In our wonderment at how brilliant the film is, we tend to sometimes overlook some of the silly or poorly written dialogue that that it contains.

I once questioned Tom's comment to Vito during Connie's wedding:

"Now your son-in-law; we give him something important?"

Makes no sense to me. Connie and Carlo have been engaged, presumably for months, and it's hard to believe that the subject of a place in the family business for Carlo had never come up before the actual day that he and Connie were married.

Here's another:

When Michael returns from Sicily and sees Kay for the first time in New Hampshire, she asks him "How long have you been back?".

And Michael replies:

"I've been back a year - longer than that, I think."

The guy just returned from a 2+ year exile in Sicily, and he wasn't immediately sure exactly how long he'd been back?

If it were me, I would've said something like "I got back last August, so it's been a litle more than year" or "About thirteen months" or whatever.

Don't you think that if it were you, you'd know exactly, almost to the day, how long you'd been home?

I think one of the strongest features of the film is that little or no dialogue is wasted. Every line and word has a purpose and often reveals more if scrutinized more closely.

When Tom makes the line, we are being shown how the family draws up the barriers on Carlo, whilst appearing on the surface to embrace him. Vito makes it abundantly clear that he is not part of the family despite seeming to qualify by default through marriage. The other aspect of this line is to show that Tom, for all his efficiency, is not a natural leader and even has his flaws as a consigliere. So, for the price of an apparently innocuous line we get two themes that develop as the plot unfolds.

Michael's line about being back is partly for the benefit of the viewer. We make a very rapid time jump from the time of Apollonia's death to this point in time, and this statement prepares the audience for interim change. Of course this is revealed by Michael's change into a rather more calculating and infinitely less spontaneous character. Also, we see what has happened merely through the family meetings with Michael at the chair - so we get a snapshot of the year's events without any recourse to ponderous process of documenting the change. The brevity of saying a year is merely to show how unimportant the actual time lapse is. Any further detail is irrelevant and hence unnecessary.

I would add, however, that whilst the economy of dialogue is impressive, the scene described with Kay and Michael is one of my least favourites of the two films. It is essential to bring Kay back into the plot, but as a whole and despite beautiful cinematography (for most scenes they wear contrasting colours to show the different worlds they inhabit), the overall dialogue in this scene is contrived and this part has been butchered somewhat for the sake of the grander theme. Strangely enough, I think it would have worked better with less dialogue, more atmosphere and more dewy-eyed stares, but I'd still keep that line about being back for a year.

I understand the necessity for both bits of dialogue, and I agree with your analysis 100%; you're right on the mark.

What I'm questioning here is how what the characters are saying here just doesn't seem to ring true to me.

I would think that prior to the wedding, Carlo's joining the family would've been a hot topic among Vito and Tom, and even Sonny.

Possibly even Clemenza (an expert in matters of personnel, according to the book) and Tessio would have been consulted, or perhaps brought up the subject themselves.

And as it was Don Corleone's intention that Carlo not be given something important, certainly his wishes would have been know by the time Connie's wedding day rolled around.

And how about Carlo? I imagine that he had some kind of job at the time of the wedding. The book mentioned something about construction work, I believe. He must have expressed a desire to join the family business prior to the wedding; otherwise Hagen was making a rather broad assumption, and an uncharacteristic one for a consigliere.

So when Carlo made his wishes known, it's inconceivable that the matter was not discussed by the Corleone brain trust.

As for Michael, again: How did he not know to the day how long he'd been back?

The funniest to me is:

Kay: "Michael, is it true?"
Michael: "Don't ask me about my business Kay."
Kay: Is it true?"
Micahel: "Don't ask me about my business."
Kay: "No...."
Michael: "Enough!".... "Alright. This one time.- This one time I'll let you ask me about my business."
Kay: "Is it true?" "Is it?"
Michael: "No"
Kay: (relieved) "I guess we both need a drink, huh?"

