Brando slated for "flashback" scene in II...

...but he failed to show up for that one day's shoot. So Coppola rewrote the script.

I guess we don't have the original script to look at, but I'm assuming all of Sonny's words to Michael were gonna be Vito's words to Michael?

If so, then Sonny's screen time would have only been him introducing Carlo to Connie (in 1941 - then married in 1945...damn, that's a pretty long courtship for the 40s), hardly worth the big salary Paramount promised him.

This is the original script with Brando as the older Vito and Clemenza (who wasn't replaced by Pentangeli yet).

http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/godfather2.html

I'm not entirely sure, but this is I believe the official final draft.

But nevertheless Coppola had to change the scenes with Brando and Castellano at the last minute.

Thanks for that script link, Sonny!

BTW: Sure enough, it confirms an anomaly I referred to earlier in another thread:

Some years ago, a sharp-eyed poster spotted the Senate lawyer Questadt in the scene where Michael, Roth and the US businessmen are meeting with Batista. Questadt is sitting right behind Roth. Obviously, if Michael had seen him there, associated with Roth, he'd never have perjured himself at the Senate hearing. I guessed at the time that Questadt had been part of an earlier script that was later abandoned. Sure enough, Questadt shows up in the script you linked into, as one of the guests at Michael's nightclub table on New Year's Eve. FFC either didn't notice Questadt in the Batista scene when he did the final cut, or else thought no one would notice. He hadn't anticipated this Board...

That script, for the flashback scene, would have been a masterstroke for II. Too bad Brando had to be a buttmunch.

I totally disagee.

I think the ending in the film was much better. Much subtler and more succinct. Plus, focusing on the brothers really hits home after the death of Fredo.

Fredo was so "wooden." He lacked the electricity that Sonny (James Caan) had. I wonder why they made Fredo such a "dull" character. He dies, sure, but I don't think anyone cared about it as MUCH as they cared about Santino (audience wise).

I disagree. Sonny, while engaging, was a psychopath. He had a bad temper and he got his hands dirty. He would kill or order deaths on a whim (ie, Bruno Tattaglia), just because he was pissed off. He was knee-deep in the violent side of the family business and it was no shock when he came to a violent end.

On the other hand, Fredo was sweet and stupid and begging for love and attention. In his way, he was a far more sympathetic character.

Yeah, thanks Sonny. I posted that script a few years ago, then the link disappeared for some reason. There's a really interesting conversation near the end of the script between Sandra (Sonny's widow) and Tom. It strongly suggests an affair between the two. This makes sense of Michael's cold hearted remark to Tom in the boathouse: "You can take your wife and your mistress..." Obviously, Michael didn't approve, giving him another reason to resent Tom (and for treating him like shit).

"They hit us, so we hit them back."

That's the nature of the business - the Family Business. Santino was not a psychopath - he never got his hands dirty, so far as I know. I read the novel, but don't get a notion that Santino actually committed murder by his own hand. Ordering hits is another thing. It's almost like a game.

Bruno Tattaglia murdered Luca. Bruno was no saint. Santino's mission was to protect the Family, and that's what he was doing. Calling him a psychopath is a little much. Do you view Vito the same way?

Michael is some piece of work. Tom Hagen worked for years with Vito, and Vito treated Tom as an "equal," generally speaking. Michael was a pissant for many years, and now all of a sudden he's judging everybody. If Michael had been assassinated in II, I don't think I'd have given a shit. They wrote Michael as a cold fish, and I don't think he would have ever warranted any sympathy.

Do I think that calling Sonny a psychopath is a bit much? No, because he was one. Psychopaths are likable and charming. They do, however, lack empathy or guilt. They often act in a reckless and irresponsible manner, sometimes just for the fun of it. Who was banging a bridesmaid at his sister's wedding in front of his wife, his children, the entire family? That's not someone who indulges in high-risk behavior for fun?

Psychopaths are violent by nature, they act impulsively, they are short-tempered. They refuse to accept the consequences of their actions, often blaming others (Pop had Genco; look what I got). The don't learn from their mistakes (just as Sonny never learned to curb his temper), they don't benefit from negative feedback and they can't stop their impulses.

He gave Tom a lot of shit, but you never got the sense that Sonny would murder Tom. Shoot, after he said what he said to Tom, he quickly took it back and said he didn't mean it (even if he did). Apologizing shows empathy, don't you think? Sonny was impulsive, sure, but he showed a LOT of empathy - he showed it when Michael was leaving to meet Sollozzo. Sonny had a lot of love for his family, and I don't think he'd ever whack anyone like Michael did.

with that said, wouldn't you call Michael and Vito psychopaths, too? Or just sociopaths?

Not to mention, it was a war. Did you expect Sonny to be a pacifist during a gangwar? Vito said Tattagia could never have outfought Santino, which means to me that Vito approved of Sonny's aggressiveness. Santino was through it before (as he reminded Michael in the deleted scene I love the most).

Santino was the acting-Don while Vito was out of commission. I think Santino was justified in offing Bruno, as well as all the button men out there doing what they had to do. Sonny was a General, and like Bugsy Siegel once allegedly said, "we only kill each other."

Did you expect Sonny not to do anything during this war?

I think Sonny did do hits personally. I believe that the book states that he came in under Clemenza and showed a preference for the gun instead of the garotte.

But in the part where the Don is temporarily out of commission during the "Irish war" I'm pretty sure that it states something along the lines of (paraphrasing)- "Sonny showed a genius for urban warfare and made a name for himself as the most cunning and relentless executioner the underworld had yet seen, though for sheer terror he was surpassed by Luca Brasi".

