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 thing discussed on the site kind of often is how in each movie, Connie is drastically different. Although. Michael too is drastically different in each movie, though for more obvious reasons.

Basically, what I am trying to convey to you is that, maybe the Godfather Trilogy is also sending another message: that you must change with the times.

In The Godfather, Don Vito was almost killed because he did not change with the times and negotiate a drug deal with Solozzo.

In real life, during the Castellamarese War, all of the Moustache Petes were killed for one reason, they were old and didn't have any plans to change.

Connie, by The Godfather, Part III, was a very strong human being. She had gone through a lot in her lifetime and instead of basking in sorrow, as it seemed she would in The Godfather, she changed and kept strong, always doing what she thought was best.

Same with Michael, he never gave up, and always conformed to what his environment needed from him.

I believe that the films were trying to portray, among other things, one of life's many lessons. That is, to stay strong and to change with the times.

What do you all think?

Good point (although you omitted Kay as one of the people who were in all 3 movies). The changing with the times issue is discussed throughout the movies... in GF one of the things that convinces Kay to marry Mike after all is Mike's telling her "my father's way of doing things is over, even he knows it." In GFII he seeks mama Corleone's advice on the issue of "losing his family," to which she says "you can never lose your family," to which he replies "tempi cambi" (and next thing you know, Mama is dead), and again in GFIII when he is signing those papers for George Hamilton he notes how his father hated foundations and now here he was setting them up....indeed changing with the times is necessary and those who do not end up dead. Interestingly all this is set against the backdrop of the Catholic Church, which of course is all about eternal matters.

Nice observation. I think it's true, sometimes, that you have to change with the times. When it comes to buisness, yes, you have to change with the times. Like you pointed out, Don Vito Corleone didn't change with the buisness times by going into the drug buisness, and it ended up hurting his family in the long run. (Michael's road in life, etc.) Yet, Don Vito wasn't going into the drug buisness because of his morals. Also, sometimes you don't have to change with the times. If everyone at school is listening to hip-hop and you are listening to the Rat Pack, I think that means the times are a changin' but that doesn't mean YOU have to change with them and listen to hip-hop. But if there is something true, it's that you always have to stay strong. You can't be going through life playing conservative or else you won't accomplish anything in life.

Yes, and Kay, two changed through all three movies. In the first Godfather, she was naieve, young girl, almost oblivious to Michael's work. In The Godfather II, she is more aware of Michael and the "Family" and tries to salvage what is left of them, of course eventually it leads to their divource. And, finally, in the third installment of The Gadfather, she is much more independent but has also grown to hate Michael. However, even through The Godfather III, she is changing, in Michael's favor.

Of course, it doesn't apply to all instances. As well as changing with the times, it is always good to also keep true to yourself in some way. That is also shown in The Godfather III, where we see a depressed Michael Corleone who did not stay true to himself, and ended up alone and sad.

I believe the lack of such truth to their own character is the worst thing about GF sequels. Their unnatural "changes" are often not the results of wisdom, just of FFC's whim. You cannot just take an existing character and wantonly change them the way you like.

Well they didn't just change the characters for no reason...

The more Kay began to realize what Mike did for a living, the more she felt a hatred towards him.

Connie, after accepting Carlo's death abandoned herself from the family that killed him the best way she knew how, by becoming a tramp. She wanted to rebel from the family, and this is how she did it. In The Godfather III, she was much more strong and (crime) Family oriented. There isn't as much evidence to push this, considering that there was about 20 years in which only God knows what happened, but you have to figure that Connie was drawn more into the Mafia by maybe a type of Stockholm Syndromw. Maybe she felt so threatened by the business, that she felt she had to serve them. You know, like one of thos "if you can't beat them join them" sort of thing. I don't know, just a theory.

And, well Michael's character development is much more present in the movie and is much more natural.

It is true that all character changes were made for good storytelling, but the entire trilogy was made for good storytelling. But they aren't so far fetched that it is hard to believe or anything.

Well... If you find Michael's character development natural , and the storytelling in, say, GF3, good ...
Then I'm glad for the peace of your mind, I guess.
I stuck to my own opinion that it was all unbearably unbelieveably stupid. Not in itself, mind it, but as a sequel to the existing GF story and characters.
I believe i should begin to skip all GF3-related topics for the sake of my health. They make me very angry and I drink vine more than I used to...

Well, I admit, there are weak points in the film and the opinions of The Godfather III are in favor of horrible among most people here.

But, JustMe, you have to admit that you could understand why Michael was acting the way he did. 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.

You can hate the film all you want, but this is the way the story goes and, at least this part was understandable. 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.

Junior, can you please tone down that font?

I am sorry, I didn't think that it was bothering anybody.

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.
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.
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.
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 .

This debate about Michael's character seems to find its way in many threads. Sticking with the films only for the sake of this point, I think you have to look at the Michael in GFI, GFII, and GFIII as one person at different stages of his life. In GF I he is Vito's son. He has yet to prove himself to his father. He is drawn by circumstances and his choices into the family business, and then commences a sort of apprenticeship under Dontomassino and his father. It is only after he whacks the heads of the five families, Carlo and Tessio that he gains the full respect of the mob family -- symbolized by the hand kissing and the closing of the door as Kay watches.

By the end of GFII he is at the very point of having his greatest power, but is also at the point where his decline begins. While he has kiilled all his emenies, he has also killed his brother, and has estranged his wife and children. He is cold, and paranoid. Somewhere I read that FFC who made the film in the 70's compared Michael to Richard Nixon, who was powerful, if also fatally flawed.

By GFIII he knows he has made a mess of things and is desperately trying to make amends. Thus it is not artificial for him to be doing and saying the things in GFIII which seem at odds with the younger Michael. By the time of GFIII he is also facing his own mortality, and as anyone who has lived a while knows, is wondering how it all went by so fast, and how differently everything has turned out.

How about Neri? He was in all three movies.


Don Smitty

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.

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.

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.

What nonsense. Even I expected FFC to come up with something smarter. Just another proof that his vision of Michael's character is below criticism... I'm sorry for being so inconvincible.
BTW, this thread must be interesting read on the subject.

Whatshisname...the bodyguard along with Fabrizio, the one who did NOT betray Michael. He reappears years later in Part III.

Even if there are not (aside from Neri who was pointed out already)...the point is made. Michael and Connie are NOT the only 'major' characters who live through parts I, II and III.

Neri didn't really change with the times, except to possibly gain a bit more power through the years...because he remained loyal to Michael throughout.

This is a classic case of overanalyzing a story.

Apple

I dunno, Apple, I think Neri changed a bit...it certainly looks like he didn't pass up any offers of lasagna over the years, and his hair got grayer.

As for overanalyzing, you may wish to contemplate how many dead Corleones could dance on the head of a pin.

Here are some other threads that came to my mind as possibly interesting to you:

About Mike-Kay relationship
About Mike-Vito resemblance
About abortion
Fredo\'s killing and many more

I figured that out YEARS ago. The answer is seven.



Apple

This assumes you mean blood relatives only, and not associates who are in the brader "family" because then you'd have to include Clemenza and Brasi, which would make no room for the other five.