino. I imagine that, for Pacino, playing Michael Corleone has been one of the most challenging and exhausting tasks of his career. With exception to a few scenes in the first two Godfather films, Pacino didn't have the luxury of using to his benefit his strong voice and great physicality. He had to hold back, using mostly his eyes to portray such stoic, quiet power. When Michael came into leadership, the soulful innocence in his eyes was replaced with a steely detachment so palpable that it creates a constant, eery tension. It's that tension that makes the second film both enjoyable and uncomfortable for me to watch, as I feel as though I'm holding my breath for the majority of the film. As a person that lives for Pacino's more outrageous, loud performances, I can say that Michael Corleone is NOT among my favorite characters, but Pacino's work as Michael IS some of the most admirable, balanced and brilliant work of his career.

If not for Pacino's dedication and efforts, the character of Michael Corleone could have easily fallen flat and one dimensional. A great example of this is James Caan's performance as Sonny Corleone. Where Caan is an otherwise fine actor, he failed to make Sonny real. Rather than be complimented, James Caan was handicapped by the masterful work of his peers. The contrast is so blatant that it makes Caan's Sonny seem like an awkward caricature. In Caan's defense, many actors have been best served to simply play quietly in the sandbox opposite Marlon Brando and Al Pacino. Not everyone can be as astute as John Cazale, an actor that shined with performances that seemed effortless. In The Godfather I and II, as well as his few other films, Cazale was both a compliment to and complimented by the powerhouse actors with which he played alongside.

Re: Pacino is the issue here

I disagree, James Caan was fantastic as Sonny. His character is all heart - a crude hot-head who acts without thinking, he is violent and impulsive. The script does not ask for a subdued nuanced performance - it requires a loud and brash performance. It was a great contrast to Pacino's performance. To have underplayed Sonny, would have been a disservice to the character. I believe Caan's portrayal was spot on.

For what it's worth, he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor by both The Academy and The Golden Globes..


"Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it." Norman Maclean

Re: Pacino is the issue here

I too always felt Pacino phoned it in for GF3. It's possibly he tried to get into character as Michael, and just wasn't able to, considering it had been over twenty years since he played him, and that the last time he played him, he was younger and he was playing a younger character. First you have to get into character as Michael, then you have to think about what Michael would be like in his fifties, then you have to portray it as realistically as possible. Who said acting was easy? lol.

I have GF3 on my netflix cue. I'm going to get it one more try. This time, I'm going to try to watch it as a stand alone movie, and try not to connect any of it to GF 1 and 2. I'm going to watch it as Puzo and Coppola's take on an aging mob boss in the 1970s trying to go legitimate and get involved with the church.

Re: Pacino is the issue here

I think you are spot on about Pacino.

He is probably trying to suggest that Michael is turning into his own father, but this consists largely of imitating Brando's rasping voice. It is a performance that makes sense in its own terms, but is too big and too demonstrative for either Michael or Vito Corleone.

I don't entirely agree about Sofia Coppola. It is not that her performance is bad, but that it is inappropriate.

She isn't an actress, so she doesn't give an actressy performance. Her unusual features and her natural, unaffected line delivery would work well in the context of a drama-documentary, but in a movie where everybody else is chewing up the scenery she does looks a bit out of place.

Re: Pacino is the issue here


Her unusual features


Just call her ugly, no one will care.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Pacino is the issue here


Did anyone get the feeling that Pacino had trouble capturing the essence of his performance from the first two films?
I came here just now to say exactly the same thing.

I bought the iTunes Bundle (all three in HD for $9.99) and I watched all three of them in a row.

In the third movie, Michael Corleone was just Al Pacino.

In the first movie, he had the haughtiness of a young Prince due to having a wealthy and powerful father. Then he became the dominant Don who was soft with his wife, children and father (unless his wife asked him about his business).

In the first movie, he was downright chilling when he told Carlo that he would have to answer for Santino. I'd be shaking in my boots if someone that powerful started speaking so chillingly quietly while probably plotting to kill me.

In the second movie, he was snapping at almost everyone including his closest employees.