Carlo is said to be quite aware and be very afraid that Sonny would kill him naturally, like an animal and think nothing of it. He envies Sonny that. And Hagen thinks of Sonny kindly and thinks that the fact that he was a violent and cruel murderer was irrelevant. In book remember that Sonny volunteers to be the one to meet with Sollozzo and Hagen dismisses it b/c Sollozzo wouldn't be stupid enough to let Sonny within a mile of him.

No. It's worse: Hitler.

While I never personally thought of Santino as a 'psychopath', SB is justified in that definition.

Think about it, not just the boffing of Lucy at his sister's wedding, the hit on Bruno Tattaglia (after no murder committed and Michael being slugged by a cop), not listening to Tom's reasoning on 'the war' the day Vito returns home, the merciless beating of Carlo in defense of his sister...and finally rushing to his ultimate demise on the causeway...all pretty much indicate the same mindset.

Had he not been hit when he was it was only a matter of time and he may have caused alot of damage, leading to a much longer war in the meantime.

Your point is well taken SB. And I don't totally disagree with you about some of the acts that Sonny made as being those of a psychopath. Yes he was impulsive, unstable at times and violent. Psychopaths are also known to be extremely anti social and guiltless of their actions. Sonny showed guilt on several occasions after impulsively lashing out, etc. But I'll admit that an argument can be made on both sides regarding his feelings of guilt.

However Sonny was in no way anti-social by any means and in that alone I find it hard to categorize Sonny as a total psychopath.

A strong argument, at least for me, is that Sonny was a very temperamental guy and by being so he showed his emotions.

Psychopaths are generally calm and usually don't show any sign of emotions.

Are Generals psychopaths? Captains? Commanders?

Santino had a job to do, and that job was to win, goddamn it!

Sure Santino beat up Carlo! Who wouldn't? The guy was a skeezer, a scumbag who beats up women (and probably children, if nobody's looking).

Sure he hit Bruno Tattaglia, it was a war.

Sure he ordered the murder of Paulie Gatto - the man set up his father to be killed.

I mean, c'mon. Santino had plenty of provokions (if that's not a real word, it ought to be).

His one true fault is that he can't keep his donkey in his pants. But that doesn't make him a psychopath. A bad husband, maybe.

It was not that he couldn't keep it in his pants. It was the WAY he did it. He couldn't have made a date with Lucy for the week after the wedding? He had to have her in his parent's house, flaunting it in front of his wife, with his entire family there? In front of his children?? Disgusting. How can that be the action of a man that experiences true guilt?

As for Generals and Commanders? Of course they're psychopaths. I'm sure that lots of CEOs are as well. Psychopathic tendencies don't necessarily mean that someone is what is more popularly known now as an anti-social personality, such as a serial killer. Sonny wasn't quite in that category, but he was far more ruthless than his charming exterior would allow.

And why shouldn't he have beat up Carlo? Because it led to his own death. By acting impulsively, out of bad temper, Sonny showed Barzini that he could be gotten to, and it worked, didn't it? He allowed his temper to get the better of him, a fatal mistake that Michael or Vito surely would never make.

If that's the way you look at it then 50% of all the people in the world are psychopaths.

Yes, like every professional murderer.

50% of the people in the world are violent, impulsive and ruthless risk-takers??

True...but take the 'Pop had Genco, look what I got..." argument, where Tom pointed out the Family couldn't do any business. Sonny's response was, 'Neither can they...!" Which indicates there was a bit more than merely winning on his mind.



Sure, and frankly Carlo deserved the beating. But considering the circumstances...a more rational 'acting Don' might've not been so public and severe about it. Sonny was not just any protective older brother.



And...in the words of his own father, 'A bad Don...rest in peace.'

Like what? Sounds to me like Sonny was being a strategist - sort of a stalemate with the 'neither can they,' and Sonny was playing the odds that if we can't do business, and they can't do business, then business will have to suffer. And why? Because it was always personal with Sonny.





Sonny was emotional, and he was impulsive BECAUSE he had a big heart. Maybe Vito and Michael would have done it different, but that's what made Sonny special. He wore his heart on his sleve, and the public display of beating up Carlo said much in that regard.

And it shouldn't have been.



Sure, he had a big heart, and he was 'special'. Doesn't mean he didn't repeatedly display psychotic behavior, even if he arguably wasn't an outright psychopath.

He did things differently than Vito & Michael would have...and that's why under his watch business suffered and he ended up dead.

You are brutal, AppleOnYa. From the way you're talking, you'd think Sonny did something personal to you! LOL.

But the thing of it is - it was all personal, every last bit of it. I even think Mario Puzo made mention of this in the novel.

And Michael, most of all, took everything personally - expecially in Part II. His reaction to Kay's abortion; Fredo; Tom's offers of recruitment - all of it.

Michael took 'everything' personally? All of it?

How would you feel if your wife had just spewed that she had intentionally aborted your child, behind your back, adding that she didn't want to bring another of your sons into this world...and up to this moment had led you and everyone else to believe it had been a miscarriage?

How would you feel if you had just come to the realization that your own brother had conspired against you with a known enemy and even if he didn't intend it very nearly had you and possibly your wife murdered in the process?

True, Michael intentionally embarrassed Tom in front of Rocco & Al...not to defend this but by then he had been betrayed by just about everyone he had once trusted. Unfortunately, the ever-loyal Tom was put in his place for merely attempting to offer his opinion.

So bottom line I suppose is that both Sonny & Michael took certain things 'personally'. But they reacted in different ways, because even though brothers they were different people. To compare them I believe is quite useless although it does provide some entertaining moments.

In potential, I wouldn't be surprised at all.

Our entire history is full of violence, warfare, slaughter etc.