Yea I was thinking about that myself Neal. Why did they HAVE to give him a job? Is it possible they did that so Connie can live comfortable. I mean I thought that was a nice apt. or house they lived in.

At the hospital where Michael says, I'm with you now, Pop. I'm with you now. Or when he says After we make the move to Nevada, after we make the move. Sometimes it seems like they actually ran out of dialogue and had to improvise. There's a lot of redundancy like, don't ask me about my business, Kay, don't ask me about my business. Just a slight pet peeve of mine about the movie. Other than that, it was and is great.

My 2 favorite "funny" lines:

1) Kay: The sicker you get, the wiser you get, huh?
Michael: When I'm dead I'm gonna be really smart.


2) Michael: Maybe they should fear YOU!

Maybe you should read all of the posts from this past topic :

http://www.gangsterbb.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004828

You may realize that the line you currently think is a silly line, is really a turning point in the movie for Michael and The Corleones. After you Read those posts, please tell me if you still feel that it was a silly line in the movie.


Don Cardi

The concept of this thread was poorly explained, and for that I must take the blame.

The idea was not to point out dialogue that was "silly" - which I erred in calling it - or funny.

It was to point out that was was said didn't ring true in terms of plot (as in the Carlo example), or in terms of the character (as in the Michael example).

Don Cardi is 100% correct: Michael's "I'm with you now, Pop" is a key line, and it comes at a turning point for Michael.

On the other hand, I don't think that exgigirl is disputing that point.

She is merely pointing out her "pet peeve": three examples of how the characters repeat themselves.

But there is nothing in any of those three lines that doesn't make sense in terms of plot or the character's personalities.

And I agre with DMC. Michael's lines to Connie ("Maybe they should fear you)") and Kay ("When I'm dead I'm gonna be really smart") are funny lines.

But they are meant to be funny.

I don't know if I'm explaining this very well.....

Yes plaw that whole scene with Michael & Kay isn't great and that line "about a year...longer I think" has always irked me as well. Maybe Al Pacino was having difficulty following the timeline as many of us here have had!! That scene though does contain the "who's being naive now Kay?" which is a favourite (sp?) of mine.

Well, it could be that Michael was trying to fudge the date so that Kay, who had been languishing in New England spinsterhood since Michael's departure, wouldn't say - Well, you took your sweet time getting up here!! Michael's reason for seeking Kay out is to woo and marry her. Saying I've been back a year, maybe longer may sound better in his mind than - Oh, I've been back 18 months, but I've been too busy learning how to run a crime family to get in touch with you, but now I'm ready to settle down and produce sons - Whadda ya say???

Sorta like he wanted to minimize the time he'd been back so as not to insult Kay, but adding the "longer than that, I think" part as kind of an afterthought, just in case Kay found out later how long he actually had been back?

Could be....

In the scene after Vito is shot and everyone is at the Mall wondering about the whereabouts of Luca Brasi (just before the fishes scene), someone says that he's "probably shacked up someplace." I always thought that was a bit of a reach. Luca was a lot of things but a horn dog didnt seem to be one of them. I would imagine Luca spending his time doing a lot of things, but being "shacked up" was not one of them.

I'm sure he had the normal male urges.

I'd agree, though, that the ladies were probably not beating a path to his door, he being the ugly bastard that he was, but perhaps he spent his time with pros.

In the book, reference is made to his taking up with one of Bruno Tattaglia's "top call girls". It is described as a "week-long affair" however, so it isn't clear whether he was seeing her on a professional basis or not.

Another one that never made a lot of sense is the scene in Sonny's apartment after the Don is shot. Clemenza comes in and he says the word on the street is that the Don is already dead and Sonny gets angry. After he calms down Clemenza asks Sonny if he needs any "people" to come to the house (to be guards) and Sonny says no. Then a miunute later he tells his wife "some people are coming over here."

Unless this is some sign he didnt trust Clemenza and had his own men, why would he have told Clemenza he deeded no one, and then tell his wife people were coming?

