Differences between book and film

I read The Godfaher novel a long time ago so I don't remember it all by heart. I saw the film first before I read the book and one thing I noticed about the book it gave more details about other characters in the story like Johnny Fontane and Lucy Mancini, the woman that Sonny was having an affair with. I think because the novel digged deeper into other characters this makes the book even more interesting than the film.

I had seen the movie many times before I read the book, and I thought the whole Johnny-Lucy storyline was a waste the first time I read it. I think it would be impossible to pull all of that material into the 2 hours of a movie, and that Coppolla did a near-perfect job of what to keep and what leave.

That said, I don't mind those passages so much now. They're kind of a time capsule of the Sixties.

The novel, while crudely written compared with the polish of the film, did have many interesting and useful details and side stories that didn't appear in the film. The best were: the Bocchicchio Family and how they helped Michael return from Sicily; Neri's background and recruitment; Sonny and the boiler inspectors; Vito's war with Maranzano. I could have done without all that Lucy/Jules crap (a flimsy vehicle for Puzo to describe her gynecological operation); all of Nino, and nearly all of Johnny following Connie's wedding. Most of that was Puzo's way of showing off what he learned about Hollywood. That Hollywood BS ruined "The Last Don."

What TB wrote.
The book could have used some stronger editing.

The Luca story really struck me when I read it.

The discussion over on the movie side brings to mind two things about Luca that are more developed in the book. The first is that Vito is not entirely comfortable with Luca. The second is that Vito's insight is that Luca is essentially suicidal. When he sends Luca to spy on the Tataglias, Vito has probably been resigned for many years that some day Luca would not come back, and Vito probably doesn't see that as such a bad thing.

The Luca backstory is really interesting. I think if the movie were remade today it might include some of that. The thing is that Luca is scarier/more of a cipher in the movie because we don't know much about him and that if we did know more about him it would have reduced sympathy for/identification with the Corleones. Luca is after all an abuser/murderer of women and children.

A really nice touch in the book is that Tom had told Michael he'd tell him the Luca story "when you're a hundred." Then he heard it first hand, in Sicily no less, from the midwife Filomena. Her gratitude for Vito's intervention puts Luca's relationship with him in perspective--missing in the film.

While I agree with most of your list, I thought the description of Vito's war with the Maranzano was laughable. Coupled with Vito's letter to Al Capone made up a considerable weakness of the novel. I always hate when writers do things that are so transparently obvious.

I like the extra features the novel has as Turnbull described as well. But the novel also has so much fluff (the entire Johnny Fontaine storyline and being a main character, the storyline of Jules and Lucy) that it detracts from the parts we have been accustomed to from the film.

As others have stated previously, I think Puzo was trying to show the reader how much he "knew" that some of it came at the expense of the story (the "Hollywood" thing, the anatomy of a woman, etc ).

I didn't know in which thread I should post this, so it's here. But what was the point in the novel of the Santino Regime? There's no evidence of it in the film (except maybe "I'm gonna have a couple of our people come over" or "save it for the library"). Apparently, in the novel, the Regime's sole function was to keep an eye on Lucy and to rent apartments next to hers. When the war starts, only Clemenza's and Tessio's regimes are referenced. After Sonny's death Vito instructs that the Santino regime members are to be placed in their regimes. Prior to that, weren't they used in the war? Why have Tessio recruit 50 reliable men when Sonny had his regime. Shouldn't they have manned the barricades at the mall?

I don't know how large Sonny's regime was. But he created one/took one over in the aftermath of his father's shooting during the war against the independents. At that time per novel he made a reputation as "the most cunning and relentless executioner the underworld had yet known".

So presumably at that time both he and his direct reports were getting their hands dirty. Perhaps since at time of movie Sonny is underboss with presumably greater responsibilities his regime's primary job during war to just to guard Sonny and not be involved in front line attacks? If Sonny's regime was less than 20 guys, as opposed to the hundreds that Tessio or Clemenza could command that might explain it.

After the second attempt on Vito's life, there were a hundred button men on the street. I guess, they were Sonny's men. Sonny made them big promises about what the killer of Sollozzo might expect.
Tessio's men were good enough to guard the house.

A minor difference that I picked up last time I read the novel: In the book, Vito is shot outside his office on 9th Avenue. My guess is that Vito was shot in Hell's Kitchen---somewhere in the 40s or 50s. That's where Puzo grew up, so he was probably writing about the area from firsthand knowledge.

