My friend is reading the Godfather for the first time and when I asked to hear what scene she had most recently read, she told me about the death of Paulie Gatto, except she didn't mention the infamous line forever attached to this scene.

To my surprise, when I went back and looked up the scene in the book, I realized for the first time that the line was not there. And to think for years I had been crediting this nice little piece of literary genius to Puzo. Was it truly FFC's doing?

Anyone else notice this?

As far as the GF screenplay goes, it may have been Puzo, it may have been FFC, or it may have been a meeting of minds between the two of them. But, you're correct - it definitely was not in the novel.

As a matter of fact the line "Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes" is not in the novel in that exact form. They improved it for the film, IMO.

What I particularly noticed in rereading the book was that several lines, while they were said in the book, were said by different characters in the movie. Not always the best decision, I feel. (Particularly the line about no Sicilian being able to refuse a request on his daughter's wedding day. Michael in the book, Tom in the film.)

Signor V.

I agree that "Sicilian" line from Tom in the film always did feel a bit forced and rushed; unnatural in that context.

I do remember that Puzo didn't seem to quite realize what a dynamite catchphrase he had in the sleeps with the fishes line when he wrote the book. It didn't really stand alone, as you said, and subsequently lost some of its effectiveness.

The problem I have with the "No Sicilian..." line is that in the book Michael says it to Kay, where it makes perfect sense. Kay is, after all, an outsider; not a Sicilian or at all familiar with that culture. In the film, Tom says it to his wife and since (a) Tom was raised by Sicilians, and (b) he married "a young Italian girl from New Jersey" (according to the book), the line really doesn't make a lot of sense. It becomes one of several lines of dialogue that seems hastily inserted for the benefit of the audience.



I believe that Plawrence had a thread about some of the film's questionable dialogue on the Godfather Trilogy board.

While some lines from the book were rewritten - and improved, IMO - for the film, there are still things that just seem to work better (at least for me) in the novel.

Signor V.

Puzo wrote the original screenplay.

One of the reasons that the "cannoli" line is in the film may be because the woman who played Clemenza's wife was Richard Castellano's real-life girlfriend. No doubt he pressured FFC and Puzo into giving her a line of dialog ("Don't forget the cannoli"), hence Clemenza telling Rocco to take the cannoli.
Allegedly, one of the reasons that Castellano didn't appear in GFII was that FFC and Puzo refused to write in a part for his girlfriend.

I thought it was because of money?


DS

Wasn't it (also, maybe) that Castellano wanted her to write some of his dialogue?

I know I heard that story somewhere. Lebo, maybe?

"Yeah...I heard that story!"

Glancing quickly through the Lebo book, money is mentioned as the reason for Richard Castellano's absence in GF2.

But, I know I also heard the story about Castellano wanting Ardell Sheridan (his girlfriend) to have rewrite privileges as far as his dialogue. FFC, of course, balked at this. Obviously, it was an offer he could - and did - refuse.

Signor V.

Edit: My sixth sense tells me that it may have been the book The Godfather Companion. I've read through it a few times, but since I don't own a copy I can't be 100% certain.

You can now be 100% certain.

Richard Castellano...insisted that his girlfriend be able not only to rewrite his own dialogue but be able to work on the rest of the script as well.

Briskin also mentions a salary dispute, the fact that Castellano wanted to play himself as a young man, and that he wanted the character to have a larger role by depicting Clemenza with an "elaborate family life."

Gee, I'd almost pay money to see that!

Wisely, Robert Duvall's age progression was accomplished through several changes in (and ultimately the removal of) his hairpiece. Abe Vigoda's was done through adding some gray to his hair, as he was already around 50 when GF1 was filmed. Castellano would have, IMO, looked like nothing more than a heavyset middle-aged man wearing a toupee. Considering the age of Young Clemenza in GF2, the thought of Castellano...well, it just boggles the mind.



Signor V.

Bruno Kirby as the young Clemenza did just fine, IMO.

I'm sure you remember (or at least heard of) the 1972 sitcom "The Super", in which Kirby played Castellano's son.

He also wanted a regular spot on The Food Channel to demonstrate how to cook spaghetti and meatballs for 100 guys; on ESPN 2 to show the proper way to fire (and release) small handguns; on The Shopping Channel to enlighten the audience in how to buy mattresses; and on Speed Channel to show the proper way to polish Cadillacs...

...and on the History Channel to give his views on Hitler and Munich.....

Yeah in the book Don Corleone said that and in the movie Clemenza said it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by plawrence:
[QB]

Richard Castellano...insisted that his girlfriend be able not only to rewrite his own dialogue but be able to work on the rest of the script as well.[QUOTE]

Sometimes, when football teams travel for matches, the manager asks that girlfriends be left behind. I can see why.