That's exactly what had happened.

At that point, Sonny had not yet obtained the telephone records proving the Paulie Gatto connection, and was unsure whether or not Clemenza was involved in the plot.

So the men to whom he referred were those of Tessio's regime

That whole business is explained in detail in the book.

Ah well...so are silly quotes from GF III allowed in this or is that too much of a fish in the barrel thing?

I really misused the word "silly" in the thread's title.

My later description of where I was hoping this would go was much better.

I hadn't even thought about GF III because I don't practically know the movie by heart, but there must be many.

Go for it.

"Would somebody please hail Mary? Oh excuse me Your Excellency."

Maybe "silly" isn't the best way to describe it, but I always found the scene odd where Kay comes to visit the compound and is met by Tom. "What was that?" Kay asks. "That was an accident, but nobody was hurt" responds Hagen. To me, that scene makes very little sense as to the context of the film.

Two other bits of dialogue --- when Michael leaves Sonny promises him that "when the time is right" he will get word to Kay about Michael's safety. Later, when Kay comes to the compound all distraught, Tom meets her and refuses to accept a letter from her because, he claims if he took it from her it could be proven in a court of law that he knew where Mike was. How could that be? Cetainly Tom could have done a CYA tactic of some kind to placate Kay. And then he was not even enough of a gentleman to see to it that she got a cab out of there until she asked.

I think we may just say "GF3". Whole. It's very existence.
And proceed with other movies, that contain supposedly some dialogue with different characteristics, for contrast.

Awkward, silly, out of context, doesn't fit, whatever......

In GF 2, Kay pulls up to the compound gate in the car to leave with the kids. She's stopped and Tom explains why she can't leave. Then she walks back to the house. Why not drive? What, Kay can't drive backwards.

When Sonny's body is brought to Bonasera's, Vito's first line is, "Are you ready to do a service?" Just a clumsy line.

Maybe the house was fairly close to the gate, but the garage was much further away.

One of my favorite line is this very one! Powerful!!!

Almost all narrative references are, when analysed, superfluous and silly. It doesn't just apply to this movie. But I expect you'd already know that, Plaw; I'm just giving some light on writing film narrative anyway. Important, essential, even, pieces of dialogue which give context to the scene we're watching, but really show how artificial a scripted film is.

I couldn't stop laughing at your opening post, Plaw. It voiced much of my hitherto unexposed unconscious awareness of how fussy Coppola and Puzo's script is.

"Senator Corleone... Governor Corleone..."
The stupidest thing I ever heard from a smaht man!

When Tom is giving Sonny reasons not to go to war with the other families he says what year it is. What does that have to do with anything?

What I don't get about Michael's dialogue is the amount of swearing he does in GF3. In GF1 and 2, he never swore, as if it were beneath him. He was always articulate and maintained a veneer of professionalism, even if his profession was crime. It gave him an outward show of the respectability he craved.

So why, by GF3, when he's still seeking respectability (and furthermore, God's redemption) does he become more potty-mouthed?

I know there were more cinematic liberties in 1990 compared to 1972; but, when it came to Michael, I think Coppola should have indulged less in those freedoms and instead focused on maintaining Michael's character.

Of course certain lines of dialogue are necessary to advance the plot, as we can't be privy to the character's thoughts as we can in a book.

My first example, Tom's comment to Vito re: Carlo was necessary to indicate to us Vito's feelings about his new son-in-law, but don't you think it could have been more realistically worded so it didn't sound like they were discussing this for the first time ever?

Like maybe:

TOM: Now your new son-inlaw....I've arranged for him to take over that book we have on the east side.
VITO: Good. I don't want him to ever be given anything important.

And as for Michae's comment to Kay about how long he'd been back, it was necessary for us to know when the scene was taking place and to fast forward the action in the movie through that year or so he'd been home.

But it still sounds dumb to me that he seemingly couldn't give Kay an exact answer unless, for some reason, he didn't want her to know.