In the third movie, he was Al Pacino.

I didn't really like the third movie much anyway so I hadn't seen it in a long time.

Now I'm remembering why.

Re: Pacino is the issue here



In the first movie, he had the haughtiness of a young Prince due to having a wealthy and powerful father.


Are you kidding me? In the first movie, he starts out as this unassuming, humble, kind of nerdy kid that wants to do things his own way. There's absolutely no 'haughtiness'. His father and older brother want to keep him out of the army, but he goes anyway. He doesn't want anything to do with his family. He's sweet, quiet and unassuming, but also confident, headstrong and determinate. Those last three qualities will serve him well when he his to step in, against his own plans, after his father gets shot and he's the only guy with a plan. But he certainly didn't start out as a 'haughty' little prince.

Re: Pacino is the issue here

Good point, it does feel like he wants to belt out a HOO HAH! or perhaps a "*beep* YOU, AND *beep* THE DIAZ BROTHERS!"

Re: Pacino is the issue here

Exactly, and then snort from a huge pile of coke on his desk.

Re: Pacino is the issue here

Can I quote you on this? *beep* gold!

Ma-HAUUUUAAAHAGGHHH the French... champagne has always been celebrated for its excellence.

Re: Pacino is the issue here

You're being far too harsh on Pacino here. As usual his acting was top drawer. He portrayed the character as the script called for it.

Coppola and the writers are to blame.

The directing and production is the reason there wasn't a believable performance in GFIII. The pacing of the story, the less attention to detail in the background, resulted in a lack of immersion and the characters became less believable.

The film was rushed and it really shows.

Re: Pacino is the issue here

Agree totally.

I hardly view part III as a Godfather movie really. There's almost nothing in common with part I and II. And Michael is just totally different person. It's not Michael Corleone, it's Al Pacino.

This movie was just a cashgrab, and even Coppola recently admitted it. Sad really.

Re: Pacino is the issue here

Pacino was never the same after Scarface. He has an incredible need to shout. It definitely didnt feel like Michael Corleone.

Re: Pacino is the issue here

Coincidentally around the same time his voice changed, you mean? He's always shouted and had explosive moments, and he has a naturally loud voice, it just became less palatable after the 80s when his smoking caught up with him.


He explodes at least a couple of times in Godfather II ("Can't you just give me a straight answer anymore!!! Was it a boy!!!! and in the big argument with Kay scene). But nobody seems to mind.

___
There are two kinds of people in the world, those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.

Re: Pacino is the issue here

My thought exactly. I just saw III for the first time (watching all three movies back to back).

And III seemed like Pacino playing Pacino rather than Michael Corleone. It's like he simply forgot who the character was that he played a couple decades earlier.

Re: Pacino is the issue here

Agreed. I couldn't connect Pacino with the character he played in the two previous installments. It just seemed like Al Pacino to me. This happens when an actor becomes really huge; they tend to become parodies of themselves. Like Brad Pitt. The audience can no longer forget that it's Pacino or Brad Pitt or DeNiro on screen. Another thing that separates this film from the other two, is it's completely different look. This movie looks garish, and quite phony. The first two films were incredibly beautiful to look at. I feel like this was just a "cash-in.."

"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'

Re: Pacino is the issue here

He is acting , twenty years older, twenty years wiser, regrets, thinking of the past and what cannot be undone!

Re: Pacino is the issue here

I couldn't agree more.

People just don't change that much - right down to body language. An even if they did, with a movie character you'd want him/her to be recognizable across movies. Pacino wasn't.


-----------------------
"The best fairytale is one where you believe the people" -Irvin Kershner

Re: Pacino is the issue here

I think people are just seeing Al Pacino instead of Michael Corleone, because they are relating Al Pacino's appearance, demeanor, and voice with the characters he portrayed in other movies filmed in the 90s. It is the viewer that has the disconnect with the actor, not the character.

I just watched all 3 movies, and Pacino played Corleone as anyone would expect a character who is going through self reflection and redemption. Like Vito, Michael began to further legitimize his business, and to do so requires a change in character. His father began losing his reputation with the other families, appearing soft, more humble, and lacking the enforcement he once had. Michael appeared the same with his age and past successes.