I heard (or read) somewhere that Richard Castellano was actually the hightes paid actor appearing in 'The Godfather'. This makes sense since Pacino/Caan/Duvall were not yet the established stars that GF would play a part in making them...and as we all know Brando took a pretty low salary as his career wasn't in the best shape by this time. And let's face it, pre-production GF was not envisioned to be the enormous, legendary success that it was.

By the time GFII was ready to be made, Castellano's status and clout were a thing of the past...which was apparent to just about everybody but him.

Apple

At the risk of repeating myself:

"Yeah...I heard that story!"

In the weeks since I made my earlier post, I have obtained a copy of The Godfather Companion by Peter Biskind, and this is what he says about the salaries of certain actors:

Brando got $50,000 for six weeks' work, as well as $1,000 a week in expenses. He also owned 5 percent of the film, with a ceiling of $1.5 million, which is what he eventually got. (But, according to [Paramount executive Peter] Bart, he sold his points back to the studio and ended up with a paltry $300,000.)

Pacino, Caan, and Keaton received $35,000 each.

Duvall got $36,000 for eight weeks of work, and $500 per week in expenses for the shoot in Las Vegas and Hollywood, in addition to two round-trip plane tickets between New York and Los Angeles. His contract stipulated that he travel between the set and his hotel by limo.

I would be curious to know what Castellano actually did receive for his salary.

Signor V.

Was Duvall slightly better known at the time?

Though never really a 'star' until the post-Godfather years...Robert Duvall had enjoyed steady work as a film actor throughout the 60's in many character roles since his 1962 debut in 'To Kill A Mockingbird'...even co-starring with Brando in at least one Western.

That might explain his ever so slightly higher salary and paid expenses as opposed to Pacino/Can/Keaton who in comparisson were really at the beginning of their careers.

Apple

Castello was a well known actor by the time of GF. In fact, he had been nominated for an acdamey award for best supporting actor in 1970.

Note: "one of the reasons."

I can't find the "proof" now but I remember reading somewhere that Castellano was paid $50,000 for his portrayal of Clemenza.

BTW - Do a Google search of "Richard Castellano Salary" and this thread is brought up as one of the links.

$50,000 was probably a bargain; Richard no doubt wanted quite a bit more for GFII.

Hey, he's gotta eat...

He probably could have swallowed Paulie.

Richard Castellano improvised the line and should get all the credit for it. As for the "don't forget the cannoli" line - it depends on who you ask: Coppola says he wanted it in the film and Sheridan says the line was looped in afterwards, because of Castellano's improvisation. She wrote a crazy book - "Divine Intervention and a Dash of Magic" in which she totally goes off on Coppola. Anyway, if you want to hear what she says as to why Castellano isn't in GFII, you could check it out.

hey guys! im a new member here! just got myself logged in.

---

Just want to ask...

How come Anthony Coppolla, from the Godfather novel, never went to Don Vito Corleone's funeral?

Welcome, Chigo!
The fact that Anthony Coppola's name wasn't mentioned (but Nazorine's was) doesn't prove that he didn't attend Vito's funeral or wake. As you've no doubt noticed, there's plenty of sloppy writing in the novel. One such example at the funeral: "The Five Families sent their Dons and caporegimes, as did the Tessio and Clemenza Families [sic]." Tessio and Clemenza Families? It seems that Puzo suddenly made them "independent" at the Don's funeral--only to put them back under Michael's thumb the very next day.

Thanks for the welcome note Turnbull! I really appreciated it!

--

Hmm... you're right about the unmentioned Anthony Coppola on the wake and funeral. And was it always true when the author meant of the word.. "FAMILY" does that necessarily meant "mafia" ? Clemenza has wife and kids so automatically they were called a family. And I don't know if Tessio have a wife. hmm.. I guess it was really a book that focuses on the Corleones.

And yes, I noticed those sloppy writings right after my SECOND time I read the novel. At first I was awed and magnified by the book because I saw the three films first BEFORE I read the novel.

It seems true that Mario Puzo, rest in peace, really was unsatisfied by how he have wrote the novel. Yet it was a commercial success. Hmmm... I wonder if there was something FISHY going on in The New York Times before. You know, bribing the editors, putting gun in the heads of critics just to say that the book was a good read, to boost up the morale of the book. I don't know... It was 1969 where everybody gambles and dirty business was quite rampant. And yet... and yet... I, still was surely entertained and fascinated by the book's staggering story telling.