In the film he's shot on---and his office is located at---Mott Street in Little Italy (well, it used to be Little Italy, now not so much ).

For the non-New Yorkers here, 9th Avenue is on the West Side and runs from the West Village all the way uptown into Hell's Kitchen. Mott Street is in Little Italy on the Lower East Side. The neighborhoods aren't really in close proximity to each other.

I wonder why they changed the location? Perhaps shooting in Hell's Kitchen was too much of a hassle? Or maybe Coppola just thought the Little Italy location was more romantic or exotic?

The only thing that's good about the Jules/Lucy crap is that the episodes are detached (as far as can be) from the rest of the novel, so you can read it without them, and not miss anything worthy.

Probably, PB. As you know better than most, Ninth Avenue in the Hell's Kitchen area is a major conduit to and from the Lincoln Tunnel. Blocking off streets for filming would have caused chaos.

Although the film portrays quite an age difference between Michael and Sonny, some parts of the novel's content conflicts with that. After Vito defeats Maranzano in 1933 it states that Sonny was 16 and Mike a toddler. However, given other novel information and the film's flasback scene, the timeline has Sonny born in 1917-18 and Mike in 1921. That's just 3 years.

In the novel: Sonny and Tom are both 35 years old at the wedding, which was in the summer of 1945. This puts their birth year at 1910. But you're right Oli, it conflicts with other parts of the novel, and almost all of the film.

In the novel it states that a taxi driver would not take Kay from Manhattan to Long Island unless she paid double. Does that sound right? Is it that far?

Sounds possible and probable. Dunno what the law was back in 1946 but metered cabs can now charge what is on the meter from the pickup point to the City line and then DOUBLE the meter for the balance of the trip in Nassau County (where Long Beach is).

Depending on traffic, it can take anywhere from 45 - 90 minutes to drive from midtown to Long Beach.

The whole Vegas subplot with Lucy, Fontane, Jules, and the various hangers-on wouldn't have worked on-screen, but I actually enjoyed the background they had in the book. It made the world a little more real to me.

I didn't really think much of Johnny Fontane in the movie, but I was surprised that I enjoyed his little plotline going through the book. I liked how he took Vito's words to heart and gave his previously-discarded friend a place in his new world. In a way, Vito gave him a second chance to be a more honorable person and Johnny took it and ran with it.

I liked the mention that Johnny showed up for Vito's funeral, despite the bad press it might get him. In the movie, you got the feeling that there were a lot of people who would pay their respects to Vito (other than the other Families), but it was touching in a strange way to see how loved Vito really was by those he looked after.

I was fond of film Vito, even though he was a criminal, but I got a lot more warm cuddly feelings for novel Vito.

Very well saidHagen

Some Board members have read more extensively than I have about why Puzo and FFC included this or that in their products. I think there's been a thread or two on this subject (but I can't remember where), but has Puzo ever explained why he included the Lucy and Jules content (especially the female problems) in the novel as well as Johnny Fontane's amourous exploits?

The Jules Segal character is likely a homage to his friend Jules Siegel. Also, Sally Raggs was apparantly a real-life gambler Puzo knew named Salvatore "Sally Raggs" Ragusin.

In one interview, Puzo listed what he felt were the requirements to write a bestselling novel. One of these was to have a female protagonist.

So it's possible that the Lucy Mancini plotline was added by Puzo to to create female interest, along with prurient interest.

Personally, if he had to do that, I would have preferred some backstory on Connie, who is almost an afterthought in the book.

The main female character was Kay. In some way, we (the readers) are like her: We enter the strange world of a mafia family.
And remember, she's the protagonist of the very last scene.



Looks more like he added Lucy to create some male interest.

Is it possible that the Lucy part was added as an aim for sort of sexual revolution /modern literature touch? It was amazingly horrible, bad to read bad content(this is my personal opinion). I wonder if anyone ever read the novel before it got into press (I am assuming no , the timeline problems are very obvious even after a cursory read). I think the Luca background story was sort of on the ridiculous side too, it was just too much to be believable.

Kay's personal development/understanding is much more in the focus of the book and I like that a lot. But of course FFC decided to give her different key story in GF 2 which is makes me quite indecisive which universe I like better.

I am sure that in you are right, the readers are like Kay, but she does not have enough role as a woman to lead us through how the Mafia works from the inside. In my opinion Tom Hagen who does that (and helps us and Kay to understand), even more in the novel than in the movie.