Originally posted by JustMe:
Originally posted by Junior:
[b]But, JustMe, you have to admit that you could understand why Michael was acting the way he did.
Why do I have to? You mean, I have to admit even if I couldn't understand why M. was acting the way he did? Sounds like an offer you can't refuse.
Originally posted by Junior:
All you really need to know is that Michael was sad for the sins he did in the past but, as hard as he could, he could not find a way out of it all.
He found it very well in the end of the novel. Then FFC pulled him back in. And from everything we saw in GF2 we may conclude that he felt very good in and never wanted out anymore. And why should he be sad because of his sins? He's not that kind of man. He might regret about Fredo, but the killing of Fredo was the most unnatural thing for the character, it's not my opinion, but Puzo's. "Real Michael" ((c)Lollie ) would never do that.
I don't say that if you, me, FFC, or anybody else were on his place, we wouldn't feel and act in this way. It may be natural for anybody else. It's unnatural for MICHAEL.
Actually, I'm repeating what I wrote thousand times on this subject. Once, last autumn, I think, we had a very substantial exchange with Don Cardi... And so many other 1-2km. posts, I just don't remember the threads. Maybe I'll find you some links later.
Originally posted by Junior:
You can hate the film all you want, but this is the way the story goes and, at least this part was understandable.
But what if the story goes artifically? There are such flaws in action and thought to make this story possible, that cannot be attributed to sadness and found understandable for any reason.
Originally posted by Junior:
Again, remember, its not going to be as natural as the conversion between The Godfather and The Godfather II because it takes place so far after The Godfather II with much of the past left to our imagination.
Shhhhh.... You know what I'll tell ya? Honestly I find the conversion between the 2 and 3 - the sequels - much more natural than that between 1 and 2 films... I hope nobody heard that . [/b]I found the character of Michael to be a very complex, yet still relatable in character. There are many ways to look at him, but I hardly look at him as a simple killer.
Michael, at an earlier age looked very humble and much of an outcast to the family, even more then Fredo it seemed. He wanted to join the army, be just a normal guy.
However, he knew he was the outcast and he knew that his family would never except him as much as Sonny, a respected and feared Mafia member. Now Vito never wanted Michael to be involved in such things, but you can't help but notice that, from all over, Sonny was always
the. I believe that subconciously, he envied this. In some way, I believe that Michael wanted to be a killer, a warrior, like Sonny, and so he entered the army, a much more respectable form of the Mafia, if you think about it.
But even after he was discharged from the army, he still noted to Kay at Connie's wedding "thats my family Kay, thats not me" in relation to the Mafia. He still was ashamed of it, but yet still envied his father and brothers for living the life of a "true" Corleone.
Eventually, when the issue of McClusky and Sollozzo come up, he makes the fatal decision. He could have, as noted by Turnbull, avoided killing the men, but, again subconciously he wanted to do this. Maybe he wanted to make his father proud, or simply be more of a man like Sonny. Either way, though he believed that he was forced into it. From then on, it seems as though he just lived in a little fantasy world. He was a good leader, but insted of being a polititian, he felt that it was his duty to be Don, to keep the Corleone name prominent.
However, by the end of The Godfather II, in that short spot on Michael, alone on a bench, thinking, you can only imagine that he is thinking of all that he lost. Not only Fredo, but Kay, as well. I believe that he was also observing himself as the ruthless killer he never thought he was. Maybe going as far as killing his brother snapped him out of it but from then on, I believe that Michael believed himself to be less then a man of honor, what he saw his brother Sonny or his father to be.
And for the next 20 years I imagine Michael struggling with this revelation. He can't just go legit, it is an impossibility, and it is only in 1979 where he sees his chance. And well, you know the story from there.
I don't see any flaw in character development in that theroy, of course it is just how I perceived it. Maybe you perceived Michael to be completely different in which case the sudden conversion between films would not make sense.
Originally posted by dontomasso:
Originally posted by Don Smitty:
[b]
Originally posted by Junior:
[b] Through the entire trilogy, there is one thing that I have noticed that is a common pattern among the characters. The only two chcracters that lived through all three movies is Mike and his sister, Connie (besides Don Tommasino who is a fairly minor character thoughout the trilogy).
Another
How about Neri? He was in all three movies.
Don Smitty [/b]
Earlier in this thread I noted that Kay is also in all three. So is Johnny Fontaine. Anthony is too, but it is three different actors, and Sofia Coppola is, but she is three different characters.
I am trying to think of who is in GFI and GFIII and can think only of Enzo the Baker. There must be others. [/b]Oh, and sorry for posting twice, but I was only really aiming for the characters that actually evolved through the three movies. You can't really tell Neri's personality do to how small his roles were, same with Lampone. Enzo is not in The Godfather II, and neither is Fontane.
The only three that you can really observe is Michael, Kay, and Connie.