The obvious answer to my question is that it's another of the many director/script "liberties" (or "irrationalities" if you prefer) that FFC and Puzo took to move the film along--in this case to set up Pentangeli's betrayal of Michael, the Senate hearing and all the great drama that followed.
obvious answer.... that's a cop out!
Sure thing Turnbull there is only so much the director/script can 'story tell' squeeze in, to create all the great drama and to move the film along--
I still find, Michael's visits and the sequence of events somewhat bizarre....
Well, more bizarre than some of the other "liberties" (or "irrationalities") and “plenty of loose ends and inconsistencies”
Great casting in small rolesExtract:
To me, for all of the criticisms of GFIII, the real difference between that and the first two films is the acting. There are plenty of loose ends and inconsistencies in GFII (that we're still debating today) but we still buy into the story because the acting is so perfect.
With poor performances small (Hamilton) and large (Wallach, Sofia), we don't extend the same grace to III.