Throughout the 3rd movie, Michael questions why he was so feared as opposed to being so loved like Tommasino. Michael connects with his old self, and he feels revulsion for his cold history. He is not interested in the mafia life anymore, and he lost the trust and faith of Kay and his kids because of his past dealings. That changes a person when they reflect on their actions.

No one questions the change in character for Vito Corleone as an old man buying produce from a street side vendor in Godfather 1, when he used to be that young Don who stroke fear and retaliation to those who did not do his bidding, or were his sworn enemies. Such a change in character happened for Vito as it did for Michael. Appreciating that, makes Godfather III an enjoyable film.

Re: Pacino is the issue here

Very good comment! Agreed.

Re: Pacino is the issue here

Vito didn't change his manner of speaking or general behaviour, he just became an old man. Pacino's character seems like a different person altogether.

Re: Pacino is the issue here

I totally agree with you, I actually looked up this board to start a similar topic. He was so stylish in the first two movies, he looked good, awesome hair. He looks like a mad-man in part III, I think that a man of his stature (talking about Michael Corleone) would be able to afford a good hairdresser and find some value in looking presentable. anyway, I really disliked his crazy hair ;)

Re: Pacino is the issue here

The movie was just not street at all. That is the problem.

Let Al scream and yell. Who cares, just give a supporting cast to work with. He is a gangster, not a doctor. He is supposed to get a little crazy.

The whole thing was bad. It was a wasted performance. Al was not Michael, because he did not have the cast around him to be Michael. No familiar faces. All of the characters around him sucked. Connie is advising Mike? Seriously? And what is up the guy with the Florida tan and Marilyn Monroe mole? Is he
supposed to be the new Tom Hagen. Get him outta here. George Hamilton. C'mon...man. Is he really mafia?

All this whining with Kaye and his son and daughter. No dice with me. And Vincent? He sucked too. All these random villains. "Immobiliare", I am just figuring out what that is. Nephew dating his cousin. Who cares! Al acted great...but it was not well written, we wasted time in Sicily with Kaye and all that Church crowd. He wasted time with Vincent and Kaye and Connie. Kaye is mad at Mike. Do I want to see that on film? No! I get it, but put all that in the book and give me the good stuff.

Maaaaan, if I could redo that movie I take it back to the NYC baby, get back to the streets. GF3 should have had a Donny Brasco feel to it. A Bronx Tale, vibe. Tough guys...more Joey Zaza. More..."everytime I think I'm out...they pull me back in." More war. GF2 was awesome and sophisticated (but the streets were there)... GD1 was straight up street and hard. Take it back to the bricks. You can't do wine and cheese each time. Sometimes hamburger and fries is the answer.


GF3 should have been Mike as Big Paulie Castellano and some great young actor as Johnny Boy Gotti. Take GD3 back to the streets of NYC. Then you can deal with his personal demons.


Re: Pacino is the issue here

Psychologically, he's not the same man.

Not only because of the sheer passage of time, but the very final scene of the previous film (Part II) showed him with everything dying around him. He's alone, and all his efforts have failed.

The third film starts at that point. In many ways, his horizons have shrunk, and he's afraid to try anything in the vein of who he once was, because he doesn't trust the outcome and he doesn't trust himself to be able to manage it. Why would he, when everything else has failed? He's closed down everything from that former life -- the casinos, the hotels, the gambling, the prostitution -- and put his efforts into legitimate business. And succeeded ... for a time. Until he discovers that the same kind of opportunists, murderers and liars riddle the banks and the church as well. And then he really discovers how powerless he is.

I think Pacino does fine, charting a course through that, and I personally have no trouble believing he's the outcome of the same man we saw in the first two films.

The problem for me is the script. It's dreadfully wooden at times, so obvious, colourless and without the invention or verve of the first two. It's not hard to tell that Coppola's heart wasn't in it.



You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

Re: Pacino is the issue here

I couldn't agree more with everything the OP said. The film does have other issues though.


You want something corny? You got it!
Top